The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Black C, Cummins E, Royle P, Philip S, Waugh N
Record ID 32007000533
English
Authors' objectives:

"The aim was to review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new technology, the inhaled insulin, Exubera (Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis in collaboration with Nektar Technologies), a short-acting insulin."

(from executive summary)

Authors' results and conclusions: Clinical effectiveness Nine trials of inhaled insulins were found, but only seven used the Exubera form of inhaled insulin. The other two used inhaled insulins that have not yet been licensed. There were five trials in type 1 and two in type 2 diabetes. Inhaled insulin is clinically effective, and is as good as short-acting soluble insulin in controlling blood glucose. The frequency of hypoglycaemia is similar. It works slightly more quickly than soluble insulin. None of the published trials compared it with short-acting analogues, which would have provided a better comparison since they also work slightly more rapidly than soluble. There is also a problem in most of the trials in that patients were on combinations of short-acting, and either long- or intermediate-acting insulin, and both were changed, making it more difficult to assess the effects of only the change from soluble to inhaled insulin. The only significant difference between inhaled and soluble insulin in the trials was in patient preference. Most patients preferred inhaled to injected short-acting insulin, and this has some effect on quality of life measures. However, there could be some bias operating in the trials. The control groups mostly used syringes and needles, rather than pens. As pens are more convenient, their use might have narrowed the patient satisfaction difference. The manufacturer, Pfizer, argues that this patient preference could lead to improved control in some type 1 patients, through improved compliance with treatment, and in some type 2 patients poorly controlled on oral agents, because a switch to insulin therapy would be more acceptable if people could use inhaled rather than injected insulin. These assertions are unproven. There were no trials of inhaled insulin against continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Safety Concern has been raised about the long-term effects of inhaled insulin in the lung. So far, no serious adverse effects have been seen, but until many thousands of people have used inhaled insulin for many years, one cannot rule out some uncommon or rare, but serious, adverse effects.
Authors' recommendations: The inhaled insulin, Exubera, appears to be effective and safe, but the cost is so much more that it is unlikely to be cost-effective.
Authors' methods: Review
Details
Project Status: Completed
URL for project: http://www.hta.ac.uk/1506
Year Published: 2007
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: England, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
  • Administration, Inhalation
  • Diabetes Mellitus
  • Hypoglycemic Agents
  • Insulin
Contact
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Contact Email: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Copyright: 2009 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.