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.

An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model.

BACKGROUND: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: Costs and outcomes for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from a US healthcare payer perspective were assessed using the BRAVO diabetes model. Baseline clinical data were derived from EDITION-3, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing Gla-300 with Gla-100 in insulin-naïve adults with inadequately controlled T2D on OADs. Treatment costs were calculated based on doses observed in EDITION-3 and 2020 US net prices, while costs for complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs ($US) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $353,441 and $352,858 for individuals receiving Gla-300 and Gla-100 respectively; insulin costs were $52,613 and $50,818. Gla-300 was associated with a gain of 8.97 QALYs and 21.12 life-years, while Gla-100 was associated with a gain of 8.89 QALYs and 21.07 life-years. This resulted in an ICER of $7522/QALY gained for Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Thus, Gla-300 was cost-effective versus Gla-100 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Compared with Gla-100, Gla-300 provided a net monetary benefit of $3290. Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 may be a cost-effective treatment option versus Gla-100 over a lifetime horizon for insulin-naïve people in the United States with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs.

The economic value of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people ≥18 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a value-based economic model from a U.S. payer perspective.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the value and affordability of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in a budget impact model from a United States (U.S.) payer perspective by leveraging recent real-world evidence (RWE) studies and incorporating the recent insulin price caps where applicable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic model for a hypothetical one million U.S. health-plan population was developed to assess the budgetary impact of therapeutic interchanges in either direction between the two long- and longer-acting basal insulins (BIs) for patients with type 2 diabetes over a three-year model horizon. The utilization of long-acting BIs, longer-acting BIs, biosimilar BIs, and insulin degludec (IDeg-100) were informed by IQVIA data and internal forecasting at Sanofi. The DELIVER-2 and DELIVER-naïve studies provided healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) parameters. In the model base case, 24% of patients switched from long-acting BIs to insulin glargine biosimilars, IDeg-100, and other longer-acting BIs (Gla-300) by projected year 3. RESULTS: The base case total costs were $10,145 per patient per year (PPPY) in year 3 for the cumulative population. When all patients switched to Gla-300, the total costs in year 3 were $8,799, reflecting a net savings of -$660 PPPY compared to the budget increase of $686 PPPY in the base case. However, the longer-acting to long-acting BIs reversal scenario demonstrated a budgetary decrease of $676 PPPY over the model horizon. The reduction in incremental PPPY cost of $93 was observed using net drug costs rather than wholesale acquisition costs (WAC). LIMITATIONS: The market shares for years 1-3 were based on expectations supported by the clinicians' expert opinions and were not obtained from real-world data. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by the reduction in HCRU, costs and market shares assumptions. Budgetary reductions were achieved by switching patients from long-acting BIs to Gla-300.

Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a chronic and debilitating condition that can lead to severe macro or microvascular complications. To mitigate these complications, it is crucial to effectively manage blood glucose levels. When other treatments prove ineffective in achieving adequate glucose control, insulin-based therapy becomes necessary. However, insulin-based treatments often come with the risk of hypoglycemic episodes, which can lead to increased utilization of healthcare resources (HCRU) and have a negative impact on costs.This study aimed to assess the budgetary impact of higher market shares of longer-acting basal insulins (specifically insulin glargine Gla-300) compared to long-acting basal insulins, insulin glargine biosimilars, and insulin degludec (IDeg) in the treatment of T2D. The perspective taken was that of a U.S. payer, taking into account the recent insulin price caps where applicable.The economic benefit of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by reductions in HCRU, costs, and market share assumptions. This resulted in a budgetary increase of $686 per patient per year (PPPY). In an alternative scenario where all patients transitioned to Gla-300, it led to a net savings of $660 PPPY.These findings provide valuable insights for decision-makers and healthcare professionals when making choices related to formulary placement and treatment utilization.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL using the BRAVO diabetes model.

AIMS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) sub-optimally controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: The BRAVO diabetes model was used to assess costs and outcomes for once-daily Gla-300 versus once-daily IDeg-100 from a US healthcare sector perspective. Baseline clinical data were based on BRIGHT, a 24-week, non-inferiority, randomised control trial comparing Gla-300 and IDeg-100 in adults with T2D sub-optimally controlled with OADs (with or without glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists). Treatment costs were based on doses observed in BRIGHT as well as net prices. Costs associated with complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Overall lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $327,904 and $330,154 for people receiving Gla-300 and IDeg-100, respectively; insulin costs were $43,477 and $44,367, respectively. People receiving Gla-300 gained 8.024 QALYs and 18.55 life-years, while people receiving IDeg-100 gained 7.997 QALYs and 18.52 life-years. Because Gla-300 was associated with a cost-saving of $2250 and 0.027 additional QALYs, it was considered to be dominant compared with IDeg-100. Results of the scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 was the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg-100 based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results remained robust against a wide range of alternative assumptions on key parameters.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of iGlarLixi Versus IDegAsp and Appropriate Price Exploration of iGlarLixi for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin glargine plus lixisenatide, have been demonstrated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. However, no relevant economic analysis of iGlarLixi has been done in China. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese T2DM patients, and then back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi to support its pricing after listing in China. METHODS: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) was applied to estimate lifetime health and economic outcomes from the Chinese health-care system perspective. As no head-to-head comparison data are currently available, the baseline cohort characteristics and the initial clinical data for iGlarLixi were derived from the randomized LixiLan-L-China trial. The relative treatment effects for IDegAsp were based on an indirect treatment comparison. Due to the unavailability of iGlarLixi pricing data, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was assumed to be equal to that of IDegAsp at the beginning of the study. Afterwards, a break-even analysis using comparator drug price and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was performed to back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi. One-way sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Based on the initial assumption of equal annual medication cost of iGlarLixi and IDegAsp, iGlarLixi was cost effective compared to IDegAsp with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) far below the WTP threshold in Chinese T2DM patients. From the back calculation for the price of iGlarLixi, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was $656.96 and $1075.96 to obtain an ICER of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp close to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP, respectively. When the discount rate was changed from the base value to 8% (the most sensitive parameter to the model results in one-way sensitivity analysis), the ICER was nearly equal to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP with the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi decreasing to $590.41 and $865.03, respectively. Thus, iGlarLixi was dominant over IDegAsp with an annual medication cost of $590.41 to $865.03. The findings were robust to one-way sensitivity analysis, PSA and scenario analysis. CONCLUSION: This long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in Chinese T2DM patients indicates that iGlarLixi, assuming equal price to IDegAsp, is cost-effective versus IDegAsp with an ICER far below the WTP threshold. With 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP threshold set we back-calculate the appropriate annual medication cost of iGlarLixi to be $590.41 to $865.03, respectively.

Assessment of circulating insulin using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry during insulin glargine treatment in type 2 diabetes: Implications for estimating insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function.

AIM: To determine the potential impact of the cross-reactivity of insulin glargine U-100 and its metabolites on insulin sensitivity and ß-cell measures in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), we measured concentrations of endogenous insulin, glargine and its two metabolites (M1 and M2) in fasting and oral glucose tolerance test-stimulated plasma from 19 participants and fasting specimens from another 97 participants 12 months after randomization to receive the insulin glargine. The last dose of glargine was administered before 10:00 PM the night before testing. Insulin was also measured on these specimens using an immunoassay. We used fasting specimens to calculate insulin sensitivity (Homeostatic Model Assessment 2 [HOMA2]-S%; QUICKI index; PREDIM index) and ß-cell function (HOMA2-B%). Using specimens following glucose ingestion, we calculated insulin sensitivity (Matsuda ISI[comp] index) and ß-cell response (insulinogenic index [IGI], and total incremental insulin response [iAUC] insulin/glucose). RESULTS: In plasma, glargine was metabolized to form the M1 and M2 metabolites that were quantifiable by LC-MS; however, the analogue and its metabolites cross-reacted by less than 100% in the insulin immunoassay. This incomplete cross-reactivity resulted in a systematic bias of fasting-based measures. By contrast, because M1 and M2 did not change following glucose ingestion, a bias was not observed for IGI and iAUC insulin/glucose. CONCLUSIONS: Despite glargine metabolites being detected in the insulin immunoassay, dynamic insulin responses can be used to assess ß-cell responsiveness. However, given the cross-reactivity of the glargine metabolites in the insulin immunoassay, fasting-based measures of insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function are biased.

