Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 881–897 | Cite as

Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion versus Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin

Economic Comparison in Adult and Adolescent Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in Australia
  • Neale Cohen
  • Michael E. MinshallEmail author
  • Lyn Sharon-Nash
  • Katerina Zakrzewska
  • William J. Valentine
  • Andrew J. Palmer
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Recent meta-analyses in the published medical literature have found improved glycaemic control with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) compared with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin for patients with diabetes mellitus. In Australia, CSII is predominantly used in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patient populations.

Objective/intervention: To project long-term costs and outcomes of CSII (Novorapid® or Humalog®) compared with MDI (NPH insulin plus Novorapid® or Humalog®) in adult and adolescent T1DM patients in Australia.

Methods: The study was a modelling analysis utilising a lifetime horizon in adult and adolescent specialty care T1DM patient populations from Australia. Published Australian diabetes complication costs (adjusted to Australian dollars [$A], year 2006 values), treatment costs and discount rates of 5.0% per annum were applied to costs and clinical outcomes. A lifetime horizon was taken, considering only direct medical costs and excluding indirect and non-medical costs.

The validated CORE diabetes model employs standard Markov/Monte Carlo simulation techniques. It was used to simulate diabetes progression in Australian adult (mean age 43 years, duration of diabetes 17 years, mean glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 8.2%) and adolescent (mean age 17 years, duration of diabetes 6 years, mean HbA1c 8.9%) patients with baseline characteristics taken predominantly from Australian National Diabetes Information Audit and Benchmarking (ANDIAB) in Australia.

The main outcome measures were incremental costs and effectiveness of CSII compared with MDI in Australian adult and adolescent patients with T1DM.

Results: Mean direct lifetime costs were $A34 642 higher with CSII treatment than with MDI for adult patients and $A41 779 higher for adolescent patients. Treatment with CSII was associated with an improvement in life expectancy of 0.393 years for adults compared with MDI and 0.537 years for adolescents. The corresponding gains in QALYs were 0.467 QALYs and 0.560 QALYs for adults and adolescents, respectively. This produced incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $A88 220 and $A77 851 per life-year gained for CSII compared with MDI for adult and adolescent T1DM patients, respectively, in Australia. These data also produced corresponding ICERs of $A74 147 per QALY and $A74 661/QALY for adult and adolescent T1DM patients, respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that our base-case assumptions were mostly robust with improvements in ICERs for reduction in hypoglycaemic events with CSII treatment and worse ICERs for lower HbA1c changes associated with CSII treatment compared with MDI.

Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that CSII is associated with ICERs in the range of $A53 022–259 646 per QALY gained, with most ICERs representing good value for money in Australia under the majority of scenarios explored.

Keywords

Insulin Glargine Insulin Detemir Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Multiple Daily Injection Insulin Pump Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Medtronic Australasia to IMS Health. The authors would like to thank Medtronic-Australasia for providing the funding for this project. Medtronic-Australasia did not have a role in directing the outcome of this modelling analysis, but provided information used in the manuscript.

Lyn-Sharon Nash is an employee of Medtronic Australasia and holds stock options. At the time of the analysis, Katrina Zakrzewska was an employee of Medtronic EU, Tolochenaz and Andrew Palmer was an employee of IMS Health. Neale Cohen has received consultancy fees from Medtronic Austalasia.

