ArticlePloS one2025
Long term cost-effectiveness analysis of IDegLira in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients compared to GLP-1RA added to basal insulin after IDegLira entered the national reimbursement drug list in China.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-utility of IDegLira versus alternative basal insulin intensification therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on basal insulin in a Chinese setting.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDegludec insulin liraglutide injection is the world's first and only approved basal insulin GLP-1RA injection in China (GLP-1RA stands for Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus GLP-1RA added to basal insulin regimen (combined regimen) for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.
methodsBased on the perspective of the health system, the study adopts the Swedish Institute for Health Economics diabetes cohort model. The baseline and clinical efficacy data in the model are from the EXTRA study. The cost includes glucose-lowering medication, background treatment cost, and complication treatment costs. The prices of IDegLira and GLP-1RA are based on the national medical insurance payment standards. Insulin adopts the national volume-based procurement average price. Other cost and utility data are sourced from published literature. The health outcome indicator is quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation time horizon is 30 years. The discounting rate of cost and health outcomes is 5%.
resultsIn clinical output, IDegLira could reduce the cumulative incidence of various chronic complications in patients compared to the combined regimen. The eye diseases (background, proliferative retinopathy, macular edema, and visual loss) decreased by 24.4%, 41.1%, 18.9%, and 12.2%, respectively. Neuropathy decreased by 17.3%. Proteinuria and end-stage renal disease decreased by 25.9% and 17.6% respectively. Ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and myocardial infarction (stroke) decreased by 0.8%, 1.1%, and 4.7%, respectively. In the base-case analysis, IDegLira compared to the combined regimen shows an incremental cost of -34,254 CNY and an incremental QALYs of 0.436. Under the threshold of 1 times the per capita GDP of China in 2022 (85,698 CNY), IDegLira is a dominant scheme with lower cost and better health outcome. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of IDegLira being cost-effective is 100%, indicating that the base-case analysis results are robust.
conclusionCompared with the combined regimen, the use of IDegLira for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes can improve long-term health output, save medical costs, and is a dominant scheme.
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.