Cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins in real-world clinical practice in Italy

References

• Barnett AH, Cradock S, Fisher M, et al. Key considerations around the risks and consequences of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(8):1121–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans M, Mehta R, Gundgaard J, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus in a UK setting. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(5):1919–1930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heise T, Hermanski L, Nosek L, et al. Insulin degludec: four times lower pharmacodynamic variability than insulin glargine under steady-state conditions in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(9):859–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratner RE, Gough SC, Mathieu C, et al. Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre-planned meta-analysis of phase 3 trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15(2):175–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane W, Bailey TS, Gerety G, et al. Effect of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 on hypoglycemia in patients with Type 1 diabetes: the SWITCH 1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(1):33–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysham C, Bhargava A, Chaykin L, et al. Effect of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 on hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: the SWITCH 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(1):45–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies M, Sasaki T, Gross JL, et al. Comparison of insulin degludec with insulin detemir in type 1 diabetes: a 1-year treat-to-target trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18(1):96–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin P. The cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in type 2 diabetes: a focus on health economics. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2008;10(s2):66–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Evans M, Chubb B, Gundgaard J. Cost-effectiveness of the long-acting basal insulin degludec (IDeg) compared with insulin glargine U100 (IGlar) in patients with type 2 diabetes: evidence from the SWITCH 2 trial. P396. Diabet Med. 2017;34(S1):152–153.
   Google Scholar
• Giorda CB, Rossi MC, Ozzello O, et al. Healthcare resource use, direct and indirect costs of hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and nationwide projections. Results of the HYPOS-1 study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;27(3):209–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen FB, Mäkelä M, Neikter SA, et al. European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA: Planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(S2):107–116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: ''To whom do the results of this trial apply?'' Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence – what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293–2297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegmund T, Tentolouris N, Knudsen ST, et al. A European, multicentre, retrospective, non-interventional study (EU-TREAT) of the effectiveness of insulin degludec after switching basal insulin in a population with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(3):689–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles fo rmedical Research Involving Human Subjects. 64th WMA General Assembly, Brazil. October. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. The CORE Diabetes Model: Projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and costeffectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(Sup1):S5–S26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL, et al. Validation of the IMS CORE diabetes model. Value Health. 2014;17(6):714–724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Capri S, Porta C, Delea TE. Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as First-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an italian national health service perspective. Clin Ther. 2017;39(3):567–580 e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim K, Svedbom A, Luo X, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene and raloxifene in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Europe, using the FRAX algorithm. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(1):325–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt B, Kragh N, McConnachie CC, et al. Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Two GLP-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in the italian setting: liraglutide versus lixisenatide. Clin Ther. 2017;39(7):1347–1359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Diabetes Association. 6 Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl 1):S61–S70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eypasch E, Lefering R, Kum CK, et al. Probability of adverse events that have not yet occurred: a statistical reminder. BMJ. 1995;311(7005):619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bella Republiblica Italiana. Gazzetta Ufficiale 2017. [cited 2017]. Available from: http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/. Last accessed in November 2017. [Italian]
   Google Scholar
• Tunis SL, Willis WD, Foos V. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes on oral anti-diabetes drugs: cost-effectiveness in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(1):163–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afonso M, Ryan F, Pitcher A, et al. Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, Italy, and Spain. J Med Econ. 2017;20(6):633–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Purchasing power parities (PPP) [cited July 2019]. Available from: https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm#indicator-chart
   Google Scholar
• Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, et al. UKPDS Outcomes Model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–1933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson A, Pollock RF, Hunt B, et al. Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2013;16(12):1442–1452.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vora J, Cohen N, Evans M, et al. Intensifying insulin regimen after basal insulin optimization in adults with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, open-label trial comparing insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine with biphasic insulin aspart (LanScape). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17(12):1133–1141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundgaard J, Landstedt-Hallin L, Ericsson Å, et al. Annual cost and effects of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins: Evidence from Swedish real-world data. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landstedt-Hallin L, Gundgaard J, Ericsson Å, et al. Cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins: evidence from Swedish real-world data. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(4):647–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garber AJ, King AB, Prato SD, et al. Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9825):1498–1507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinman B, Philis-Tsimikas A, Cariou B, et al. Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: A 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(12):2464–2471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marso SP, McGuire DK, Zinman B, et al. Efficacy and safety of degludec versus glargine in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(8):723–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawoud D, O’Mahony R, Wonderling D, et al. Basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2018;21(2):176–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenstock J, Cheng A, Ritzel R, et al. More similarities than differences testing insulin glargine 300 Units/mL versus insulin degludec 100 Units/mL in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes: the randomized head-to-head BRIGHT trial. Dia Care. 2018;41(10):2147–2154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tibaldi J, Hadley-Brown M, Liebl A, et al. A comparative effectiveness study of degludec and insulin glargine 300U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;21(4):1001–1009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatier F, Darmon P, Hugel B, et al. Type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients display different patterns of cellular microparticles. Diabetes. 2002;51(9):2840–2845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cryer PE. Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2010;39(3):641–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar