Cost–utility analysis and drug pricing of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China
Aim Insulin icodec is a first once‐weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference. Materials and Methods Long‐term health outcomes and costs fo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Diabetes, obesity & metabolism obesity & metabolism, 2024-12, Vol.26 (12), p.5995-6006 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 6006 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 5995 |
| container_title | Diabetes, obesity & metabolism |
| container_volume | 26 |
| creator | Hu, Shanshan Wang, Shuowen Gu, Shengying Qi, Chendong Shi, Chenyang Fan, Guorong |
| description | Aim
Insulin icodec is a first once‐weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference.
Materials and Methods
Long‐term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat‐to‐target trial). Cost–utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base‐case analysis results.
Results
After a 40‐year simulation, the quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17–$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66–$736.34 using one‐way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70–$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future.
Conclusion
Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/dom.15973 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3111202575</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3123660553</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2433-869d8c435fb83065b65808fe88bfdec92c113063414d21acac6ff34f97cf43403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10c9qFDEcB_Agiq3Vgy8gAS_2MG3-zWzmKKtVodKLnodM8ss2NTtZ88dlbn0EwffwofokZrutimAuCeHDN-H3Reg5JSe0rlMT1ie07Rf8ATqkouMN5ax7eHtmjewJO0BPUroihAguF4_RAe-5EFKIQ_RzGVK-uf5RsvMuz1hNys_JpXow2MSywpvotJtWOFgcJg0319-3AF_8jN2UincTdjoY0PgbxFTSvTHK_UUMrHzZIRsizvMGMMPGqREyJLxR2cGUE84RVAaDty5f4lEl5f-8MeHlpZvUU_TIKp_g2d1-hD6fvf20fN-cX7z7sHx93mgmOG9k1xupBW_tKDnp2rFrJZEWpBxt_UbPNKX1ngsqDKNKK91Zy4XtF9oKLgg_Qq_2uZsYvhZIeVi7pMF7NUEoaeB17IywdtFW-vIfehVKrGPcKca7jrQtr-p4r3QMKUWwQ53rWsV5oGTYlTjUEofbEqt9cZdYxjWY3_K-tQpO92DrPMz_TxreXHzcR_4CFQ6r0A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3123660553</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost–utility analysis and drug pricing of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Hu, Shanshan ; Wang, Shuowen ; Gu, Shengying ; Qi, Chendong ; Shi, Chenyang ; Fan, Guorong</creator><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shanshan ; Wang, Shuowen ; Gu, Shengying ; Qi, Chendong ; Shi, Chenyang ; Fan, Guorong</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
Insulin icodec is a first once‐weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference.
Materials and Methods
Long‐term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat‐to‐target trial). Cost–utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base‐case analysis results.
Results
After a 40‐year simulation, the quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17–$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66–$736.34 using one‐way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70–$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future.
Conclusion
Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1462-8902</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1463-1326</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1463-1326</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/dom.15973</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39344844</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>China ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; cost–utility analysis ; Diabetes ; Diabetes mellitus (non-insulin dependent) ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - drug therapy ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - economics ; Drug Administration Schedule ; Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data ; drug pricing ; Female ; Glycated Hemoglobin - analysis ; Glycated Hemoglobin - metabolism ; Humans ; Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage ; Hypoglycemic Agents - economics ; Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use ; Insulin ; insulin degludec ; insulin icodec ; Insulin, Long-Acting - administration & dosage ; Insulin, Long-Acting - economics ; Insulin, Long-Acting - therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Sensitivity analysis ; type 2 diabetes</subject><ispartof>Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2024-12, Vol.26 (12), p.5995-6006</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2433-869d8c435fb83065b65808fe88bfdec92c113063414d21acac6ff34f97cf43403</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0626-0781 ; 0000-0001-5141-5896</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fdom.15973$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fdom.15973$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39344844$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shanshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shuowen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Shengying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Chendong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Chenyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, Guorong</creatorcontrib><title>Cost–utility analysis and drug pricing of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China</title><title>Diabetes, obesity & metabolism</title><addtitle>Diabetes Obes Metab</addtitle><description>Aim
Insulin icodec is a first once‐weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference.
Materials and Methods
Long‐term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat‐to‐target trial). Cost–utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base‐case analysis results.
Results
After a 40‐year simulation, the quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17–$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66–$736.34 using one‐way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70–$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future.
