The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess
ABSTRACT To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new technology, the inhaled insulin, Exubera (Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis, in collaboration with Nektar Therapeutics), a short-acting insulin.
Electronic databases were searched up to November 2005.
A systematic literature review was conducted and economic modelling carried out. An industry model was used for modelling.
Nine trials of inhaled insulins were found, but only seven used the Exubera form of inhaled insulin. The other two used inhaled insulins that have not yet been licensed. There were five trials in type 1 and two in type 2 diabetes. Inhaled insulin is clinically effective, and is as good as short-acting soluble insulin in controlling blood glucose, plus it works slightly more quickly. None of the published trials compared it with short-acting analogues. Most patients in the trials were on combinations of short-acting, and either long- or intermediate-acting insulin, and both were changed, making it more difficult to assess the effects of only the change from soluble to inhaled insulin. Patient preference was the only significant difference between inhaled and soluble insulin in the trials. Most patients preferred inhaled to injected short-acting insulin, and this has some effect on quality of life measures. However, the control groups mostly used syringes and needles, rather than pens. As pens are more convenient, their use might have narrowed the patient satisfaction difference. There were no trials of inhaled insulin against continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). No serious adverse experiences of inhaled insulin in the lung have been seen to date, but it is too soon yet to judge long-term effects. The manufacturer's model appears to be a high-quality one, although the results depend more on the assumptions fed into the model than on the model itself. The key assumptions are the size of the gain in quality of life utility from inhaling rather than injecting insulin, the effect of having an inhaled option on the willingness to start insulin among people with poor diabetic control on oral drugs, and the effect on glycaemic control. We consider that these assumptions make the cost-effectiveness appear better than it really would be. The manufacturer's submission assumed utility gains of 0.036-0.075 in patients with type 1 diabetes, and 0.027-0.067 in those with type 2, based on an unpublished utility elicitation study sponsored by the manufacturer. We thought that these gains were optimistic and that gains of 0.02 or less were more likely, on average. However, patients with particular problems with injection sites might have more to gain, although they might also be a group with much to gain from CSII. A key factor is the cost of inhaled insulin. Much more insulin has to be given by inhaler than by injection, and so the cost of inhaled insulin is much higher than injected. The extra cost depends on dosage but ranges from around 600 pounds to over 1000 pounds per patient per year.
The inhaled insulin, Exubera, appears to be as effective, but no better than injected short-acting insulin. The additional cost is so much more that it is unlikely to be cost-effective. The long-term safety is uncertain. Additional research is recommended into the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Sam Philip, Sep 26, 2015
- SourceAvailable from: Leonello Fuso[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The effects of heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) on the lung, and the abnormalities in lung function that they promote, will be discussed in the present chapter, together with therapeutic interventions used to target the lung. Heart failure In patients with heart failure (HF), perturbations in lung haemodynamics (i.e. left ventricular filling impairment and backward pressure increase) are the background for the development of abnormalities in pulmonary mechanics and gas exchange processes that critically affect symptoms and clinical events. Despite haemodynamic impairment being the leading cause of lung dysfunction, a relevant pathophysiological role is also played by the multifactorial and progressive instability of neural control of ventilation. The extent of these abnormalities is related to the severity of the disease and depends on a series of adaptations, which are discussed in the next sections. Specifically, an update of evidence concerning the effect of acute and chronic elevations of pulmonary venous pressures on the mechanical and gas exchange properties of the lung is provided. Emphasis is also placed upon the clinical significance of an impaired ventilatory response during exercise, on its pathophysiological bases and prognostic insights. Lung function abnormalities In HF, an increased lung stiffness is the primary abnormality that affects the mechanical lung properties [1–3]. The major pathogenetic bases for lung stiffening are interstitial lung congestion and heart–lung pathological interaction due to cardiomegaly. Vascular engorgement, increased alveolar surface tension, ventilation inhomogeneties and activation of contractile elements may also play a causative role [3–5].
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This review article is based on an extensive literature search incorporating aspects of lean thinking in a healthcare setting. The rationale of the problem considered is seeking ways to minimise waste, improve effi ciency, and create a harmonious working environment within a health care setting. Five hospital specialities were utilised to emphasise the importance of cost-eff ectiveness of function. Healthcare organizations, through its doctors, nurses, radiographers, pharmacists and other allied professions, the need to be placed in the driving seat by applying equally powerful vectors of change, including choice or commissioning leading to improved patient care. Lean adds value to patient needs, identifi es the value stream for every patient group, ensures a continuous patient journey fl ow; pulls in response to the rate of demand of patients, manages toward perfection, and follows clearly defi ned steps for assessing patients via assessment, investigation, treatment and discharge. Just in Time, pull production, mistake proofi ng and six sigma are useful elements. Lean thinking, as a tool, is important strategically to eff ect a reduction in costs and achieve a high turnaround using the same staff and processes, but in a more eff ective manner. It requires strong, determined leadership to drive its successful implementation.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Reluctance to start and adequately titrate subcutaneous insulin are major reasons why many patients with diabetes mellitus are insufficiently metabolically controlled. Pulmonary insulin administration has the advantage over subcutaneous insulin in that it is noninvasive, seems better accepted by the diabetic population and exerts equal efficacy in terms of glycemic control. As such, inhaled insulin has the potential to increase the diabetic (Type 2) patient's willingness to commence and adhere to insulin therapy. Inhaled insulin's short duration of action makes it suitable for prandial administration provided that basal insulin requirements are met by residual b-cell function, or by supplemental long-acting subcutaneous insulin. In clinical trials, inhaled insulin is comparable to short-acting subcutaneous insulin with regard to efficacy and hypoglycemic risk. Adverse effects associated with inhaled insulin include dry cough, which tends to diminish over time, a slight drop in pulmonary function that does not progress and is reversible in most patients if treatment is discontinued, and increased insulin antibody formation, albeit without clinical sequelae. Long-term safety remains an issue for a product intended to be used chronically for many years. Exubera((R)) was thus far the only inhaled insulin product to receive approval in the USA and Europe for use in adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, but was recently withdrawn from the market. At present it is unclear how this decision will affect programs from other companies with inhaled insulin products under development.Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 02/2008; 8(1):33-42. DOI:10.1586/14737188.8.131.52 · 1.67 Impact Factor