ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Cost-utility of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulins for type 2 diabetes in China.
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 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 once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulins for type 2 diabetes in China.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
objectiveTo comprehensively assess the cost-utility of icodec, the first once-weekly basal insulin, at 700 and 1050 U formulations compared with once-daily basal insulin analogues in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes within reimbursement context.
methodsA long-term cost-utility analysis was performed using ONWARDS 5 data from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Icodec (700 and 1050 U) was compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100, glargine U300, and degludec over a 40-year time horizon, applying a 5% annual discount rate. Outcomes included diabetes-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate robustness and individual comparator results.
resultsCompared with once-daily basal insulin analogues, icodec was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.97) and lower cumulative incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Icodec yielded an additional 0.261 QALYs and increased life expectancy by 0.031 years, while reducing total costs by $2544.93 (700 U) and $2,916.92 (1050 U). Cost savings were primarily driven by fewer hypoglycemia events. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 100% cost-effectiveness at below 0.4 times China's GDP per capita. Across all scenario analyses, icodec was projected to be cost-saving or cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with once-daily basal insulin comparators.
conclusionsOnce-weekly icodec represents a cost-effective and clinically beneficial alternative to once-daily basal insulin analogues for Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes within the current reimbursement framework.
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.