Health Technology Assessment in Action

Published by: Kowsar

The Cost-effectiveness of Analogue Insulin Pens in Comparison with Human Insulin Pens for Controlling Type 1, Type 2, and Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review Article

Mohsen Pakdaman 1 , Rahele Akbari 2 , * , Hamid Reza Dehghan 3 , Reza Valagohar 4 , Parastoo Rostami 5 and Mahdieh Namayandeh 6
Authors Information
1 Department of Health Services Management, Faculty of Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2 Health Technology Assessment Group, Faculty of Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3 Health Technology Assessment Group, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
4 General Practitioner, Supervisor of Health Insurance, Tehran, Iran
5 Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
6 Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Article information
  • Health Technology Assessment in Action: April 30, 2018, 2 (1); e86421
  • Published Online: January 16, 2019
  • Article Type: Review Article
  • Received: November 15, 2018
  • Revised: December 1, 2018
  • Accepted: December 9, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/htaa.86421

To Cite: Pakdaman M, Akbari R, Dehghan H R, Valagohar R, Rostami P, et al. The Cost-effectiveness of Analogue Insulin Pens in Comparison with Human Insulin Pens for Controlling Type 1, Type 2, and Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review Article, Health Tech Asmnt Act. 2018 ; 2(1):e86421. doi: 10.5812/htaa.86421.

