Frequency of diabetic remission, predictors of remission and survival in cats using a low-cost, moderate-intensity, home-monitoring protocol and twice-daily glargine.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to retrospectively assess remission rates and survival in diabetic cats managed using a moderate-intensity, low-cost protocol of home blood glucose measurements and insulin adjustment by clients of a cat-only practice, and to determine if predictors of remission, relapse or survival could be identified. METHODS: The records of a cat-only practice were used to identify 174 cats with newly diagnosed diabetes managed using only pre-insulin home blood glucose measurements for insulin dose adjustments based on a protocol provided to clients aimed at maintaining pre-insulin blood glucose in the range of 6.5-11.9 mmol/l (117-214 mg/dl). Cats were excluded for the following reasons: insufficient follow-up in the records; a lack of owner compliance was recorded; they were receiving ongoing corticosteroids for the management of other conditions; they were euthanased at the time of diagnosis; or they were diagnosed with acromegaly or hyperadrenocorticism. RESULTS: Using only pre-insulin blood glucose measurements at home to adjust the insulin dose to maintain glucose in the range of 6.5-11.9 mmol/l, 47% of cats achieved remission, but 40% of those cats relapsed. A minority (16%) of cats were hospitalised for hypoglycaemia. The survival time was significantly longer in cats in remission and Burmese cats. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The cost and time burden of treating diabetic cats may cause some clients to choose euthanasia over treatment. While the highest rates of diabetic remission have been reported in studies of newly diagnosed cats treated with intensive long-acting insulin protocols and low carbohydrate diets, these protocols may not be suitable for all clients. Nearly 50% of cats with newly diagnosed diabetes achieved remission with this low-cost, moderate-intensity, insulin dosing protocol. As remission was significantly associated with survival time, discussing factors in treatment to optimise remission is important, but it is also important to offer clients a spectrum of options. No cats that started treatment in this study were euthanased because the owner did not wish to continue the diabetes treatment.

Long-term assessment of the NHS hybrid closed-loop real-world study on glycaemic outcomes, time-in-range, and quality of life in children and young people with type 1 diabetes.

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems seamlessly interface continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pumps, employing specialised algorithms and user-initiated automated insulin delivery. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of HCLs at 12 months post-initiation on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time-in-range (TIR), hypoglycaemia frequency, and quality of life measures among children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and their caregivers in a real-world setting. Conducted between August 1, 2021, and December 10, 2022, the prospective recruitment took place in eight paediatric diabetes centres across England under the National Health Service England's (NHSE) HCL pilot real-world study. A cohort of 251 CYP (58% males, mean age 12.3 years) with T1DM participated (89% white, 3% Asian, 4% black, 3% mixed ethnicity, and 1% other). The study utilised three HCL systems: (1) Tandem Control-IQ AP system, which uses the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care, San Diego, CA, USA) with the Dexcom G6® CGM (Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) sensor; (2) Medtronic MiniMed™ 780G with the Guardian 4 sensor (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA); and (3) the CamAPS FX (CamDiab, Cambridge, UK) with the Ypsomed insulin pump (Ypsomed Ltd, Escrick, UK) and Dexcom G6® CGM.All systems were fully funded by the NHS. Results demonstrated significant improvements in HbA1c (average reduction at 12 months 7 mmol/mol; P < 0.001), time-in-range (TIR) (average increase 13.4%; P < 0.001), hypoglycaemia frequency (50% reduction), hypoglycaemia fear, and quality of sleep (P < 0.001) among CYP over a 12-month period of HCL usage. Additionally, parents and carers experienced improvements in hypoglycaemia fear and quality of sleep after 6 and 12 months of use. In addition to the improvements in glycaemic management, these findings underscore the positive impact of HCL systems on both the well-being of CYP with T1DM and the individuals caring for them.

A short-term economic evaluation of early insulin therapy compared to oral anti-diabetic drugs in order to reduce the major adverse events in type 2 diabetes patients in Iran.