Conclusion
Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.</description><subject>China</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>cost–utility analysis</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus (non-insulin dependent)</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - drug therapy</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - economics</subject><subject>Drug Administration Schedule</subject><subject>Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>drug pricing</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glycated Hemoglobin - analysis</subject><subject>Glycated Hemoglobin - metabolism</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Hypoglycemic Agents - economics</subject><subject>Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Insulin</subject><subject>insulin degludec</subject><subject>insulin icodec</subject><subject>Insulin, Long-Acting - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Insulin, Long-Acting - economics</subject><subject>Insulin, Long-Acting - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>type 2 diabetes</subject><issn>1462-8902</issn><issn>1463-1326</issn><issn>1463-1326</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10c9qFDEcB_Agiq3Vgy8gAS_2MG3-zWzmKKtVodKLnodM8ss2NTtZ88dlbn0EwffwofokZrutimAuCeHDN-H3Reg5JSe0rlMT1ie07Rf8ATqkouMN5ax7eHtmjewJO0BPUroihAguF4_RAe-5EFKIQ_RzGVK-uf5RsvMuz1hNys_JpXow2MSywpvotJtWOFgcJg0319-3AF_8jN2UincTdjoY0PgbxFTSvTHK_UUMrHzZIRsizvMGMMPGqREyJLxR2cGUE84RVAaDty5f4lEl5f-8MeHlpZvUU_TIKp_g2d1-hD6fvf20fN-cX7z7sHx93mgmOG9k1xupBW_tKDnp2rFrJZEWpBxt_UbPNKX1ngsqDKNKK91Zy4XtF9oKLgg_Qq_2uZsYvhZIeVi7pMF7NUEoaeB17IywdtFW-vIfehVKrGPcKca7jrQtr-p4r3QMKUWwQ53rWsV5oGTYlTjUEofbEqt9cZdYxjWY3_K-tQpO92DrPMz_TxreXHzcR_4CFQ6r0A</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Hu, Shanshan</creator><creator>Wang, Shuowen</creator><creator>Gu, Shengying</creator><creator>Qi, Chendong</creator><creator>Shi, Chenyang</creator><creator>Fan, Guorong</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0626-0781</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5141-5896</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Cost–utility analysis and drug pricing of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China</title><author>Hu, Shanshan ; Wang, Shuowen ; Gu, Shengying ; Qi, Chendong ; Shi, Chenyang ; Fan, Guorong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2433-869d8c435fb83065b65808fe88bfdec92c113063414d21acac6ff34f97cf43403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>China</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>cost–utility analysis</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus (non-insulin dependent)</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - drug therapy</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - economics</topic><topic>Drug Administration Schedule</topic><topic>Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>drug pricing</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glycated Hemoglobin - analysis</topic><topic>Glycated Hemoglobin - metabolism</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Hypoglycemic Agents - economics</topic><topic>Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Insulin</topic><topic>insulin degludec</topic><topic>insulin icodec</topic><topic>Insulin, Long-Acting - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Insulin, Long-Acting - economics</topic><topic>Insulin, Long-Acting - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>type 2 diabetes</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shanshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shuowen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Shengying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Chendong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Chenyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, Guorong</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Diabetes, obesity & metabolism</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hu, Shanshan</au><au>Wang, Shuowen</au><au>Gu, Shengying</au><au>Qi, Chendong</au><au>Shi, Chenyang</au><au>Fan, Guorong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost–utility analysis and drug pricing of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China</atitle><jtitle>Diabetes, obesity & metabolism</jtitle><addtitle>Diabetes Obes Metab</addtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>5995</spage><epage>6006</epage><pages>5995-6006</pages><issn>1462-8902</issn><issn>1463-1326</issn><eissn>1463-1326</eissn><abstract>Aim
Insulin icodec is a first once‐weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference.
Materials and Methods
Long‐term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat‐to‐target trial). Cost–utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base‐case analysis results.
Results
After a 40‐year simulation, the quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17–$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66–$736.34 using one‐way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70–$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future.
Conclusion
Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>39344844</pmid><doi>10.1111/dom.15973</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0626-0781</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5141-5896</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1462-8902 |
| ispartof | Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2024-12, Vol.26 (12), p.5995-6006 |
| issn | 1462-8902 1463-1326 1463-1326 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3111202575 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | China Cost-Benefit Analysis cost–utility analysis Diabetes Diabetes mellitus (non-insulin dependent) Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - drug therapy Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - economics Drug Administration Schedule Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data drug pricing Female Glycated Hemoglobin - analysis Glycated Hemoglobin - metabolism Humans Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage Hypoglycemic Agents - economics Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use Insulin insulin degludec insulin icodec Insulin, Long-Acting - administration & dosage Insulin, Long-Acting - economics Insulin, Long-Acting - therapeutic use Male Middle Aged Quality-Adjusted Life Years Sensitivity analysis type 2 diabetes |
| title | Cost–utility analysis and drug pricing of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T11%3A48%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost%E2%80%93utility%20analysis%20and%20drug%20pricing%20of%20once%E2%80%90weekly%20insulin%20icodec%20versus%20once%E2%80%90daily%20insulin%20degludec%20for%20type%202%20diabetes%20patients%20treated%20with%20basal%20insulin%20in%20China&rft.jtitle=Diabetes,%20obesity%20&%20metabolism&rft.au=Hu,%20Shanshan&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=5995&rft.epage=6006&rft.pages=5995-6006&rft.issn=1462-8902&rft.eissn=1463-1326&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/dom.15973&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3123660553%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3123660553&rft_id=info:pmid/39344844&rfr_iscdi=true |