RESUMEN
Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a modern coformulation of ultra-long-acting basal insulin degludec, with rapid-acting insulin aspart. IDegAsp provides effective, safe, well-tolerated glycemic control, with a low risk of hypoglycemia while allowing flexibility in meal patterns and timing of administration. This consensus statement describes a pragmatic framework to identify patients who may benefit from IDegAsp therapy. It highlights the utility of IDegAsp in type 2 diabetic patients who are insulin-naive, suboptimally controlled on basal or premixed insulin, or dissatisfied with basal-bolus regimens. It also describes potential IDegAsp usage in type 1 diabetic patients.
RESUMEN
AIMS: There is limited evidence with respect to the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin in people with diabetes outside the 'western' world. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of starting basal insulin treatment with insulin detemir in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs) in Mexico, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Algeria. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical outcomes, baseline characteristics and health state utility data were taken from the A1chieve study. A 1-year analysis was also conducted based on treatment costs and quality-of-life data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of GDP per capita, and WHO-CHOICE recommendations (ICER < 3.0) used to define cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Starting insulin detemir was associated with a projected increase in life expectancy (≥1 year) and was considered cost-effective in all of the studied populations with ICERs of -0.02 (Mexico), 0.00 (South Korea), 0.48 (India), 0.12 (Indonesia), and 0.88 (Algeria) GDP/quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was maintained after conducting sensitivity analyses in the 30-year and 1-year analyses. A projected increase in treatment costs was partially offset by a reduction in complications. The difference in overall costs between insulin detemir and OGLDs alone was USD518, 1431, 3510, 15, and 5219, respectively. CONCLUSION: Changes in clinical outcomes associated with starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve individuals with T2D resulted in health gains that made the intervention cost-effective in five countries with distinct healthcare resources.