OBJECTIVE: While there are some recommendations about early insulin therapy in newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients, there is not sufficient evidence on this strategy's cost-effectiveness. This study compared early insulin therapy versus oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) for managing T2DMusing a cost-effectiveness analysis approach in Iran. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a decision analytic model was designed. The target population was newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients, and the study was carried out from the perspective of Iran's healthcare system with a one-year time horizon. Basal insulin, Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) were compared in this evaluation. The main outcome for assessing the effectiveness of each intervention was the reduction in the occurrence of diabetes complications. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The DPP-4 inhibitors strategy was the dominant strategy with the highest effectiveness and the lowest cost. Early insulin therapy was dominated (ICER: $-53,703.18), meaning that it was not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses consistently affirmed the robustness of the base case findings. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated probabilities of 77%, 22%, and 1% for DPP-4 inhibitors, TZDs strategies, and early insulin therapy, respectively, in terms of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: In terms of cost-effectiveness, early insulin therapy was not cost-effective compared to OADs for managing newly diagnosed T2DM patients. Future studies in this regard, utilizing more comprehensive evidence, can yield more accurate results.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

OBJECTIVES: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR). RESULTS: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Compared to Standard Management of Type 1 Diabetes in a Singapore Setting.

Background: Despite advances in technology, glycemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) remain suboptimal. The MiniMed 780G (MM780G) advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system is the latest technology for T1D management with established safety and efficacy. This study explores the cost-effectiveness of MM780G AHCL compared against multiple daily injections (MDI) plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitor (isCGM). Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted, simulating lifetime outcomes for 1000 T1D individuals, with baseline hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) v9.5. A Singapore health care payer perspective was taken with 2023 costs applied. Treatment effects were taken from the ADAPT study and treatment-related events from a combination of sources. T1D complication costs were derived from local literature, and health state utilities and disutilities from published literature. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) explored uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds set to Singapore Dollars (SGD) 45,000 (United States Dollars [USD] 33,087) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of SGD 114,165 (USD 83,941) per QALY. Results: A switch from MDI plus isCGM to MM780G resulted in expected gains in life-years (+0.78) and QALYs (+1.45). Cost savings through reduction in T1D complications (SGD 25,465; USD 18,723) partially offset the higher treatment costs in the AHCL arm (+SGD 74,538; +USD 54,805), resulting in an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SGD 33,797 (USD 24,850) per QALY gained. Findings were robust, with PSA outputs indicating 81% and 99% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the stated WTP thresholds. Conclusion: MM780G is a cost-effective option for people with T1D managed in a Singapore setting.

Clinical, Economic, and Patient-Reported Benefits of Connected Insulin Pen Systems: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the available literature concerning the clinical, economic, and patient-reported benefits of insulin pen platforms, including connected insulin pens/caps/sleeves and insulin platforms, as well as mobile apps capable of receiving near real-time insulin dosing information. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library were searched for published literature between January 2015 and May 2021, and manual searches for conference abstracts from 2018 to May 2021 were performed. These searches were supplemented by internet searches for relevant literature and clinical trials. Study selection involved the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, time frame, and study design outline. Included studies investigated connected insulin systems or connected caps/sleeves enabling pens to be connected, or apps able to connect to these systems, in individuals of all ages with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Searches identified a total of 26 publications (mostly observational studies and conference abstracts) for inclusion, representing ten unique, predominantly small studies. Evidence in this field is still in its early stages, and only two randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Available results showed that connected insulin pens and their systems potentially helped reduce suboptimal insulin use and may therefore improve glycemic control. Satisfaction of people with diabetes with the technologies used was high, and economic benefits were noted. Features of effective connected insulin pen devices include simplicity of use and data upload/sharing, useful "point-of-care" alerts, and simple and understandable data presentation to facilitate more effective consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Connected insulin pen systems could be increasingly considered as part of routine clinical care for insulin-treated persons with diabetes who must manage the complexity of their daily insulin routine. Future research focusing on the way data obtained from these devices can be most effectively used alongside other information is urgently needed.

