111732
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.4 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.2 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.7 Clin Interv Aging
- 5.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 3.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.6 Int J Women's Health
- 2.9 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.8 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.2 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 3.0 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 3.2 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.0 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.1 J Inflamm Res
- 2.0 Int J Gen Med
- 3.4 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.0 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.2 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.4 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
每周一次的胰岛素伊科替卡与每日基础胰岛素在中国 2 型糖尿病成人患者中的成本效益：基于治疗背景的分层分析
Authors Xie Z , Deng W , Liang Z, Xie Y, Chen J , Cao W
Received 28 May 2025
Accepted for publication 13 October 2025
Published 27 October 2025 Volume 2025:17 Pages 771—787
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S539841
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Xing Lin Feng
Zeyu Xie,1 Weishang Deng,2 Zhuoru Liang,1 Yilin Xie,1 Jisheng Chen,3 Weiling Cao1
1Department of Pharmacy, The Third Affiliated Hospital (The Affiliated Luohu Hospital) of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China; 2School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 3Key Specialty of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Weiling Cao, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Affiliated Hospital (The Affiliated Luohu Hospital) of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518001, People’s Republic of China, Email 752557163@qq.com
Objective: This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly insulin icodec versus daily basal insulins in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) across treatment backgrounds (insulin-naïve to basal-bolus users).
Methods: Using the UKPDS-OM2.1 model calibrated to ONWARDS trial data (1– 5), we simulated lifetime outcomes over a 40-year horizon. Cost-utility analyses incorporated direct healthcare costs, complication utilities. Uncertainties were addressed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses explored pricing thresholds and adherence assumptions.
Results: Insulin icodec demonstrated cost-effectiveness versus degludec in insulin-naïve populations (ICER=$24974.29, below China’s 3 times WTP threshold) but not versus glargine U100 (ICER=$45544.68) and once-daily basal insulin (ICER=$76877.59). For basal and basal-bolus insulin treated patients, insulin icodec does not offer long-term cost-effectiveness advantages over either insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the simulation time horizon and discount rate as the most influential parameters, with probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirming the robustness of these findings. Scenario analyses demonstrated that insulin icodec’s would become cost-effective compared to basal insulins when patients were willing to pay an additional $150 annually.
Conclusion: Insulin icodec offers cost-saving potential versus degludec in insulin-naïve T2DM patients. For basal and basal-bolus-treated patients, the clinical use of icodec needs to be critically evaluated for cost burden, and it is recommended that it be used preferentially in patients who are sensitive to the frequency of injections.
Keywords: insulin icodec, insulin degludec, insulin glargine U100, cost-utility analysis, type 2 diabetes mellitus
1Department of Pharmacy, The Third Affiliated Hospital (The Affiliated Luohu Hospital) of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China; 2School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 3Key Specialty of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Weiling Cao, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Affiliated Hospital (The Affiliated Luohu Hospital) of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518001, People’s Republic of China, Email 752557163@qq.com
Objective: This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly insulin icodec versus daily basal insulins in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) across treatment backgrounds (insulin-naïve to basal-bolus users).
Methods: Using the UKPDS-OM2.1 model calibrated to ONWARDS trial data (1– 5), we simulated lifetime outcomes over a 40-year horizon. Cost-utility analyses incorporated direct healthcare costs, complication utilities. Uncertainties were addressed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses explored pricing thresholds and adherence assumptions.
Results: Insulin icodec demonstrated cost-effectiveness versus degludec in insulin-naïve populations (ICER=$24974.29, below China’s 3 times WTP threshold) but not versus glargine U100 (ICER=$45544.68) and once-daily basal insulin (ICER=$76877.59). For basal and basal-bolus insulin treated patients, insulin icodec does not offer long-term cost-effectiveness advantages over either insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the simulation time horizon and discount rate as the most influential parameters, with probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirming the robustness of these findings. Scenario analyses demonstrated that insulin icodec’s would become cost-effective compared to basal insulins when patients were willing to pay an additional $150 annually.
Conclusion: Insulin icodec offers cost-saving potential versus degludec in insulin-naïve T2DM patients. For basal and basal-bolus-treated patients, the clinical use of icodec needs to be critically evaluated for cost burden, and it is recommended that it be used preferentially in patients who are sensitive to the frequency of injections.
Keywords: insulin icodec, insulin degludec, insulin glargine U100, cost-utility analysis, type 2 diabetes mellitus