The price paradox of biosimilar-like long-acting insulin.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the uptake and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of Basaglar, the first long-acting insulin biosimilar, in a commercially insured population in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of commercial pharmacy claims and pharmacy co-payment offsets. METHODS: We assessed Basaglar uptake by examining trends in the composition of the long-acting insulin market in the United States from 2014 to 2018. As patient demographics and plan type may be important determinants of biosimilar uptake, we also assessed characteristics of all long-acting insulin users by drug. We examined Basaglar OOP costs by assessing mean OOP costs per claim for users of Basaglar and other long-acting insulins, overall and by plan type, and the number and source of co-payment offsets for Basaglar and other insulin glargine products from Basaglar market entry through 2018. We used multivariate linear models to examine the relationship between Basaglar OOP expenditures and insurer-negotiated amounts, overall and by plan type. RESULTS: Basaglar experienced a rapid uptake. However, there was no evidence that Basaglar users had lower OOP costs than reference product (Lantus) users. CONCLUSIONS: Given our results and the approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar, we recommend the empirical evaluation of biosimilar cost savings to patients and insurers prior to promoting their automatic substitution.

Alteração das Insulinas análogas de ação prolongada para o tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo I / Alteration of long-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of type I diabetes mellitus

INTRODUÇÃO: O diabetes mellitus tipo 1 (DM1) é um transtorno endócrino caracterizado por hiperglicemia devido à destruição de células beta, geralmente levando a deficiência absoluta de insulina. Trata-se de uma doença de grande relevância, principalmente porque o não tratamento ou o seu agravamento podem levar a desfechos graves como a morte e a complicações macro e microvasculares, oculares, renais e neurológicas. O tratamento do paciente acometido com DM1 consiste na reposição de insulina endógena através do uso de insulina de ação rápida ou ultrarrápida, associada a uma insulina de ação intermediária ou prolongada, além da monitorização da glicemia capilar pelo paciente e medidas de autocuidado dos pacientes. Como terapia medicamentosa, o SUS disponibiliza a insulina Regular, insulina NPH e insulinas análogas de ação rápida. Além das insulinas disponibilizadas pelo SUS, atualmente também se encontram disponíveis no mercado, as insulinas análogas de ação prolongada (glargina, detemir e degludeca), além de pré-misturas que contêm associações entre estas diversas opções. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: O objetivo do presente relatório é verificar e atualizar as evidências científicas sobre a eficácia, segurança e recalcular o impacto orçamentário das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada (glargina, detemir e degludeca). EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: Dois novos estudos foram avaliados, no relatório original foram selecionadas sete revisões sistemáticas (RS) de risco de viés baixo a incerto, avaliadas pela ferramenta Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) e separadas por tipo de comparação. Insulina glargina vs NPH: foram incluídas quatro RS com metanálise, que demonstraram eficácia na redução dos níveis de HbA1c a favor da insulina glargina, variando entre 0,33 a 0,40%. Tricco et al. (2021), incluiu 65 estudos únicos com 14200 pacientes com diabetes tipo 1, as insulinas de ação prolongada se mostraram superiores para o controle da hipoglicemia noturna, superioridade na Redução hemoglobina glicada, glicemia de jejum, ganho de peso. Quanto aos episódios de hipoglicemia grave Dawoud et al. (2018) e Tricco et al. (2014) demonstraram que não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre as insulinas, no entanto Marra et al. (2016) apresentaram uma estimativa da diferença da média do número de episódios de hipoglicemia grave a favor da insulina glargina em -0,58. Insulina detemir vs NPH: foram incluídas duas RS nesta comparação, na qual ambas demonstraram que a insulina detemir foi mais eficaz na redução dos níveis de HbA1c em relação à insulina NPH, uma diferença de 0,16% e 0,26%. A insulina detemir (utilizada uma ou duas vezes por dia) foi associada a um risco menor de episódios de hipoglicemia grave, de 0,25 , comparada a insulina NPH (utilizada uma ou duas vezes por dia). Insulina degludeca vs NPH: apenas Dawoud et al. (2018) avaliaram a eficácia e segurança da insulina degludeca comparada à insulina NPH, demonstrando que não houve nenhuma diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as insulinas na redução dos níveis de HbA1c e nas taxas de episódios de hipoglicemia grave. Insulina glargina vs detemir: foram incluídas três RS nesta comparação, na qual todas demonstraram que não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre elas na redução dos níveis de HbA1c. Dawoud et al. (2018) não mostraram diferenças significativas ou clinicamente relevantes na taxa de hipoglicemia grave entre as insulinas glargina e detemir. Insulina glargina vs degludeca: foram incluídas três RS nesta comparação, na qual todas demonstraram que não houve diferença significante entre as insulinas na redução dos níveis de HbA1c. