To evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.
A systematic search of English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IGlar with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM was performed, followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IGlar versus IDeg. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness of IGlar versus IDeg. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the underlying parameter uncertainty.
Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The IGlar group showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline compared to the IDeg group (mean difference [MD] 0.08%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01–0.14%, P = 0.02). Body mass index (BMI) control was numerically better in the IGlar group than in the IDeg group (MD 0.07 kg/m2, 95% CI − 0.01 to 0.14 kg/m2, P = 0.08). In terms of hypoglycemia, the incidence of non-severe overall hypoglycemia was comparable between the IDeg and IGlar patient groups (P > 0.05), while the incidence of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (relative risk [RR 0.79], 95% CI 0.70–0.90,P < 0.01) and the event rates of non-severe overall (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85–0.97, P < 0.01) and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85–0.97, P < 0.01) were lower in the IDeg group. The incidences and event rates of both severe overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar for the two groups (P > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that IGlar is the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg, with a lifetime savings of 1004 Chinese yuan in direct medical costs and a net gain of 0.015 QALYs per patient. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.
IGlar is a cost-saving option with incremental effectiveness compared with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM in China.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Hu H, Sawhney M, Shi L, Duan S. A systematic review of the direct economic burden of type 2 diabetes in China. Diabetes Ther. 2015;6(1):7–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-015-0096-0.
World Health Organization. Global report on diabetes. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/en/.. Accessed 8 Aug 2018.
Wang L, Gao PZM. Prevalence and ethnic pattern of diabetes and prediabetes in China in 2013. JAMA. 2017;317(24):2515–23. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7596.
International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas 8th edition. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation. https://diabetesatlas.org/resources/2017-atlas.html. Accessed 8 Aug 2018.
NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants. Lancet. 2008;387(10027):1513–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00618-8.
Huang Y, Vemer P, Zhu J, Postma MJ, Chen W. Economic burden in Chinese patients with diabetes mellitus using electronic insurance claims data. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0159297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159297.
Chen XB, Tang L, Chen HY, Zhao LYHS. Assessing the impact of complications on the costs of type 2 diabetes in urban China. Chin J Diabetes. 2003;11(4):238–41.
Chinese Diabetes Society. Treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes in China. Chin J Diabetes Mellit. 2018;10(1):4–67.
Ganda OP, Segal A, Blair E, Beaser R, Gaglia J, Halprin E. GRM of the JCOC. CHAPTER 5. Clinical guideline for pharmacological management of adults with type 2 diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(7):SP253–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12102.
Internal Clinical Guidelines Team. Type 2 diabetes in adults: management. NICE guideline, no 28. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE);2015.
Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1364–79.
Owens DR, Biol FI. Insulin preparations with prolonged effect. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13:S5–14.https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0413.
Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, et al. Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2):CD005613.
Heise T, Hermanski L, Nosek L, Feldman A, Rasmussen S, Haahr H. Insulin degludec: four times lower pharmacodynamic variability than insulin glargine under steady-state conditions in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(9):859–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2012.01627.x.
Heise T, Nosek L, Bøttcher SG, Hastrup HHH. Ultra-long-acting insulin degludec has a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(10):944–50.
Liu W, Yang X, Huang J. Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of fifteen clinical trials. Int J Endocrinol. 2018;2018:8726046. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8726046.
Roussel R, Ritzel R, Boëlle-Le Corfec E, Balkau B, Rosenstock J. Clinical perspectives from the BEGIN and EDITION programmes: trial-level meta-analyses outcomes with either degludec or glargine 300 U/mL vs glargine 100 U/mL in T2DM. Diabetes Metab. 2018;44(5):402–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2018.02.002.
Evans M, Mehta R, Gundgaard J, Chubb B. Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine U100 in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in a UK setting. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(5):1919–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2018.02.002.
Lalić N, Russel-Szymczyk M, Culic M, Tikkanen CKCB. Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Serbia. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(3):1201–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0426-0.
Mezquita-Raya P, Darbà J, Ascanio M, Ramírez de Arellano A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 for the management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus—from the Spanish National Health System perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(6):587–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2017.1345628.
Evans M, Chubb B, Gundgaard J. Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(2):275–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-017-0236-9.
Pollock RFTC. A short-term cost-utility analysis of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Denmark. J Med Econ. 2017;20(3):213–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1245663.
Evans M, Wolden M, Gundgaard J, Chubb B, Christensen T. Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin—from the UK health care cost perspective. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014;16(4):366–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12250.
Gough SC, Bhargava A, Jain R, Mersebach H, Rasmussen SBR. Low-volume insulin degludec 200 units/ml once daily improves glycemic control similarly to insulin glargine with a low risk of hypoglycemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 26-week, randomized, controlled, multinational, treat-to-target trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(9):2536–42. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-2329.
Meneghini L, Atkin SL, Gough SC, et al. BKN-3668 (BEGIN FTI)The efficacy and safety of insulin glargine and insulin degludec dosed at the same time daily. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):858–64. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1668.
Onishi Y, Iwamoto Y, Yoo SJ, Clauson P, Tamer SCPS. Insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naıve patients with type 2 diabetes: a 26-week, randomized, controlled, Pan-Asian, treat-to-target trial. J Diabetes Investig. 2013;4(6):605–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12102.