Digital health tools, like text message reminders and mobile apps, are being used more often to help people with diabetes improve their health in a way that works for them. For people who take insulin to treat their diabetes, what has been missing is a way to track insulin doses alongside other diabetes information in an app. Connected insulin pens, also called smart pens, are able to do this. In this article we have looked at the evidence available on the benefits of connected insulin pens. We found that while information on connected insulin pens is limited at the moment, what there is shows that using a connected insulin pen can help people remember to take their insulin and give themselves the right dose and that those who have used a connected insulin pen or related technology are happy with it. Useful features of connected insulin pens include being easy to use, having an alert function, and being able to share the insulin information with the user's doctor. Connected insulin pens may also reduce diabetes-related costs. Connected insulin pens are likely to become more common for people with diabetes who take insulin, but there is a need for more research on how best to use them to improve the treatment of people with diabetes.

Comparison of simplicity, convenience, safety, and cost-effectiveness between use of insulin pen devices and disposable plastic syringes by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study from Bangladesh.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin pen devices and disposable plastic insulin syringes are two common tools for insulin administration. This study aims to compare the simplicity, convenience, safety, and cost-effectiveness of insulin pens versus syringe devices in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at 14 diabetes clinics throughout Bangladesh from November 2021 to April 2022 among adults with T2DM injecting insulin by pen devices or disposable insulin syringes at least once a day for at least one year by purposive sampling. The simplicity, convenience, and safety of insulin devices were assessed using a structured questionnaire, and the study subjects were scored based on their answers; higher scores indicated a poorer response. Total scores for simplicity, convenience, and safety were obtained by adding the scores for relevant components. Their average monthly medical expense and cost of insulin therapy were recorded. The median values of the total scores and monthly expenses were compared between pen devices and disposable syringe users. RESULTS: 737 subjects were evaluated; 406 were pen users, and 331 were vial syringe users. The pen users had lower median scores for simplicity [6.0 (5.0-8.0) vs. 7.0 (5.0-9.0), p = 0.002], convenience [4.0 (3.0-6.0) vs. 5.0 (4.0-6.0), p < 0.001], and safety [7.0 (6.0-8.0) vs. 7.0 (6.0-9.0), p = 0.008] than vial syringe users. Pen devices were more expensive than vial syringes in terms of average medical expense per month [BDT 5000 (3500-7000) vs. 3000 (2000-5000), p < 0.001], the total cost of insulin therapy per month [BDT 2000 (1500-3000) vs. 1200 (800-1700), p < 0.001] and cost per unit of insulin used [BDT 2.08 (1.39-2.78) vs. 0.96 (0.64-1.39), p < 0.001]. Non-significant differences in favor of pens were observed in HbA1c levels [8.7 (7.8-10) vs. 8.9 (7.9-10)%, p = 0.607] and proportions of subjects having HbA1c < 7% (6.9 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.991). CONCLUSION: Insulin pens are simpler, more convenient, and safe but more expensive than vial syringes. Glycemic control is comparable between pen and syringe users. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine the clinical and economic impacts of such benefits of insulin pens.

