Search

Aims: The aim of the analysis was to investigate whether insulin intensification, based on the use of intensive insulin regimens as recommended by the current standard of care in routine clinical practice, would be cost-effective for patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK., Methods: Clinical data were derived from a retrospective analysis of 3185 patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) general practice database. In total, 48% (614 patients) intensified insulin therapy, defined by adding bolus or premix insulin to a basal regimen, which was associated with a reduction in HbA1c and an increase in body mass index. Projections of clinical outcomes and costs (2011 GBP) over patients' lifetimes were made using a recently validated type 2 diabetes model., Results: Immediate insulin intensification was associated with improvements in life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and time to onset of complications versus no intensification or delaying intensification by 2, 4, 6, or 8 years. Direct costs were higher with the insulin intensification strategy (due to the acquisition costs of insulin). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for insulin intensification were GBP 32,560, GBP 35,187, GBP 40,006, GBP 48,187 and GBP 55,431 per QALY gained versus delaying intensification 2, 4, 6 and 8 years, and no intensification, respectively., Conclusions: Although associated with improved clinical outcomes, insulin intensification as practiced in the UK has a relatively high cost per QALY and may not lead to cost-effective outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes as currently defined by UK cost-effectiveness thresholds., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: While there have been continued advances in insulin treatment for diabetes since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, some unmet needs still remain, including those related to mealtime insulin (MTI). The objective of this study was to explore the impacts related to MTI and the relative burden of the impacts on people with diabetes. Methods: This study was conducted across two phases, namely, a qualitative and quantitative phase. People with type 1 and 2 diabetes using MTI in the USA and UK were recruited for the study. The qualitative phase involved 30 interviews to explore the impacts associated with MTI. Based on the results of the qualitative phase, a list of impacts was developed to evaluate the importance of MTI impacts using best−worst scaling. Results: A total of 30 participants completed interviews, and 336 completed the quantitative phase. Participants described a range of impacts associated with MTI, including psychological (72.0%), social (63.0%), work/school (53.8%), and sleep (51.7%). Impacts for the quantitative phase were categorized under the following domains: diabetes distress, diabetes management, work productivity, and social. The three most burdensome impacts were related to diabetes distress, but the diabetes management domain contributed more than diabetes distress to the relative burden. There were minor differences in the relative importance of impacts by diabetes type, diabetes duration, and experience with continuous glucose monitoring. Conclusion: This study confirms that people with diabetes using MTI still have an array of unmet needs, including those related to the management of their diabetes and the emotional distress of having diabetes. These findings may be useful for healthcare provider (HCP)-patient interactions to ensure HCPs are allowing patients an opportunity to discuss their experiences with MTI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]