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: A análise consistiu em uma atualização do impacto apresentado no Relatório de Recomendação da Conitec nº 440 de março de 2019, considerando o preço de aquisição da insulina NPH e as aquisições dos comparativos pelo BPS e Siasg. Foi considerada a dose diária definida estabelecida pela OMS para todas as tecnologias (40 UI). Os preços foram obtidos no Sistema Integrado de Administração de Serviços Gerais (SIASG). Foram feitos dois cenários populacionais, a partir de dados epidemiológicos e outro com dados de dispensação pelo SUS e pelo programa "Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular". Considerando o cenário epidemiológico estimado, o gasto previsto com incorporação de insulinas análogas de ação prolongada variou no primeiro ano entre cerca de R$ 195 mi e cerca de R$ 990 mi, de acordo com o análogo de insulina. Considerando o cenário epidemiológico estimado, o gasto previsto com incorporação de insulinas análogas de ação prolongada variou no primeiro ano entre cerca de R$ 7,4 mi e cerca de R$ 907 mi, de acordo com o análogo de insulina. O gasto total ao final de cinco anos variou entre cerca de R$ 1.7 bi a cerca de R$ 9,5 bi, a depender do análogo de insulina. O impacto orçamentário incremental estimado, em relação à insulina humana NPH, variou entre R$ 108 mi e R$ 7,8 bi (Tabela 15). MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram considerados estudos clínicos de fases 3 ou 4 inscritos no ClinicalTrials, que testaram ou estão testando os medicamentos resultantes da busca supracitada. Os medicamentos com registro para a indicação clínica há mais de dois anos na Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA), ou há mais de cinco anos na European Medicines Agency (EMA) ou na U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) não foram considerados. Os dados da situação regulatória das tecnologias foram consultados nos sítios eletrônicos das referidas agências sanitárias. No horizonte considerado nesta análise, não foram detectadas tecnologias para o tratamento do diabetes mellitus tipo I. CONSIDERAÇÕES: As insulinas análogas de ação prolongada demonstram benefício clínico modesto, sendo o seu efeito mais proeminente para o controle da hipoglicemia grave e noturna. Seu uso como regime basal de insulina para DM1 parece beneficiar mais os pacientes que apresentam episódios recorrentes de hipoglicemia. No entanto, há de se ponderar a fragilidade em avaliar os eventos de hipoglicemia, devido às divergências nas definições deste desfecho. Na comparação entre insulinas análogas de ação prolongada não houve um consenso entre os autores sobre qual seria mais eficaz e segura. Além disso, desfechos importantes no diabetes, como complicações diabéticas, presença de eventos adversos e medidas da variabilidade glicêmica, não foram relatados nos estudos incluídos. Evidência clínica sobre a efetividade da insulina glargina com dados brasileiros demonstrou que um pequeno número de pacientes obtiveram o controle glicêmico e não foi identificada correlação entre o tipo de insulinoterapia e a qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde do paciente com DM1. Após abertura de licitação, nenhuma empresa conseguiu ofertar com o valor aprovado para incorporação. A nova análise de impacto orçamentário demonstra que o montante de recursos envolvidos numa potencial incorporação apesar de registrar resultado financeiro adicional, teve considerável redução em relação ao relatório de 2019. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário presentes na 111ª Reunião Ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 04 de agosto de 2022, sem nenhuma declaração de conflito de interesse, deliberaram por unanimidade, encaminhar o tema para consulta pública com recomendação preliminar favorável à manutenção das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada com condicionante de custo de tratamento. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: As contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião, apresentaram 98% de concordância sobre a manutenção das insulinas. Destas 107 opiniões não continham informações complementares, 77% eram do sexo feminino, 47% entre 25 e 39 anos e 70% se autodeclaravam brancos. Ao reportar e sintetizar as opiniões, ficaram mais evidentes as falas de melhoria no controle da glicemia e comodidade para uso dos análogos de ação prolongada. Assim as contribuições recebidas na consulta pública sobre o relatório que avalia a proposta de à manutenção das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada com condicionante de custo de tratamento foram em sua maioria favoráveis a recomendação preliminar da Conitec, de incorporação. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário presentes na 114ª Reunião Ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 09 de novembro de 2022, deliberaram, por unanimidade, recomendar a não alteração da recomendação de incorporação das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada para o tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo I, mantidos os termos da Portaria SCTIE/MS nº 19, de 27 de março de 2019. Foi assinado o registro de deliberação Nº 780/2022. DECISÃO: Não alterar, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, a incorporação das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada para o tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo I, mantidos os termos da Portaria SCTIE/MS nº 19, de 27 de março de 2019, conforme protocolo estabelecido pelo Ministério da Saúde, conforme a Portaria nº 167, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 228, seção 1, página 81, em 6 de dezembro de 2022.

