Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Technosphere Insulin (TI) Versus Insulin Aspart Injection in Type 1 Diabetes Management: Perspective From the US Healthcare System
Author(s)
Ibrahim N. Alfayoumi, MS, PhD1, Avet Manukyan, PharmD2, Michael Castagna, PharmD2.
1PhD in Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA, 2Mannkind Corporation, LA, CA, USA.
1PhD in Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA, 2Mannkind Corporation, LA, CA, USA.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Objectives: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) imposes a significant economic burden on healthcare systems, primarily due to the costs associated with insulin therapy. Technosphere Insulin (TI), an inhaled insulin, offers an alternative to traditional subcutaneous insulin aspart. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of TI compared to insulin aspart in the management of T1DM in the United States.
METHODS: Methods: A three-state Markov model was developed using Excel and R Shiny to simulate lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with TI and insulin aspart. Clinical inputs, including glycemic control and hypoglycemia event rates, were primarily sourced from the TI 171 registrational trial in T1DM. Costs, including treatment, monitoring, and adverse event management, were derived from Micromedex®, CMS databases, and published literature. Effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic methods, were conducted to assess robustness under varying assumptions.
RESULTS: Results: TI was associated with higher costs ($8,932) compared to insulin aspart ($7,459) but improved QALYs (1.94 versus 1.66). The incremental cost per QALY gained was $5,109. Sensitivity analyses indicated ICERs consistently below commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, supporting the robustness of findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions: Based on results obtained from 171 trial, TI appears to be a cost-effective alternative to insulin aspart, offering potential long-term cost savings and improved health outcomes by potentially reducing hypoglycemic events.
METHODS: Methods: A three-state Markov model was developed using Excel and R Shiny to simulate lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with TI and insulin aspart. Clinical inputs, including glycemic control and hypoglycemia event rates, were primarily sourced from the TI 171 registrational trial in T1DM. Costs, including treatment, monitoring, and adverse event management, were derived from Micromedex®, CMS databases, and published literature. Effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic methods, were conducted to assess robustness under varying assumptions.
RESULTS: Results: TI was associated with higher costs ($8,932) compared to insulin aspart ($7,459) but improved QALYs (1.94 versus 1.66). The incremental cost per QALY gained was $5,109. Sensitivity analyses indicated ICERs consistently below commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, supporting the robustness of findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions: Based on results obtained from 171 trial, TI appears to be a cost-effective alternative to insulin aspart, offering potential long-term cost savings and improved health outcomes by potentially reducing hypoglycemic events.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE357
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
SDC: Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity)