Cost‐effectiveness analysis of once‐daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL using the BRAVO diabetes model

Abstract

AbstractAimsA cost‐effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla‐300) versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg‐100) in insulin‐naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) sub‐optimally controlled with oral anti‐diabetic drugs (OADs).MethodsThe BRAVO diabetes model was used to assess costs and outcomes for once‐daily Gla‐300 versus once‐daily IDeg‐100 from a US healthcare sector perspective. Baseline clinical data were based on BRIGHT, a 24‐week, non‐inferiority, randomised control trial comparing Gla‐300 and IDeg‐100 in adults with T2D sub‐optimally controlled with OADs (with or without glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists). Treatment costs were based on doses observed in BRIGHT as well as net prices. Costs associated with complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsOverall lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $327,904 and $330,154 for people receiving Gla‐300 and IDeg‐100, respectively; insulin costs were $43,477 and $44,367, respectively. People receiving Gla‐300 gained 8.024 QALYs and 18.55 life‐years, while people receiving IDeg‐100 gained 7.997 QALYs and 18.52 life‐years. Because Gla‐300 was associated with a cost‐saving of $2250 and 0.027 additional QALYs, it was considered to be dominant compared with IDeg‐100. Results of the scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results.ConclusionGla‐300 was the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg‐100 based on the willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results remained robust against a wide range of alternative assumptions on key parameters.