OBJECTIVES: To compare, from the perspective of Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) in Germany, direct diabetes-related treatment costs in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) during the first year after the switch from Neutral Protamin Hagedorn insulin (NPH) to the respective long acting insulin in the course of a basal-bolus insulin regimen (ICT) with insulin glargine or insulin detemir as the basal insulin component. METHODS: Natural units of resource consumption incurred by basal and bolus insulin, needles, lancets, and test strips were modelled over a period of one year in each of the two cost-minimization analyses, based on the results of two controlled clinical trials [1, 2]. Resources were valued in prices of 15 January 2010 relevant to SHI in the outpatient sector. In the base-case analyses, average values of all the model parameters were applied. In comprehensive sensitivity analyses (impact analysis, analysis of extremes, Monte Carlo simulation), the robustness of the base-case results was tested.    RESULTS: In the base-case analyses, there were savings of €378 or 15% and €311 or 14%, respectively, per patient and year obtained by insulin glargine compared to insulin detemir. Savings in favour of GLA turned out to be robust in the sensitivity analyses. Even in the analyses of extremes, there were always savings obtained by insulin glargine, irrespective of insulin detemir being given once, once to twice, or twice daily. When simulating real-life conditions the savings obtained by insulin glargine instead of insulin detemir were maintained.        CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of T1DM patients with insulin glargine as the basal insulin component of an ICT may lead to substantial savings from the German SHI perspective as compared to insulin detemir. [1] Pieber et al. Diabet Med 2007;24:635-42; [2] Heller et al. Clin Ther 2009;31:2086-97.