Abstract
Copyright © 2019, Health Technology Assessment in Action. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Context
2. Objectives
3. Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
Acknowledgements
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA. Kaplan and Sadock's synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry. 10th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
  • 2. Javadi A, Javadi M, Sarvaghi F. [Evaluation of knowledge, attitude and practice of diabetic patients referring to Qazvin diabetes mellitus center for diabetes mellitus]. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2004;11(3):46-51. Persian.
  • 3. Zandkarimi E, Afshari Safavi A, Rezaei M, Rajabi G. [Comparison logistic regression and discriminant analysis in identifying the determinants of type 2 diabetes among prediabetes of Kermanshah rural areas]. J Kermanshah Univ Med Sci. 2013;17(5):300-8. Persian.
  • 4. Navaie L, Kimiagar M, KHerkhahi M, Azizi F. [Epidemiology of diabetes in pregnant women in Tehran province villages]. J Res Med Sci. 2002;26(3):217-23. Persian.
  • 5. Rahimi M, Dinari Z, Najafi F. [Prevalence of gestational diabetes and its risk factors in Kermanshah 2009]. Behbood. 2010;14(3):244-50. Persian.
  • 6. Sayedalshohadai M, Allami M, Khamseh ME, Hosseini F, Kojaiibidgoli A. [Prevalence and risk factors of urinary tract infections in type 2 diabetic women]. J Kermanshah Univ Med Sci. 2009;13(3):203-10. Persian.
  • 7. Timareh M, Rhimi M, Abbasi P, Rezaei M, Hyaidarpoor S. [Quality of life in diabetic patients referred to the Diabete Research Center in Kermanshah]. J Kermanshah Univ Med Sci. 2012;16(1):63-9. Persian.
  • 8. Rahimi MA, Izadi N, Niromand E, Rezvanmadani F, Najafi F, Asarezadegan M, et al. [Comparison of serum level of 25-hydroxy vitamin d in diabetic patients and healthy subject]. J Mashhad Univ Med Sci. 2016;59(2):97-105. Persian.
  • 9. Bossi AC, Veronesi G, Poerio CS, Braus A, Madaschi S, Destro M, et al. A prospective study for introducing insulin pens and safety needles in a hospital setting. The sanithy study. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2016;12(4):460-7. [PubMed: 26245310]. [PubMed Central: PMC5112762].
  • 10. Anderson BJ, Redondo MJ. What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(6):1563-71. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500633. [PubMed: 22226279]. [PubMed Central: PMC3262728].
  • 11. Oliyaeemanesh A, Doaee SH, Mobinizadeh MR, Nejati M, Aboee P, Azadbakht M. [Health technology assessment on insulin analogues: The rapid review of second type studies]. Iran J Epidemiol. 2012;8(1):1-6. Persian.
  • 12. Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt G, Redekop WK, Majoie H, De Kinderen R, Evers S. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: Data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(6):723-32. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961. [PubMed: 27762640].
  • 13. Cameron CG, Bennett HA. Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues for diabetes mellitus. CMAJ. 2009;180(4):400-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081180. [PubMed: 19221353]. [PubMed Central: PMC2638053].
  • 14. Morales C, de Luis D, de Arellano AR, Ferrario MG, Lizan L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin detemir compared to neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain. Diabetes Ther. 2015;6(4):593-610. doi: 10.1007/s13300-015-0143-x. [PubMed: 26589521]. [PubMed Central: PMC4674462].
  • 15. Ramirez de AA, Morales C, De LD, Ferrario MG, Lizan L. Short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin detemir versus insulin neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain. Value Health. 2014;17(7). A343. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.686. [PubMed: 27200637].
  • 16. Saunders R, Boye KS, van Brunt K, Pollock RF, Valentine WJ. Cost-effectiveness of rapid-acting analog insulin for type 1 diabetes in the Uk setting. Value Health. 2015;18(7). A610. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2114. [PubMed: 26533424].
  • 17. Hagenmeyer EG, Koltermann KC, Dippel FW, Schadlich PK. Health economic evaluations comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-9-15. [PubMed: 21978524]. [PubMed Central: PMC3200149].
  • 18. McEwan P, Poole CD, Tetlow T, Holmes P, Currie CJ. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(sup1):S21-31. doi: 10.1185/030079907x167570.
  • 19. Greiner RA, Azoulay M, Brandle M. Cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes modeling the interaction between hypoglycemia and glycemic control in Switzerland. Diabetes. 2009;58.
  • 20. Farshchi A, Aghili R, Oskuee M, Rashed M, Noshad S, Kebriaeezadeh A, et al. Biphasic insulin aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients: A cost-effectiveness study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;16(1):35.
  • 21. Brandle M, Azoulay M, Greiner RA. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin based on a 10-year simulation of long-term complications with the diabetes mellitus model in patients with type 2 diabetes in Switzerland. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;45(4):203-20. [PubMed: 17474539].
  • 22. Pfohl M, Schadlich PK, Dippel FW, Koltermann KC. Health economic evaluation of insulin glargine vs NPH insulin in intensified conventional therapy for type 1 diabetes in Germany. J Med Econ. 2012;15 Suppl 2:14-27. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.713879. [PubMed: 22812690].
  • 23. Aagren M, Thomsen TL, Knudsen VK. Db1 projected cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12(3). A10. doi: 10.1016/s1098-3015(10)73111-9.
  • 24. Alvares J, Almeida AM, Faleiros D, Araujo VE, Guerra Junior AA, Acurcio F. Diabetes mellitus treatment: Cost-effectiveness of schemes therapeutic glargine and nph - Brazil, 2014. Value Health. 2015;18(3):A60-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.03.354.
  • 25. Belanger D, Cameron CG. Pdb21 economic evaluation of rapid-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada. Value Health. 2009;12(3). A100. doi: 10.1016/s1098-3015(10)73565-8.
  • 26. Ramirez de AA, Lizan L, Prades M, Morales C, De LD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin detemir versus insulin neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus In Spain. Value Health. 2014;17(7). A343. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.687. [PubMed: 27200636].
  • 27. Brandle M, Azoulay M, Greiner RA. Cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, modeling the interaction between hypoglycemia and glycemic control in Switzerland. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;49(3):217-30. [PubMed: 21329624].
  • 28. Ridderstrale M, Jensen MM, Gjesing RP, Niskanen L. Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. J Med Econ. 2013;16(4):468-78. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.768999. [PubMed: 23384160].
  • 29. Smith-Palmer J, Fajardo-Montanana C, Pollock RF, Ericsson A, Valentine WJ. Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2012;15(5):977-86. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.692340. [PubMed: 22563742].
  • 30. Valentine WJ, Aagren M, Haglund M, Ericsson A, Gschwend MH. Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in Sweden. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(1):79-87. doi: 10.1177/1403494810379290. [PubMed: 20688795].
  • 31. Valentine WJ, Jendle J, Saraheimo M, Thorsteinsson B, Pollock RF, Lammert M. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reduced mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes treated with insulin detemir or NPH insulin in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Diabet Med. 2012;29(3):303-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03461.x. [PubMed: 21951030].
  • 32. Lloyd A, Townsend C, Munro V, Twena N, Nielsen S, Holman A. Cost-effectiveness of insulin aspart compared to human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(3):599-605. doi: 10.1185/03007990802668208. [PubMed: 19232034].
  • 33. Cazarim MS, Rodrigues JPV, Cruz-Cazarim ELC, Ayres LR , Pereira LRL. Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2017;53(3). doi: 10.1590/s2175-97902017000300178.
  • 34. Rys P, Wojciechowski P, Rogoz-Sitek A, Niesyczynski G, Lis J, Syta A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of insulin glargine with NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations or with insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol. 2015;52(4):649-62. doi: 10.1007/s00592-014-0698-4. [PubMed: 25585592]. [PubMed Central: PMC4506471].
  • 35. Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Long-acting insulin analogues vs. NPH human insulin in type 1 diabetes. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11(4):372-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.00976.x. [PubMed: 19267715].
  • 36. Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, Ebrahim SH, Gratzer TW, Plank J, et al. Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2). CD005613.

Featured Image:

Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments