Cost‐effectiveness analysis of once‐daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL using the BRAVO diabetes model
Authors' conclusion
Gla-300 was the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg-100 based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results remained robust against a wide range of alternative assumptions on key parameters.
Study context
- Population
- Insulin-naïve adults with T2D sub-optimally controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugsmodel-based
- Comparison
- Once-daily Gla-300 vs once-daily IDeg-100
- Outcome
- Lifetime costs (US$) and QALYs, used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
- Follow-up
- Lifetime
Methodological detailsBRAVO diabetes model, US healthcare sector perspective, lifetime horizon, scenario and sensitivity analyses, baseline data from BRIGHT RCT, Baseline clinical data from BRIGHT, a 24-week non-inferiority RCT, Treatment costs based on BRIGHT doses and net prices; complication costs from published literature
- BRAVO diabetes model
- US healthcare sector perspective
- Lifetime horizon
- Scenario and sensitivity analyses
- Baseline data from BRIGHT RCT
- Baseline clinical data from BRIGHT, a 24-week non-inferiority RCT
- Treatment costs based on BRIGHT doses and net prices; complication costs from published literature
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Cost-saving
$2250
lower cost with Gla-300; dominant
Additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)
0.027 QALYs
more QALYs with Gla-300
Gla-300
$327,904
IDeg-100
$330,154
Further findings
Scenario and sensitivity analyses
- Confirmed robustness of base case results
Original publication
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of once‐daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL using the BRAVO diabetes model. Diabet Med. Published 12 May 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →