Rapid health technology assessment of insulin icodec for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus
- VernacularTitle:依柯胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病的快速卫生技术评估
- Author:
Jie LI
1
;
Hong LI
2
;
Guanji CHEN
1
;
Xiaoyan CHANG
1
;
Xiang YANG
1
;
Zhitao JIANG
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，Zhangjiagang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine，Jiangsu Zhangjiagang 215600，China
2. Dept. of Endocrinology，Zhangjiagang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine，Jiangsu Zhangjiagang 215600，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
insulin icodec;
type 2 diabetes mellitus
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(22):2856-2861
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy， safety and cost-effectiveness of insulin icodec in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus （T2DM）， providing evidence-based guidance for new drug selection in hospital and clinical medication decision-making. METHODS PubMed， Cochrane Library， Embase， CNKI， Wanfang， VIP and foreign health technology assessment （HTA） websites were searched by using rapid health technology assessment from inception to 15 July 2025 for systematic reviews/meta-analyses， pharmacoeconomic studies， and HTA reports on insulin icodec in the treatment of T2DM. After data extraction and quality assessment， the findings of the included studies were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS Ten systematic reviews/meta-analyses and three pharmacoeconomic studies were included. Among them， 4 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were of high quality； the overall quality of the 3 pharmacoeconomic studies was relatively good. Regarding efficacy， insulin icodec was superior to once-daily basal insulin in reducing glycated hemoglobin （HbA1c） and in achieving the target of HbA1c＜7% （P＜0.05）. No significant differences were observed between icodec insulin and comparators in lowering fasting plasma glucose （P＞0.05）. For safety， insulin icodec did not increase the incidence of any adverse events （AEs）， serious AEs， clinically significant hypoglycemia （random glucose＜3 mmol/L）， injection-site reactions， or allergic reactions， compared with once-daily basal insulin overall （P＞ 0.05）； however， insulin icodec was associated with a significant increase in body weight （P＜0.05）. Domestic economic evaluations indicated that insulin icodec was more cost-effective than insulin glargine and insulin degludec when its annual costs were in the range of 784.90-1 145.96 and 597.66-736.34 US dollars， respectively. CONCLUSIONS Insulin icodec demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of T2DM； however， attention should be paid to the risk of weight gain. Under China’s healthcare system， insulin icodec demonstrates greater economic value only when the patient’s weekly required basal insulin dose falls within a specific range，and clinical practice requires individualization.