Safety Assessment of Glucose-Lowering Drugs and Importance of Structured Education during Ramadan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ramadan is the sacred month of the Islamic Hijri (lunar) calendar, and during this entire month, healthy adult Muslims abstain from eating and drinking from dawn to sunset. Muslims with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) who choose to fast during Ramadan encounter major risks such as hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Although patients with poor glycemic control and on multiple insulin injections are at high risk and exempt from fasting, many still insist on it. Thus, healthcare professionals play a pivotal role in managing diabetes-related complications in patients who fast during Ramadan. However, there is a lack of standard guidelines to be followed in association with structured education and administration of drugs and dosage. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of different classes of drugs and the importance of structured education during Ramadan. METHODS: In this review, an extensive PubMed search was performed to obtain literature on T2DM patients who fast during the month of Ramadan until the year 2020. Preference was given to fully downloadable articles. The articles were extracted based on the eligibility criteria. The extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager software version 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 32 articles were included for the review and 7 studies for meta-analysis. Majority of the studies demonstrated the importance of structured education either as a group session or as a one-on-one session with the healthcare professionals in preventing diabetes-related risks during Ramadan. As far as glucose-lowering drugs are concerned, DPP-4 inhibitor combined with metformin remains the drug of choice for T2DM patients who fast during Ramadan. The newer class of glucose-lowering agents appear to lower the risk of hypoglycemia in comparison with sulphonylureas, while among sulphonylureas gliclazide is relatively safe. The meta-analysis indicates that DPP-4 inhibitors would significantly reduce the risk of hypoglycemia as compared to sulphonylurea (odds ratio = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.55, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: The results of our systematic review show that structured education and counselling by healthcare professionals can be an effective tool in preventing complications associated with fasting during Ramadan in people with T2DM. Additionally, the safest class of oral glucose-lowering drugs preferred during Ramadan fasting in T2DM patients is DPP-4 inhibitors.

Evaluation of the cost and medical resource use outcomes associated with nasal glucagon versus injectable glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes in Canada: a modeling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatments for severe hypoglycemia aim to restore blood glucose through successful administration of rescue therapy, and choosing the most effective and cost-effective option will improve outcomes for patients and may reduce costs for healthcare payers. The present analysis aimed to compare costs and use of medical services with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada when used to treat severe hypoglycemic events when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrates using an economic model, based on differences in the frequency of successful administration of the two interventions. METHODS: A decision tree model was prepared in Microsoft Excel to project outcomes with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon. The model structure reflected real-world decision-making and treatment outcomes, based on Canada-specific sources. The model captured the use of glucagon, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency room, inpatient stay, and follow-up care. Costs were accounted for in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD). RESULTS: Nasal glucagon was associated with reduced use of all medical services compared with injectable glucagon. EMS call outs were projected to be reduced by 45%, emergency room treatments by 52%, and inpatient stays by 13%. Use of nasal glucagon was associated with reduced direct, indirect, and combined costs of CAD 1,249, CAD 460, and CAD 1,709 per severe hypoglycemic event, respectively, due to avoided EMS call outs and hospital costs, resulting from a higher proportion of successful administrations. CONCLUSIONS: When a patient with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is being treated for a severe hypoglycemic event when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrate, use of nasal glucagon was projected to be dominant versus injectable glucagon in Canada reducing costs and use of medical services.

Correlates of Insulin Selection as a First-Line Pharmacological Treatment for Gestational Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate prenatal factors associated with insulin prescription as a first-line pharmacotherapy for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM; compared with oral antidiabetic medication) after failed medical nutrition therapy. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of 437 women with a singleton pregnancy and diagnosis of A2GDM (GDM requiring pharmacotherapy), delivering in a university hospital between 2015 and 2019. Maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as GDM-related factors, including provider type that manages GDM, were compared between women who received insulin versus oral antidiabetic medication (metformin or glyburide) as the first-line pharmacotherapy using univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In univariable analysis, maternal age, race and ethnicity, insurance, chronic hypertension, gestational age at GDM diagnosis, glucose level after 50-g glucose loading test, and provider type were associated with insulin prescription. In multivariable analysis, after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical maternal factors, GDM characteristics and provider type, Hispanic ethnicity (0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.73), and lack of insurance (0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.89) remained associated with lower odds of insulin prescription, whereas endocrinology management of GDM (compared with obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]) (8.07, 95% CI: 3.27-19.90) remained associated with higher odds of insulin prescription. CONCLUSION: Women of Hispanic ethnicity and women with no insurance were less likely to receive insulin and more likely to receive oral antidiabetic medication for GDM pharmacotherapy, while management by endocrinology was associated with higher odds of insulin prescription.This finding deserves more investigation to understand if differences are due to patient choice or a health disparity in the choice of pharmacologic agent for A2GDM. KEY POINTS: · Insulin is recommended as a first-line pharmacotherapy for gestational diabetes.. · Women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to receive insulin as first line.. · Lack of insurance was also associated with lower odds of insulin prescription..

