Table 9 Scenario analyses results
| Â | Glargine | NPH | Incremental | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | CI (low–high) | Mean (SD) | CI (low–high) | Mean | CI (low–high) | |
Scenario 1: LEAD study baseline cohort | ||||||
 QALY | 7.822 (0.108) | 7.816–7.829 | 7.599 (0.11) | 7.592–7.606 | 0.224 | 0.214–0.233 |
 Combined costs | 774,826 (45,795) | 771,988–777,664 | 750,724 (48,371) | 747,726–753,722 | 24,102 | 20,692–27,511 |
 ICER |  |  |  |  | 107,791 | 88,809–128,559 |
Scenario 2: split between SHE1:SHE2 as 1:1 | ||||||
 QALY | 7.83 (0.101) | 7.823–7.836 | 7.561 (0.103) | 7.554–7.567 | 0.269 | 0.26–0.278 |
 Combined costs | 766,965 (46,814) | 764,063–769,866 | 764,116 (46,878) | 761,210–767,021 | 2848 | − 644 to 6341 |
 ICER |  |  |  |  | 10,583 | − 2317 to 24,391 |
Scenario 3: efficacy adjusted for both treatment arms | ||||||
 QALY | 7.81 (0.107) | 7.803–7.816 | 7.673 (0.104) | 7.667–7.68 | 0.137 | 0.127–0.146 |
 Combined costs | 772,351 (48,678) | 769,334–775,368 | 737,801 (50,299) | 734,683–740,918 | 34,550 | 30,814–38,285 |
 ICER |  |  |  |  | 253,115 | 211,061–301,461 |
Scenario 4: using PROcam risk equations | ||||||
 QALY | 7.06 (0.101) | 7.054–7.066 | 6.87 (0.095) | 6.864–6.876 | 0.19 | 0.181–0.199 |
 Combined costs | 674,151 (42,343) | 671,527–676,776 | 658,559 (41,865) | 655,964–661,153 | 15,592 | 12,621–18,563 |
 ICER |  |  |  |  | 82,023 | 63,427–102,560 |
Scenario 5: using UKPDS 82 risk equations | ||||||
 QALY | 7.837 (0.12) | 7.829–7.844 | 7.63 (0.113) | 7.623–7.637 | 0.206 | 0.196–0.217 |
 Combined costs | 686,804 (48,701) | 683,785–689,823 | 670,520 (48,519) | 667,512–673,527 | 16,284 | 12,703–19,865 |
 ICER |  |  |  |  | 78,897 | 58,540–101,355 |