Utilization and cost of drugs for diabetes and its comorbidities and complications in Kuwait.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes imposes a large burden on countries' healthcare expenditures. In Kuwait, diabetes prevalence in adults is estimated at 22.0%%-double the worldwide prevalence (9.3%). There is little current data on pharmaceutical costs in Kuwait of managing diabetes and diabetes-related complications and comorbidities. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the utilization and cost of drugs for diabetes and diabetes-related complications and comorbidities in Kuwait for year 2018, as well determinants of costs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a multi-stage stratified sampling method. Patients were Kuwaiti citizens with diabetes, aged 18-80, recruited from all six governorates. Physicians collected demographic data, clinical data, and current drug prescription for each patient which was extrapolated for the full year of 2018. A prevalence-based approach and bottom-up costing were used. Data were described according to facility type (primary care vs. hospital). A generalized linear model with log function and normal distribution compared drug costs for patients with and without comorbidities/complications after adjustments for demographic and health confounders (gender, age group, disease duration, and obesity). RESULTS: Of 1182 diabetes patients, 64.0% had dyslipidemia and 57.7% had hypertension. Additionally, 40.7% had diabetes-related complications, most commonly neuropathy (19.7%). Of all diabetes patients, 85.9% used oral antidiabetics (alone or in combinations), 49.5% used insulin alone or in combinations, and 29.3% used both oral antidiabetics and insulin. The most frequently used oral drug was metformin (75.7%), followed by DPP4 inhibitors (40.2%) and SGLT2 inhibitors (23.8%). The most frequently used injectables were insulin glargine (36.6%), followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (15.4%). Total annual drug cost for Kuwait's diabetic population for year 2018 was US$201 million (US$1,236.30 per patient for antidiabetics plus drugs for comorbidities/complications). CONCLUSIONS: Drug costs for treating diabetes and comorbidities/complications accounted for an estimated 22.8% of Kuwait's 2018 drug expenditures. Comorbidities and complications add 44.7% to the average drug cost per diabetes patient.

Real-World Impact of Switching From Insulin Glargine (Lantus®) to Basaglar® and Potential Cost Saving in a Large Public Healthcare System in Saudi Arabia.

