ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2025
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.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- IDeglira vs insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025 · on this mapPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2021, IDegLira was introduced in China as a treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-utility of IDegLira compared to basal-bolus therapy and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) added to basal insulin in patients with T2DM who remain uncontrolled on basal insulin in China.
methodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE) T2DM Cohort Model was employed to project health and cost outcomes over a 30-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics were derived from the DUAL II China study. Treatment effects were derived from DUAL VII study and a pooled analysis. Costs were considered from a health system perspective in China and expressed in 2023 Chinese yuan (CNY). Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health state utilities were obtained from several published sources. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%.
resultsIDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.810 QALYs and a cost reduction of CNY 91,217 compared to basal-bolus therapy. Similarly, compared to GLP-1RA added to basal insulin, IDegLira demonstrated a health gain of 0.011 QALYs and a cost reduction of CNY 23,815, establishing IDegLira as the dominant option. The sensitivity analyses indicated a 100% probability of IDegLira being cost-effective.
conclusionsFor T2DM patients who remain uncontrolled on basal insulin, IDegLira was projected to be dominant and could offer better value compared to both basal-bolus therapy and GLP-1RA added to basal insulin in the Chinese setting.
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.