Pan C, Gross JL, Yang W, Lv X. A multinational, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin degludec and insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus naive. Drugs R&D. 2016;16(2):239–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40268-016-0134-z.
Garber AJ, King AB, Del Prato S, et al. Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN basal-bolus type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9825):1498–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60205-0.
Zinman B, Philis-Tsimikas A, Cariou B, et al. MCN-3579 (BEGIN OLTI)Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(12):2464–71. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1205.
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. The CORE diabetes model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and costeffectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20 Suppl 1:S5–26. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079904X1980.
McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL, Lamotte M, Lloyd A, Grant D. Validation of the IMS CORE diabetes model. Value Health. 2014;17(6):714–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.07.007.
Mu Y, Guo L, Li L, et al. The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes: results of a Chinese cohort from a multinational randomized controlled trial. Chin J Intern Med. 2017;56(9):660–6.
Ji L-N, Lu J-M, Guo X-H, et al. Glycemic control among patients in China with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving oral drugs or injectables. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):602. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-602.
Yang X, Ma RC, So W-Y, et al. Development and validation of a risk score for hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2008;7(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2840-7-9.
Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM. UKPDS outcomes model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–33.
Folsom AR, Chambless LE, Duncan BB, Gilbert AC, Pankow JS. Prediction of coronary heart disease in middle-aged adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(10):2777–84. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.10.2777.
Yang Yan, Nan Yi, Mengwu Tu, Wang Jijiang, Lili Wang YJ. Major finding of 2015 China adults tobacco survery. Chin J Health Manag. 2015;2016(2):85–7.
World Health Organization. Country profiles. Global status report on alcohol and health 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Freemantle N, Mamdani M, Vilsbøll T, Kongsø JH, Kvist K, Bain SC. IDegLira versus alternative intensification strategies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin therapy. Diabetes Ther. 2015;6(4):573–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-015-0142-y.
Duan X, Li C, Li YLQ. Epidemiological characteristics, medical cost and healthcare resource utilization of diabetes-related complications among chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Value Health 2018;21:S40.
Beaudet A, Clegg J, Thuresson P-O, Lloyd A, McEwan P. Review of utility values for economic modeling in type 2 diabetes. Value Health. 2014;17(4):462–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.003.
Goldney RD, Phillips PJ, Fisher LJWD. Diabetes, depression, and quality of life: a population study. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(5):1066–70.
Marc E, Kamlesh K, Muhammad M, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events: a time trade-off survey in five countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(90):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-90.
Marrett E, Radican L, Davies MJ, Zhang Q. Assessment of severity and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemia on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents : a survey study. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:251–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-251.
Matza LS, Boye KS, Yurgin N, Brewster-Jordan J, Mannix S, Shorr JMBB. Utilities and disutilities for type 2 diabetes treatment-related attributes. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(7):1251–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9226-0.
Lovre D, Fonseca V. Benefits of timely basal insulin control in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2015;29(2):295–301.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.11.018.
Rodbard HW, Gough S, Lane W. Reduced risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes requiring high doses of basal insulin: a meta-analysis of 5 randomized begin trials. Endocr Pract. 2014;20(4):285–92. https://doi.org/10.4158/ep13287.or.
Vora J, Christensen T, Rana A, Bain SC. Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5(2):435–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-014-0076-9.
Einhorn D, Handelsman Y, Bode BW, Endahl LA, Mersebach H, King AB. Patients achieving good glycemic control (HBA1c < 7%) experience a lower rate of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine: a meta-analysis of phase 3A trials. Endocr Pract. 2015;21(8):917–26. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP14523.OR.
Yaozhi database. China’s provincial drug bidding price [DB/OL]. https://db.yaozh.com/yaopinzhongbiao.
Wu J, Xiaoning HYL. Cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin aspart 30 versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Chin Pharm J. 2016;51(5):242–7.
Sponsorship for this study and the journal’s Rapid Service Fee were funded by Sanofi China. All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.
X. Henry Hu, MD, Ph.D. provided language help and proofread the article.
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Wen Su, Chaoyun Li, Lei Zhang and Ziyi Lin participated in the study design, analysis, discussion, and preparation of the manuscript. Jun Tan and Jianwei Xuan participated in the analysis, discussion, and preparation of the manuscript.
Chaoyun Li is an employee of Sanofi China. Wen Su, Lei Zhang, Ziyi Lin, Jun Tan, and Jianwei Xuan have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Qualified researchers may request access to patient level data and related study documents, including the clinical study report, study protocol with any amendments, blank case report form, statistical analysis plan, and dataset specifications. Patient-level data will be anonymized, and study documents will be redacted to protect the privacy of trial participants. Further details on Sanofi’s data sharing criteria, eligible studies, and process for requesting access can be found at “https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-015-0096-0”.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Enhanced Digital Features
To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9586148.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Su, W., Li, C., Zhang, L. et al. Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Versus Insulin Degludec for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China. Diabetes Ther 10, 1969–1984 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-00683-2
- Insulin degludec
- Insulin glargine
- Type 2 diabetes