Background: The advent of Basaglar®, which is a biosimilar insulin glargine formulation for Lantus® has brought hope that it will result in similar outcomes and lower costs. However, some health practitioners raised some concerns about the therapeutic equivalence of this new biosimilar. Therefore, we aimed to examine the clinical and financial impact of switching from Lantus® to Basaglar®. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective chart review study of adult patients (e.g., ≥18 years) with diabetes mellitus (DM) who were treated with insulin glargine (Lantus®) for at least 12 months and then switched to Basaglar® for another 12 months. The potential cost savings for the years 2018 to 2021 and the cost avoidance for 2022 were estimated using different conversion ratios between the two insulin glargine products (Basaglar® and Lantus®) and acquisition prices. Results: One-hundred patients with DM who were previously treated with Lantus® and switched to Basaglar® were retrospectively recruited. About two-thirds of the patients (68%) had type 2 DM, and the male and female patients were equally represented. The mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) at baseline was 9, and the mean difference in the A1C levels before and after switching to Basaglar® was not significant (0.18, p-value = 0.503, 95% CI [-0.36-0.72]). Although the difference in the total daily insulin units between Lantus® and Basaglar® was not significant, the difference was leaning toward statistical significance despite the small sample size (-1.88, P-value = 0.25, 95% CI [-5.15-1.38]). Switching from Lantus® to Basaglar® could have led to significant cost savings that would range from approximately 1.77 to 23.7 million United States Dollars (USD) for the years 2018 to 2021 assuming an equal conversion ratio. However, those cost savings might not be realized if the switching to Basaglar® required higher daily insulin units, and the difference in the public tender acquisition price between Lantus® and Basaglar® is less than 15%. Conclusion: Basaglar® and potentially other biosimilar insulin glargine products can lead to significant cost savings without compromising the quality of care. However, their acquisition prices should be discounted.

Effectiveness, safety and treatment adherence of biosimilar follow-on insulin in diabetes management.

