Budget impact analysis of insulin glargine vs. isophane protamine insulin treatment for patients with type-2 diabetes and severe hypoglycemia in Thailand
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22076206 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Unchalee Permsuwan (0000-0002-6909-2789, Chiang Mai University, corresponding author), Chaicharn Deerochanawong (0000-0001-9666-7050, Ministry of Public Health) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Pages | 1415908-1415908 |
| Publication date | 2025-01-14 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2296-2565 • E-ISSN: 2296-2565 |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1415908 |
| PMID | 39877917 |
| OpenAlex | W4406379509 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 10 |
Objective: This study aimed to assess the financial impact of different adoption rates of insulin glargine (IGlar) treatment compared to isophane protamine (neutral protamine hagedorn [NPH]) insulin treatment for patients with type-2 diabetes (T2D) and severe hypoglycemia in Thailand from the payer's perspective. Methods: The budget impact analysis (BIA) model over a period of 5 years was used to estimate the net budget impact (NBI) of IGlar treatment by comparing the total budget expenditures under two scenarios: scenario 1 involved only NPH insulin and scenario 2 included the introduction of IGlar. The total budget included either the cost of insulin or a combination of the costs of insulin and the expense related to severe hypoglycemia. Scenario 2 started at 20% uptake of IGlar and a yearly increase of 20%. NBI was calculated as the difference between the total budgets of scenarios 1 and 2. NBI and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for evaluation. Results: Considering only the cost of insulin, the use of IGlar for patients with T2D and severe hypoglycemia resulted in a yearly average NBI of 174.9 million Thai baht (THB) (5.1 million USD). However, when the cost related to severe hypoglycemia was included, the total budget incurred from scenario 2 was less than that of scenario 1, leading to a negative NBI or cost savings. Conclusion: The NBI of IGlar adoption would be substantial when considering only the cost of insulin; however, the significant benefit of IGlar in terms of a lower rate of severe hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin would clearly offset the additional cost of IGlar
Diabetes mellitus · Heparin · Hypoglycemia · Insulin · Insulin glargine · Protamine · Type 1 diabetes · Type 2 diabetes · Diabetes Management and Education · Efficiency Analysis Using DEA · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Endocrinology · Internal Medicine
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |