↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the UK using a short-term modeling approach

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the UK using a short-term modeling approach
Published in
Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/dmso.s156739
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard F Pollock, Barrie Chubb, William J Valentine, Simon Heller

Abstract

To estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin based on the incidence of non-severe hypoglycemia and changes in body weight in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the UK. A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on non-severe hypoglycemia, body mass index, and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of non-severe hypoglycemia were employed in the T1D and T2D analyses, while reduced weight gain with IDet was modeled in the T2D analysis only. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy using published utility scores. Pharmacy costs were captured using published prices and defined daily doses. Costs were expressed in 2016 pounds sterling (GBP). Sensitivity analyses were performed (including probabilistic sensitivity analysis). In T1D, IDet was associated with fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events than NPH insulin (126.7 versus 150.8 events per person-year), leading to an improvement of 0.099 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs with IDet were GBP 60 higher, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 610 per QALY gained. In T2D, mean non-severe hypoglycemic event rates and body weight were lower with IDet than NPH insulin, leading to a total incremental utility of 0.120, accompanied by an annual cost increase of GBP 171, yielding an ICER of GBP 1,422 per QALY gained for IDet versus NPH insulin. Short-term health economic evaluation showed IDet to be a cost-effective alternative to NPH insulin in the UK due to lower rates of non-severe hypoglycemia (T1D and T2D) and reduced weight gain (T2D only).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Master 3 20%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,661,267
of 13,401,642 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#264
of 343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,980
of 270,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,401,642 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.