AIM: To assess the change in HbA1c after initiation of biosimilar follow-on insulin (Basaglar) or reference insulin (Lantus) among patients with type 2 diabetes. We also compared treatment adherence, safety events and costs at 1 year after initiation of insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using claims data from a large US health plan during 2016-2020, we identified adults with type 2 diabetes who initiated either Basaglar or Lantus. Generalized linear regression modelling assessed the differences in outcomes between the two groups. A 0.4% margin was used to determine non-inferiority for HbA1c. RESULTS: The study included 1136 Basaglar users and 6304 Lantus users. Both Lantus and Basaglar groups showed more than 1% reduction in HbA1c over 6 months and over 12 months. Reduction in HbA1c with Basaglar was similar (non-inferior) to that with Lantus, with an adjusted difference of Basaglar to Lantus of 0.14% (95% CI -0.02 to 0.30) over 6 months and 0.17% (95% CI 0.02 to 0.32) over 12 months. Rates of adverse events were similar for both hypoglycaemia and vascular events. The Basaglar group showed higher adherence in terms of proportion of days covered (adjusted difference 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08). Medical costs were similar, but the cost of Basaglar was lower (adjusted mean cost difference -$462, 95% CI -$556 to -$363) after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, Basaglar provided similar glycaemic control compared with Lantus, had a similar safety profile and lower drug costs, and showed more favourable adherence.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: Clinical differences between degludec U100 (Deg-100) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) were unknown. AIM: To indirectly compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness between Deg-100 and Gla-300 in T1D adults via systematic review. METHOD: Medline, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched (October 2021). Randomized controlled trials comparing Deg-100 or Gla-300 vs. glargine U100 in T1D adults (follow-up ≥ 12 weeks) were selected and analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted over a 1-year time horizon from societal perspectives. RESULTS: Nine trials were included. Efficacy analysis suggested that Deg-100 was non-inferior to Gla-300 in reducing HbA1c (MD 0.03 [95% CI - 0.09 to 0.15]; P = 0.60), FPG (MD - 1.12 [- 2.19 to - 0.04]; P = 0.04), and pre-breakfast SMBG (MD - 0.71 [- 1.46 to 0.03]; P = 0.06). Safety analysis suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have lower rates of both severe (HR 0.44 [0.25-0.78]; P = 0.005) and nocturnal severe (HR 0.19 [0.08-0.44]; P < 0.001) hypoglycemia, with lower total (MD - 0.07 [- 0.13 to - 0.01]; P = 0.02) and basal (MD - 0.08 [- 0.12 to - 0.04]; P < 0.001) insulin doses compared with Gla-300. No significant differences were observed for other hypoglycemia outcomes, adverse events, serious adverse events, bolus insulin dose, and body weight. The CEA showed that Deg-100 appeared to be a dominant treatment in Japan (+ 0.0283 QALYs, ¥26,266 [$228] per patient) and the United States (+ 0.0267 QALYs, $986 per patient). CONCLUSION: Low-certainty indirect evidence suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have a favorable reduction in rates of severe hypoglycemia and more cost-effective compared with Gla-300 in T1D adults.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Expanding access to newer medicines for people with type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: a cost-effectiveness and price target analysis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), access to newer antidiabetic drugs (eg, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists, and insulin analogues) could reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications. We aimed to estimate price targets to pursue in negotiations for inclusion in national formularies given the addition of these novel agents to WHO's Essential Medicines List. METHODS: We incorporated individual-level, nationally representative survey data (2006-18) from 23 678 people with diabetes in 67 LMICs into a microsimulation of cardiovascular events, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, vision loss, pressure sensation loss, hypoglycaemia requiring medical attention, and drug-specific side-effects. We estimated price targets for incremental costs of switching to newer treatments to achieve cost-effectiveness (ie, <3-times gross domestic product per disability-adjusted life-year averted) or to achieve net cost-savings when including costs of averted complications. We compared switching to SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in place of sulfonylureas, or insulin analogues in place of human insulin, and also compared a glycaemia-agnostic pathways of adding SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing therapies for people with heart disease, heart failure, or kidney disease. FINDINGS: To achieve cost-effectiveness, SGLT2 inhibitors would need to have a median price of $224 per person per year (a 17·4% cost reduction; IQR $138-359, population-weighted across countries; mean price $257); GLP-1 receptor agonists $208 per person per year (98·3% reduction; $129-488; $240); and glargine insulin $20 per vial (31·0% reduction; $16-42; $28). To achieve net cost-savings, price targets would need to reduce by a further $9-10 to a median cost for SGLT2 inhibitors of $214 (21·4% reduction; $148-316; $245) and for GLP-1 receptor agonists to $199 per person per year (98·4% reduction; $138-294; $228); but insulin glargine remained around $20 per vial (32·4% reduction; $15-37; $26). Using SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in a glycaemia-agnostic pathway produced a 92% reduction (SGLT2 inhibitors) and 72% reduction (GLP-1 receptor agonists) in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. INTERPRETATION: Among novel agents, SGLT2 inhibitors hold particular promise for reducing complications of diabetes and meeting common price targets, particularly when used among people with established cardiovascular or kidney disease. These findings are consistent with the choice to include SGLT2 inhibitors in the WHO Essential Medicines List. FUNDING: Clinton Health Access Initiative.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Using 2nd generation basal insulins in type 2 diabetes: Costs and savings in a comparative economic analysis in Italy, based on the BRIGHT study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To evaluate the economic impact of using 2nd generation basal insulin analogs, Glargine 300 Units/ml (Gla-300) vs Degludec 100 Units/ml (IDeg-100), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic analysis was conducted using findings from the BRIGHT study (the first controlled, head-to-head study comparing Gla-300 vs IDeg-100), and costs for the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS). A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) and a budget impact analysis (BIA) were conducted. Only pharmacological costs were included in the analysis. The CMA estimated patient treatment costs at 24 weeks and 1 year; the BIA assessed the economic impact of treating the overall Italian population of T2D insulin-naïve patients, who initiated insulin treatment during the period September 2017-August 2018 (N = 55 318). In the BIA, four different scenarios were compared: i) all patients receive IDeg-100 (Scenario A); ii) 61% of patients receive Gla-300, 39% IDeg-100 (Scenario B); iii) 80% of patients receive Gla-300, 20% IDeg-100 (Scenario C); iv) all patients treated with Gla-300 (Scenario D). The average treatment costs per patient were lower with Gla-300 vs IDeg-100 (at 24 weeks: €129 vs €161; at 1 year: €324 vs €409, respectively). Results of the BIA showed that comparing Scenario D vs Scenario A, total savings would amount to €1.76 million at 24 weeks, €4.73 million at 1 year, €5.53 million at 2 years. CONCLUSION: A larger use of Gla-300 vs IDeg-100 for the treatment of T2D patients would lead to a relevant reduction of therapy costs in Italy.