Future directions in insulin therapy.

Insulin therapy has a long history at the cutting edge of technological development through purification, extended-action, molecular chemistry, and devices, and in support technologies including self-measurement and patient education. But unmet needs remain large. Today's therapy cannot deliver minute-to-minute control of glucose levels, and cannot imitate the reflex/incretin driven physiological insulin delivery at mealtimes. Further it depends on a raft of devices for administration several times a day, devices liked for their functionality, but disliked as an intrusive reminder of the condition, several times a day. Approaches to overcoming these barriers include closed-loop systems and further modification of insulin formulations, but are limited by fundamental underlying difficulties. While clinical studies of oral insulin are in progress, the barriers to success look daunting. Development of small-molecule approaches (insulin-mimetic tablets) appears to have stalled, while concepts for glucose-responsive insulin as yet fail to deliver the necessary insulin-to-glucose gradient. Gene therapy, feasible in animals in preliminary studies, is not capable of providing feedback control. Transplantation of cultured islets and islet B-cells from stem cells thus looks to the be the best long-term prospect for insulin delivery in terms of overcoming the above barriers, but is a true biotechnological tour-de-force which will take time to mature.

Youth and parent preferences for an ideal AP system: It is all about reducing burden.

BACKGROUND: As new diabetes technologies improve to better manage glucose levels, users' priorities for future technologies may shift to prioritize burden reduction and ease of use. We used qualitative methods to explore youth and parent desired features of an "ideal" artificial pancreas (AP) system. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 39 youth, ages 10-25 years, and 44 parents. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Youth (79% female, 82% non-Hispanic white) were (M ± SD) ages 17.0 ± 4.7 years, with diabetes for 9.4 ± 4.9 years, and HbA1c of 8.4 ± 1.1%; 79% were pump-treated and 82% used CGM. Of parents, 91% were mothers and 86% were non-Hispanic white. Participants suggested various ways in which an ideal AP system could reduce physical and emotional burdens of diabetes. Physical burdens could be reduced by lessening user responsibilities to manage glucose for food and exercise, and wear or carry devices. Emotional burden could be reduced by mitigating negative emotional reactions to sound and frequency of alerts, while increasing feelings of normalcy. Youth and parents differed in their suggestions to reduce emotional burden. Participants suggested features that would improve glycemia, but nearly always in the context of how the feature would directly reduce their diabetes-specific burden. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants expressed interest in improving glucose levels, the pervasive desire among suggested features of an ideal AP system was to minimize the burden of diabetes. Understanding and addressing users' priorities to reduce physical and emotional burden will be necessary to enhance uptake and maintain use of future AP systems.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Assessment of safety and tolerability of remogliflozin etabonate (GSK189075) when administered with total daily dose of 2000 mg of metformin.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are characterized by an elevated glycemic index and are at a higher risk for complications such as cardiovascular disease, nephropathy, retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy. Normalization of glycemic index can be achieved by dosing combinations of metformin with other anti-diabetic drugs. The present study (Clintrials number NCT00519480) was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remogliflozinetabonate, an SGLT2 inhibitor, withdoses (500 mg and 750 mg BID) greater than the commercial dose (100 mg BID)in combination with metformin with minimum daily dose of 2000 mg given in two divided doses. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blinded, repeat dose study in 50 subjects with T2DM. The study was conducted in three phases; run-in, randomization, and treatment. All subjects were on a stable metformin dosing regimen. Cohort 1 subjects were randomly allocated to receive either remogliflozin etabonate 500 mg BID or placebo BID (2:1) in addition to metformin. Cohort 2 subjects were administered with either remogliflozin etabonate 750 mg BID or placebo BID (2:1) in addition to metformin for 13 days. All the subjects were assessed for safety (adverse events, lactic acid levels, vital signs, electrocardiogram [ECG]), pharmacokinetic evaluation, and pharmacodynamics (Oral Glucose Tolerance Testing) parameters. RESULTS: Co-administration of remogliflozin etabonate and metformin was well tolerated in all subjects during the observation period. There were no severe or serious adverse events (SAEs) and no increase in lactic acid concentration was reported during the study. The statistical results showed that concomitant administration of remogliflozin etabonate, either 500 mg or 750 mg BID, with metformin had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of metformin. The accumulation ratios, Day 13 vs. Day 1, for AUC values of remogliflozin etabonate and its metabolites were all very close to 1, indicating no accumulation in plasma concentrations of remogliflozin etabonate and its metabolites. Mean glucose values from baseline and glucose and insulin values following oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were decreased in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of doses of remogliflozin etabonate (500 mg BID or 750 mg BID) greater than the commercial dose (100 mg BID) with metformin (2000 mg BID) was shown to be safe and effective during the observation period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00519480 . Registered:22 August 2007.

