Value in health regional issues · 2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacological Treatment With Insulin and Insulin Analogs for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Colombia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramirez Luis Esteban Orozco, Ibáñez Diego Fernando Ávila, Morales Christian Camilo Anzola, Arango Luz Karime Osorio, Plazas Merideidy, Escobar Ivan Darío
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness relationship of insulins and insulin analogs in diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) and 2 (DM2), from the perspective of the Colombian health system.
METHODS: A short-term decision tree model (SM) was built, the outcome of which was severe/nocturnal hypoglycemia, and a long-term Markov model for quality-adjusted life-years. The probabilities were calculated through a literature review of effectiveness and safety. The costs are estimated from official databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: For DM1, in prandial insulins, and for both models, the cost-effective interventions (CEIs) are aspartate and lispro. In basal insulins, the CEIs are NPH and glargine U-100 in both models. In the comparison of detemir and NPH, detemir generates lower nocturnal hypoglycemia and higher quality-adjusted life-years; however, in the long-term Markov model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeds the threshold. For DM2, in the prandial insulin, and for both models, aspartate is a CEI and the glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. In basal insulin, the CEIs are glargine U-100 and detemir (for nocturnal hypoglycemia) in both models and glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. Finally, in the group of combinations, iGlarLixi is dominant over IDegLira.
CONCLUSIONS: The results favor the use of analog insulins over human insulins, the former reducing the possibility of acute events and chronic complications to a greater extent.
METHODS: A short-term decision tree model (SM) was built, the outcome of which was severe/nocturnal hypoglycemia, and a long-term Markov model for quality-adjusted life-years. The probabilities were calculated through a literature review of effectiveness and safety. The costs are estimated from official databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: For DM1, in prandial insulins, and for both models, the cost-effective interventions (CEIs) are aspartate and lispro. In basal insulins, the CEIs are NPH and glargine U-100 in both models. In the comparison of detemir and NPH, detemir generates lower nocturnal hypoglycemia and higher quality-adjusted life-years; however, in the long-term Markov model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeds the threshold. For DM2, in the prandial insulin, and for both models, aspartate is a CEI and the glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. In basal insulin, the CEIs are glargine U-100 and detemir (for nocturnal hypoglycemia) in both models and glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. Finally, in the group of combinations, iGlarLixi is dominant over IDegLira.
CONCLUSIONS: The results favor the use of analog insulins over human insulins, the former reducing the possibility of acute events and chronic complications to a greater extent.