ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes in China: A cost-utility and budget impact analysis.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-utility of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulins for type 2 diabetes in China.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes in China: A cost-utility and budget impact analysis.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsInsulin icodec, the first once-weekly basal insulin analogue, was approved in China in 2024. Although it has demonstrated robust clinical efficacy, its budget impact remains unknown, and the long-term cost-utility within the reimbursement context needs further estimates. This study evaluated the long-term cost-utility of once-weekly insulin icodec compared with once-daily insulin degludec in China. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used the validated IHE Diabetes Cohort Model to simulate lifetime costs and health outcomes for insulin-naive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, based on the Chinese subgroup of the ONWARDS 3 trial. The model incorporated diabetes-related microvascular and macrovascular complications, with a 40-year time horizon and 5% annual discount rate. Costs and utilities were derived from the 2024 national reimbursement drug list, the national insulin volume-based procurement policy, and published literature, expressed in 2024 US dollars. Analyses were conducted from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Robustness was assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A complementary budget impact analysis (BIA) estimated national-level financial implications under different reimbursement scenarios.
resultsCompared with degludec, icodec increased life expectancy by 0.025 years and yielded a gain of 0.216 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while reducing costs by $1450.73. One-way sensitivity analyses showed incremental QALYs ranging from 0.065 to 0.464 and cost savings from $ 265.84 to $4166.30. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed mean gains of 0.212 QALYs and cost reductions of $1320.46. The BIA estimates estimated annual savings of $1.17 million, $2.35 million, and $2.58 million in 2025, 2026, and 2027, following the reimbursement of icodec.
conclusionsWithin the current reimbursement context in China, once-weekly icodec is a dominant strategy compared with degludec, offering greater health benefits at a lower cost for patients with type 2 diabetes and generating potential annual savings.
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.