OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review of health economic evaluations comparing GLA with NPH as the basal component of an ICT in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The search was performed between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2009 via Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, the databases of German Medical Science and of DAHTA (Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment), and abstract books of relevant scientific congresses. The inclusion of retrieved studies was based on predefined criteria. The included studies were assessed according to established methodological and quality aspects. RESULTS: A total of 7 health-economic evaluations from 4 different countries were included: 6 modeling studies, all of them cost-utility analyses (CUA), and one cost-minimization analysis (CMA) based on a claims data analysis. One CUA showed dominance of GLA because of higher utilities and lower costs. The other 5 CUAs varied in their additional costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for treatment with GLA between € 3.859 and € 57.002 (incremental cost effectiveness ratio, ICER). The CMA revealed about € 160 higher diabetes-specific costs per year for GLA in the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) setting. All the included studies showed good quality despite a few constraints. Nevertheless, they all contained enough explanatory power to evaluate the effectiveness of GLA in comparison to NPH. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some differences concerning evaluation methods (CUA or CMA), data sources (randomized controlled trial, claims data) and country specific conditions (pricing and reimbursement situation) the identified health economic analyses showed high conformity concerning the main target parameter. Most of the studies (5 of 7) showed a good to very good cost-effectiveness in favour of GLA compared to NPH depending on the respective design of the health economic analysis chosen. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This study was supported by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Berlin, Germany.