Evaluación de la prescripción de hipoglucemiantes orales en población adulta con Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 / Evaluation of the prescription of oral hypoglycemic agents in the adult population with type 2 diabetes mellitus

En el nivel primario de atención se detectan errores en la prescripción del tratamiento farmacológico de la diabetes tipo 2. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la calidad de la prescripción de hipoglucemiantes orales en pacientes atendidos en consultorios del médico de la familia del Policlínico Universitario Hermanos Cruz, municipio Pinar del Río, Cuba. Se realizó un estudio de utilización de medicamentos de tipo descriptivo y transversal clasificado dentro de estos como de indicación-prescripción con elementos de esquema terapéutico y de factores que condicionan los hábitos de prescripción. El universo estuvo conformado por 1575 pacientes con diagnóstico de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 tratados con hipoglucemiantes orales que pertenecían a los 20 consultorios médicos de la familia.La muestra de estudio se obtuvo por el método de muestreo no probabilístico (por conveniencia) (n=846). La información se obtuvo de la historia clínica y tarjeta control de los pacientes para adquirir estos medicamentos. Predominó la edad de 40-49 años, el sexo femenino y entre 5-10 años de evolución de la enfermedad. No se usó la primera línea de tratamiento en el 43,6 % de los casos, ningún caso tenía estudios de laboratorio para el uso de la Metformina. La prescripción y dosis fue adecuada no así su uso racional. Las interacciones más frecuentes fueron las farmacocinéticas.El uso racional de hipoglucemiantes orales fue deficiente lo que hace necesario ampliar la divulgación de un protocolo de tratamiento para mejorar el uso de estos fármacos en el nivel primario de atención.

Errors in the prescription of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes are detected at the primary level of care. the purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of the prescription of oral hypoglycemic agents in patients attended in the family doctor's offices of the Hermanos Cruz University Polyclinic, Pinar del Río distrit, Cuba. A descriptive and cross-sectional study of the use of medications was carried out, classified within these as indication-prescription with elements of the therapeutic scheme and factors that condition prescription habits. The universe was made up of 1575 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral hypoglycemic agents who belonged to the 20 family medical offices. The study sample was carried out by the non-probabilistic sampling method (for convenience) (n = 846). The information was obtained from the clinical history and control card of the patients to acquire these medications. The age of 40-49 years, the female sex and between 5-10 years of evolution of the disease predominated. The first line of treatment was not used in 43.6% of the cases; no case had laboratory studies for the use of Metformin. The prescription and dose was adequate, but not its rational use. The most frequent interactions were pharmacokinetic ones.The rational use of oral hypoglycemic agents was deficient, which makes it necessary to expand the dissemination of a treatment protocol to improve the use of these drugs at the primary level of care.

Can a monthly exenatide extended release regimen provide a therapeutic and cost benefit?