Real-World Budget Impact of the Adoption of Insulin Glargine Biosimilars in Primary Care in England (2015-2018).

BACKGROUND: Lantus, the reference insulin glargine used for the treatment of diabetes, lost its patent protection in 2014, opening the market to biosimilar competitors. OBJECTIVE: First, to analyze the adoption rates of insulin glargine biosimilars in primary care in England and estimate the savings realized and missed, since an insulin glargine biosimilar was first used, and second, to assess potential variations in adoption rates across Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data sets capturing information on all insulin glargine items prescribed by all general practitioners up to December 2018 were used. Total costs of insulin glargine and uptake rates of biosimilars were calculated. The real-world budget impact was estimated assuming the cost of reference insulin glargine for all items and comparing the total costs in this scenario with the total costs in the real world. The missed savings were estimated assuming the cost of biosimilars for all insulin glargine items. Choropleth maps were generated to assess potential variations in uptake across CCGs. RESULTS: Insulin glargine biosimilars generated savings of £900,000 between October 2015 (time of first prescription) and December 2018. The missed savings amounted to £25.6 million in this period, indicating that only 3.42% of the potential savings were achieved. The analyses demonstrated a large level of variation in the uptake of insulin glargine biosimilars across CCGs, with market shares ranging from 0 to 53.3% (December 2018). CONCLUSIONS: These results may encourage decision makers in England to promote the use of best-value treatments in primary care and to reevaluate variation across CCGs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec 200 units/mL (degludec) versus insulin glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) from a Dutch societal perspective. METHODS: A previously published model estimated costs [2018 euros (EUR)] and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec compared with glargine U300 over a 1-year time horizon. The model captured hypoglycaemia rates and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by CONCLUDE (NCT03078478), a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Treatment with degludec was associated with mean annual cost savings (EUR 24.71 per patient) relative to glargine U300, driven by a lower basal insulin dose and lower severe hypoglycaemia rate with degludec compared with glargine U300. Lower rates of non-severe nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+ 0.0045 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U300. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This short-term analysis, informed by the latest clinical trial evidence, demonstrated that degludec was a cost-effective treatment option relative to glargine U300. As such, our modelling analysis suggests that degludec would represent an efficient use of Dutch public healthcare resources in this patient population.

Real-World Evaluation of Dosing in Patients Converted From Insulin Glargine (Lantus) to Insulin Glargine (Basaglar).

Background: Basaglar, insulin glargine (BGlar; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), a follow-on biologic, was developed after the patent for Lantus, insulin glargine (LGlar; Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) expired. Objective: To compare the dosing and hemoglobin A1C (A1C)-lowering effects of BGlar compared with LGlar in a real-world setting. Methods: Adult patients, at 5 clinics, with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were converted from LGlar to BGlar were included in this retrospective observational study. The primary outcome compared mean basal insulin dose (U/d) from the date of conversion to 6 months. Basal insulin and total daily insulin doses were also compared from baseline to 3- and 12-months postconversion, as also change in A1C, body weight, and estimated monthly acquisition costs of basal insulin. Results: Of the 225 patients included, 56% were male, and 81% had T2DM. The mean conversion dose (U/d) of LGlar was 46.3 ± 32.7. There was no significant difference in the mean BGlar dose (U/d) at 6 months (45.9 ± 33.5; P = 0.52), nor was there a statistical difference at 3 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in change in A1C at any time point. The estimated monthly acquisition cost of BGlar was significantly less than that for LGlar at conversion ($286 vs $341, P < 0.001) and 6 months ($290 vs $351, P < 0.001) respectively. Conclusion/Relevance: The results of this retrospective study suggest that BGlar resulted in similar glycemic outcomes compared with LGlar in a real-world setting and may be a preferable option in a value-based health care environment.