ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2018
Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting.
Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomised, Double Blind, Cross-over Trial Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine, With or Without OADs in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SWITCH 2)
A Randomised, Double Blind, Cross-over Trial Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine, Both With Insulin Aspart as Mealtime Insulin in Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes (SWITCH 1)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- (Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- The health economics of insulin therapy: How do we address the rising demands, costs, inequalities and barriers to achieving optimal outcomes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
- Basal Insulinotherapy in Patients Living with Diabetes in France: The EF-BI Study.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024Article
- The effect of insulin analogs in people with type 1 diabetes at increased risk of severe hypoglycemia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- Investigating Polyphenol Nanoformulations for Therapeutic Targets against Diabetes Mellitus.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Review
- Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Review
- Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria.BMC endocrine disorders · 2019Article
- Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Versus Insulin Degludec for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding which therapeutic innovations in diabetes represent the best value requires rigorous economic evaluation. Data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies indicate that insulin degludec has a hypoglycemia advantage versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100), the most widely prescribed basal insulin analogue in the UK. This analysis was done to more rigorously assess cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.
methodsData from two double-blinded, randomised, two-period crossover trials in type 1 (SWITCH 1) and type 2 (SWITCH 2) diabetes mellitus were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of degludec vs. glargine U100 with an economic model. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon based on the different rates of hypoglycaemia and actual doses of insulin used, rather than glycaemic control due to the treat-to-target trial design.
resultsIn type 1 diabetes mellitus, degludec was highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £984 (increased costs of only £23/year and improvement in participant health of 0.0232 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). In type 2 diabetes mellitus, it was estimated that quality of life was improved (0.0065 QALYs gain) with degludec compared with glargine U100 at an increased annual cost of £117 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £17,939). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to changes in parameters in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
conclusionsThe rigorous design of the SWITCH trials, coupled with a representative patient population and a definition of hypoglycaemia that is relevant for real-world patients, makes the results of these trials highly generalisable. The within-trial analysis has the added value of being able to include doses and event rates directly from the trials. This short-term economic analysis estimated that IDeg would be cost-effective relative to IGlar U100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.
trial registrationSWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).
fundingNovo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.