Exenatide is used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The current regimen is a 2 mg extended release (ER) weekly injection. The aim of our study was to prove the efficacy of exenatide ER if administered once-monthly. The proposed monthly dose was based on an Excel simulation using pharmacokinetic parameters extracted using Plot Digitizer® (version 2.6.8) from Cirincione et al. (2017), as well as accounting for the exenatide ER formulation characteristics, in vivo and in vitro exenatide stability. A PBPK model of exenatide molecule was developed using (Simcyp® version 19) based on data from in vitro and clinical PK studies. The model was used to confirm the Excel simulation findings of the effectiveness of exenatide ER monthly in maintaining the plasma level above the minimum effective concentration (MEC). Our simulation from Excel and Simcyp® showed that the drug plasma levels of the once monthly ER dose maintained a steady state concentration (Css ) above the MEC. The simulated Excel plasma level ranged from Cmin to Cmax of 60-130ng/L, respectively. The exenatide compound was successfully modeled and used to predict the Css of the ER monthly dose. The Simcyp® simulated Css of the ER was 117 ng/L. A monthly exenatide ER dose provides a plasma level within the therapeutic range. This new proposed dose has a significant pharmacoeconomic benefit and could well improve patient adherence.

Cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.

Effects of anti-diabetes medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: a rapid evidence assessment and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular and kidney safety of glucose-lowering drugs is a key concern in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated cardiorenal outcomes with glucose-lowering drugs in Asian patients, who comprise over half of T2D cases globally. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A rapid evidence assessment was conducted for phase III or IV, double-blind, randomized clinical trials of glucose-lowering drugs reporting cardiovascular or kidney outcomes for Asian T2D patients (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library databases: 1 January 2008-14 June 2020). RESULTS: Fifty-four publications reported exploratory data for Asians from 18 trials of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and insulin analogs. SGLT2 inhibitors and several GLP-1 receptor agonists were associated with reduced cardiovascular risk in Asian T2D patients, while DPP-4 inhibitors exhibited cardiovascular safety. SGLT2 inhibitors also appeared to reduce renal risk; however, kidney outcomes were lacking for DPP-4 inhibitors other than linagliptin and GLP-1 receptor agonists in Asian patients. Insulin data were inconclusive as the only trial conducted used different types of insulin as both treatment and comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorenal outcomes with glucose-lowering drugs in Asian T2D patients were similar to outcomes in the overall multinational cohorts of these trials. DPP-4 inhibitors appear to demonstrate cardiovascular safety in Asians, while SGLT2 inhibitors and some GLP-1 receptor agonists may reduce cardiorenal and cardiovascular risk, respectively.

Ongoing efforts to improve the management of patients with diabetes in Bangladesh and the implications.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates of patients with diabetes are growing across countries, and Bangladesh is no exception. Associated costs are also increasing, driven by costs associated with the complications of diabetes including hypoglycemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycemia as well as improve patient comfort and adherence. However, they have been appreciably more expensive, reducing their affordability and use. Biosimilars offer a way forward. Consequently, there is a need to document current prescribing and dispensing rates for long-acting insulin analogues across Bangladesh, including current prices and differences, as a result of affordability and other issues. METHODS: Mixed method approach including surveying prescribing practices in hospitals coupled with dispensing practices and prices among community pharmacies and drug stores across Bangladesh. This method was adopted since public hospitals only dispense insulins such as soluble insulins free-of-charge until funds run out and all long-acting insulin analogues have to be purchased from community stores. RESULTS: There has been growing prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulins in Bangladesh in recent years, now accounting for over 80% of all insulins dispensed in a minority of stores. This increase has been helped by growing prescribing and dispensing of biosimilar insulin glargine at lower costs than the originator, with this trend likely to continue with envisaged growth in the number of patients. Consequently, Bangladesh can serve as an exemplar to other low- and middle-income countries struggling to fund long-acting insulin analogues for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: It was encouraging to see continued growth in the prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulin analogues in Bangladesh via the increasing availability of biosimilars. This is likely to continue benefitting all key stakeholder groups.