ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2019
Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Study of Dasiglucagon Ready-to-Use Autoinjector and Glucagon Emergency Kit During Rescue from Simulated Severe Hypoglycemia.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2022Trial
- Cost of Severe Hypoglycemia and Budget Impact with Nasal Glucagon in Patients with Diabetes in Spain.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022Article
- Dasiglucagon demonstrates reduced costs in the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in a budget impact model.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2022Article
- Glucagon as a Therapeutic Approach to Severe Hypoglycemia: After 100 Years, Is It Still the Antidote of Insulin?Biomolecules · 2021Review
- Therapeutic Use of Intranasal Glucagon: Resolution of Hypoglycemia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- New uses and formulations of glucagon for hypoglycaemia.Drugs in context · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in patients with diabetes are associated with substantial health care costs in the United States (US). Injectable glucagon (IG) is currently available for treatment of severe hypoglycemia but is associated with frequent handling errors. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel, easier-to-use treatment that is more often administered successfully. The economic impact of this usability advantage was explored in cost-offset and budget impact analyses for the US setting.
methodsA health economic model was developed to estimate mean costs per SHE for which treatment was attempted using NG or IG, which differed only in the probability of treatment success, based on a published usability study. The budget impact of NG was projected over 2 years for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin (T2D-BB). Epidemiologic and cost data were sourced from the literature and/or fee schedules.
resultsMean costs were $992 lower if NG was used compared with IG per SHE for which a user attempted treatment. NG was estimated to reduce SHE-related spending by $1.1 million and $230 000 over 2 years in 10 000 patients each with T1D and T2D-BB, respectively. Reduced spending resulted from reduced professional emergency services utilization as successful treatment was more likely with NG.
conclusionsThe usability advantage of NG over IG was projected to reduce SHE-related treatment costs in the US setting. NG has the potential to improve hypoglycemia emergency care and reduce SHE-related treatment costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.