Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE
To review the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) compared to other insulin regimens in the treatment of type 2 diabetes based on published literature.


METHODS
The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and EconLit and a selection of congress/meeting databases were systematically searched using combinations of search terms designed to identify publications describing cost-effectiveness analyses of BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Searches were limited to studies in humans, and published in the English language between January 1999 and July 2009. All records were screened for inclusion in the review.


RESULTS
Seven published cost-effectiveness analyses and ten abstracts were identified. One was a health technology assessment from the UK, which evaluated cost-effectiveness using the UKPDS Outcomes Model and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and concluded that premixed insulin analogs were unlikely to be cost-effective versus insulin glargine or biphasic human insulin. In all other studies the cost-effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus other insulin regimens was assessed using the validated CORE Diabetes Model and outcomes from either the INITIATE randomized controlled trial, or the PRESENT or IMPROVE observational studies. However, notable limitations include the fact that all cost-effectiveness analyses to date have been performed using a single model and that a number of these are based on data from observational studies rather than randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, long-term clinical and economic outcomes were reported for several countries: UK, US, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and China. BIAsp 30 was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy in all countries. Estimates of direct costs varied according to country and comparator, but incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the US and UK were USD 46 533 and GBP 6951 per quality-adjusted life year gained for BIAsp 30 versus insulin glargine.


CONCLUSIONS
Although cost-effectiveness data on BIAsp 30 are scarce the majority of the analyses identified in this review suggest that BIAsp 30 is likely to be cost-effective compared to insulin glargine and biphasic human insulin across a wide range of settings, and under certain circumstances would be a dominant treatment option.
Valentine
William J
WJ
Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland. valentine@ossianconsulting.com
Pollock
Richard F
RF
Plun-Favreau
Juliette
J
White
Jeremy
J
D061265:Biphasic Insulins; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000188:drug therapy*; D006801:Humans; D007004:Hypoglycemic Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D007328:Insulin / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D061267:Insulin Aspart; D007336:Insulin, Isophane; D008875:Middle Aged
D061265:Biphasic Insulins; D007004:Hypoglycemic Agents; D007328:Insulin; C557564:insulin aspart, insulin aspart protamine drug combination 30:70; D007336:Insulin, Isophane; D061267:Insulin Aspart