OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the published cost-effectiveness studies of insulin analogues for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS: We searched major databases and health technology assessment agency reports for economic evaluation studies published up until 30 September 2015. Two reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the quality of the data using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines.
RESULTS: Seven of the included studies assessed short-acting insulin analogues, 12 assessed biphasic insulin analogues, 30 assessed long-acting insulin analogues and one assessed a combination of short- and long-acting insulin analogues. Only 17 studies involved patients with T1DM, all were modelling studies and 12 were conducted in Canada. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for short-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US435,913 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the ICERs for biphasic insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US57,636 per QALY gained and the ICERs for long-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US599,863 per QALY gained. A total of 15 studies met all the CHEERS guidelines reporting quality criteria. Only 26 % of the studies assessed heterogeneity in their analyses.
CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that insulin analogues are cost effective for T1DM; however, evidence for their use in T2DM is not convincing. Additional evidence regarding compliance and efficacy is required to support the broader use of long-acting and biphasic insulin analogues in T2DM. The value of insulin analogues depends strongly on reductions in hypoglycaemia event rates and its efficacy in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in the University of Malaya Medical Center. A total of 163 term multiparas (no dropouts) with unripe cervixes (Bishop score ≤5) scheduled for labor induction were randomized to outpatient or inpatient Foley catheter. Primary outcomes were delivery during "working hours" 08:00-18:00 h and maternal satisfaction on allocated care (assessed by 11-point visual numerical rating score 0-10, with higher score indicating more satisfied).
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13534944.
RESULTS: Comparing outpatient and inpatient arms, delivery during working hours were 54/82 (65.9%) vs. 48/81 (59.3%) (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.421) and median maternal satisfaction visual numerical rating score was 9 (interquartile range 9-9) vs. 9 (interquartile range 8-9, p = 0.134), repectively. Duration of hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shorter in the outpatient arm: 35.8 ± 20.2 vs. 45.2 ± 16.2 h (p = 0.001) and 4.1 ± 2.9 vs. 5.3 ± 3.6 h (p = 0.020), respectively. Other maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial failed to demonstrate the anticipated increase in births during working hours with outpatient compared with inpatient induction of labor with Foley catheter in parous women with an unripe cervix. Hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shortened in the outpatient group. The rate of maternal satisfaction was high in both groups and no significant differences were found.