Supplementary material

40273_2012_25100881_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (97 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 99 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    King H, Aubert RE, Herman WH. Global burden of diabetes, 1995–2025: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections. Diabetes Care 1998; 21 (9): 1414–1431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Australia. Diabetes statistics [online]. Available from URL: http:/Avwwjdrf.org.au/publications/factsheets/diabetes_statistics.html [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pickup J, Mattock M, Kerry S. Glycaemic control with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion compared with intensive insulin injections in patients with type 1 diabetes: metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2002; 324: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weissberg-Benchell J, Antisdel-Lomaglio J, Seshadri R. Insulin pump therapy: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2003; 26 (4): 1079–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. The CORE diabetes model: projecting long term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision making. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20 Suppl. 1: S5–S26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. Validation of the CORE diabetes model against epidemiological and clinical studies. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20 Suppl. 1: S27–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Diabetes Association Consensus Panel. Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (9): 2262–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329 (14): 977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complication in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352 (9131): 837–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Association of Diabetes Centres. Australian National Diabetes Information Audit and Benchmarking (ANDIAB). Weston: National Association of Diabetes Centres, 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohsin F, Craig ME, Cusumano J, et al. Discordant trends in microvascular complications in adolescents with type 1 diabetes from 1990 to 1992. Diabetes Care 2005; 28 (8): 1974–1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benett I J, Lambert C, Hinds G, et al. Emerging standards for diabetes care from a city-wide primary care audit. Diabetic Med 1994; 11 (5): 489–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McFarlane SI, Jacober SJ, Winer N, et al. Control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes and hypertension at urban academic medical centers. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (4): 718–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller CD, Phillips LS, Tate MK, et al. Meeting American Diabetes Association guidelines in endocrinologist practice. Diabetes Care 2000; 23 (4): 444–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linkeschova R, Raoul M, Bott U, et al. Less severe hypoglycaemia, better metabolic control, and improved quality of life in type 1 diabetes mellitus with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy: an observational study of 100 consecutive patients followed for a mean of 2 years. Diabetic Med 2002; 19 (9): 746–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeWitt DE, Hirsch IB. Outpatient insulin therapy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: scientific review. JAMA 2003; 289 (17): 2254–2264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bode BW, Sabbah HT, Gross TM, et al. Diabetes management in the new millennium using insulin pump therapy. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2002; 18 Suppl. 1: S14–S20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruttomesso D, Pianta A, Crazzolara D, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in the Veneto region: efficacy, acceptability and quality of life. Diabetic Med 2002; 19 (8): 628–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reserve B ank of Australia. Reserve B ank of Australia: inflation calculator [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/calc.go [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clarke P, Kelman C, Colagiuri S. Factors influencing the cost of hospital care for people with diabetes in Australia. J Diabetes Complicat 2006; 20: 349–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ray J A, Valentine WJ, Secnik K, et al. Review of the cost of diabetes complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21 (10): 1617–1629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Australian refined diagnosis related groups (AR-DRG). Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 1998Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Data on file. IMS Health, Inc. IMS MAT data for Australia, 2005 Jul 1Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Prostheses list. 2005 Aug 1 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Contentyhealth-privatehealth-prostheseslist.htm [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colquitt JL, Green C, Sidhu MK, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous infusions for diabetes [report no. 8 (43)]. Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Gray Publishing, 2004Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council. Clinical practice guidelines: type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents. 2005 Mar 9 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical benefits schedule. 2005 Nov 1 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/Pharmaceutical±Benefits+Scheme+ (PBS)-l [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chemist Australia. Chemist Australia [online]. Available from URL: http://www.chemistaustralia.com.au/contact.jspc [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marion L. Setting up a community based pump service. Australian Diabetes Society & Australian Diabetes Educators Association Annual Scientific Meeting; 2005 Sep 7–9; Perth [online]. Available from URL: http://www.racp.edu.au/ads/ [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Medicare benefits schedule. 2005 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www9.health.gov.au/rribs/ [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Remake of paragraph (bj) and 2005-2006 increases in basic default table of health insurance for hospitals and day hospital facilities. Private Health Insurance (PHI) circular 33/05; 2005 Jun 30. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The burden of disease and injury in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government, 2003Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of long-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of diabetes: insulin glargine [online]. Available from URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA53/publicinfo/pdf/English [Accessed 2007 Aug 30]Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carrington AL, Mawdsley SK, Morley M, et al. Psychological status of diabetic people with or without lower limb disability. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1996; 32 (1–2): 19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Dec Mak 2002; 22 (4): 340–349Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Medical Care 2000; 38 (6): 583–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Publications Production Unit, 2002 SepGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fahlen M, Eliasson B, Oden A. Optimization of basal insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: a retrospective study on the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and insulin glargine. Diabetic Med 2005; 22: 382–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pickup JC, Kidd J, Burmiston S, et al. Effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in hypoglycaemia-prone type 1 diabetes: implications for NICE guidelines. Pract Diabetes Int 2005; 22 (1): 10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doyle EA, Weinzimer SA, Steffen AT, et al. A randomized, prospective trial comparing the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (7): 1554–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Halpern EF, Weinstein MC, Hunink MG, et al. Representing both first- and second-order uncertainties by Monte Carlo simulation for groups of patients. Med Dec Mak 2000; 20: 314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    ScuffhamP, Carr L. The cost-effectiveness of continuous sub-cutaneous insulin infusion compared with multiple daily injections for the management of diabetes. Diabetic Med 2003; 20: 586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roze S, Valentine WJ, Zakrzewska KE, et al. Health-economic comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injection for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the UK. Diabetic Med 2004; 22: 1239–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the technology appraisal process [report no. N0014]. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001 JunGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Australia. The incidence, prevalence, and impact of hypoglycaemic events in people with type 1 diabetes. 2006 February: 1–6 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jdrf.org.au/living_w_diabe-tes/news/JDRF_hypoglycaemia_survey_finding-s_FINALv3.pdf [Accessed 2006 Nov 1]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neale Cohen
    • 1
  • Michael E. Minshall
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lyn Sharon-Nash
    • 3
  • Katerina Zakrzewska
    • 4
  • William J. Valentine
    • 5
  • Andrew J. Palmer
    • 5
  1. 1.International Diabetes InstituteCaulfieldAustralia
  2. 2.Health Economics and Outcomes Research, IMS-HealthNoblesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Medtronic AustralasiaGladesvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.West SussexUK
  5. 5.Health Economics and Outcomes Research, IMS-HealthAllschwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations