Cost-effectiveness of insulin icodec for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with poor glycemic control despite use of non-insulin agents can experience delay in initiating insulin therapy and poor adherence to insulin therapy, predominantly due to the burden of multiple injections<sup>1–3</sup>. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of insulin icodec, first once-weekly basal insulin, compared with long-acting basal insulins for improving glycemic control in adults with T2D in Canada. The Swedish Institute of Health Economics T2D Cohort Model was used to analyse three T2D groups: insulin naïve (IN), basal insulin experienced (BIE), and basal-bolus insulin experienced (BBIE). Comparators included insulin glargine, insulin detemir, and insulin degludec. Comparative efficacy was informed by the phase 3 ONWARDS trials of insulin icodec and network meta-analyses (NMA). Time horizon was 40 years. Analyses considered disutilities resulting from vascular complications, age, gender, diabetes duration, hypoglycemia, and injection burden. A 1.5% annual discount rate was used for costs and effects. The average cost per unit for each treatment, accounting for the market share of available formats and biosimilars was calculated. Outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost utility ratios (ICUR [cost/QALY]). In all analyses, insulin icodec dominated insulin degludec and insulin detemir. Compared to insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin icodec was associated with ICURs of $17,876, $20,844, and $73,253; and $6,439, $8,623, and $45,433 in the IN, BIE, and BBIE populations, respectively. Limitations of this economic evaluation include the lack of data for some treatments in certain NMAs, uncertainty regarding the use of the NMA results for a 40-year time horizon, heterogeneous sources of disutilities, and uncertainty regarding the HRQoL benefits of reduced injection frequency. Insulin icodec is a cost-effective treatment option for adult patients with T2D versus once daily basal insulin-analogues publicly reimbursed in Canada. Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) may require insulin when other medications no longer keep their blood sugar under control. However, insulin initiation may be delayed, or patients may struggle to stick with insulin treatment because it usually requires daily injections, which can be burdensome. This study looked at a new type of insulin called insulin icodec, which only needs to be injected once a week. The study purpose was to find out if icodec offers good value for money compared to other long-acting insulins that are injected daily, such as insulin glargine, insulin detemir, and insulin degludec. The study focused on Canadian patients living with T2D with varying levels of insulin experience. Using a computer model that simulates long-term health and costs, the study found that insulin icodec was more effective and offered better value that other long-acting insulins. While the study had some limitations, such as uncertainty about long-term effects and limited data for some comparisons, it concluded that insulin icodec is a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2D in Canada who need insulin.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».