Costs and Outcomes Comparison of Diabetes Technology Usage Among People With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Does initiation of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or insulin pump lower health care utilization and/or costs? METHODS: Distinct cohorts of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) using a blood glucose monitor (BGM), CGM, pump, or CGM with pump were identified from a large claims database. Patients ≥40 years old with 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after the device start date qualified for the study. Outcomes included one-year medical utilization and costs (minus device) for events such as hospitalizations and office visits. Generalized linear models were fitted, controlling for numerous baseline covariates. The Holm method corrected for the multiplicity of hypotheses tested. RESULTS: Of the 8235 total patients, the BGM control group was the largest, had the lowest percentage of patients with T1D, and was significantly different from the device groups in most baseline categories. Formally, only two comparisons were statistically significant: Compared with BGM, the pump cohort had greater adjusted first-year total medical and office visit costs. Other secondary outcomes such as days hospitalized, emergency department visits and labs, favored pump. Most endpoints were favorable for CGM. Results for CGM with pump generally were intermediate between CGM and pump alone. CONCLUSIONS: During a one-year follow-up, unadjusted medical costs of both CGM and pump appear lower than BGM, but multivariable modeling yielded adjusted savings only for CGM use. Economic benefits might be observable sooner for CGMs than for pumps. Generalized linear models fitted to health care utilization event rates produced favorable results for both CGM and pump.

Projected long-term outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with fast-acting insulin aspart vs conventional insulin aspart in the UK setting.

AIM: To assess the impact of faster aspart vs insulin aspart on long-term clinical outcomes and costs for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK setting. METHODS: The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs over patient lifetimes in a cohort with data on baseline characteristics from the "onset 1" trial. Treatment effects were taken from the 26-week main phase of the onset 1 trial, with costs and utilities based on literature review. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Projections indicated that faster aspart was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (by 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years) vs insulin aspart. Improved clinical outcomes resulted from fewer diabetes-related complications and a delayed time to their onset with faster aspart. Faster aspart was found to be associated with reduced costs vs insulin aspart (cost savings of £1715), resulting from diabetes-related complications avoided and reduced treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart was associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings vs insulin aspart for patients with T1DM in the UK setting.

Comparative Effectiveness of Rapid-Acting Insulins in Adults with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Although there are a variety of insulin products and new delivery modalities available, the absence of direct clinical and economic comparisons can make treatment planning and formulary decision making difficult. Direct comparisons between insulin aspart and insulin lispro from a large heterogeneous population are not available. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in clinical outcomes, medication adherence, utilization, and total health care costs between aspart and lispro and vial versus pen modalities for administering these short-acting insulin analogs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from the Humana Research Database to identify people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and Medicare or commercial insurance (with medical and pharmacy benefits) who newly initiated rapid-acting insulin between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, and were continuously enrolled during the 12-month baseline and 12-month follow-up periods. Generalized linear models were used to assess differences in costs and utilization. Logistic regression models measured the likelihood of having a hypoglycemic event, worsening diabetes complications, or a change in glycated hemoglobin (A1c). RESULTS: 8,189 patients included in the study were grouped by rapid-acting insulin product (aspart, n = 5,364, and lispro, n = 2,566) and modality (vial, n = 6,135, and pen, n = 2,054). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with a hypoglycemic event, new or worsening diabetes complications, or change in A1c, and there were no significant differences in adjusted total health care, medical and pharmacy costs, or emergency department visits between any of the product or modality comparisons. There was a significant difference in mean annual inpatient stays between lispro and aspart (adjusted mean = 2.24, 95% CI = 0.73-6.69, and adjusted mean = 2.65, 95% CI = 0.86-7.86, respectively; P < 0.001) and pen and vial cohorts (adjusted mean = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.56-4.99, and adjusted mean = 3.05, 95% CI = 1.01-9.08, respectively; P < 0.001). Adherence was similar for the lispro and aspart cohorts. Adherence was higher in the pen cohort (as measured by medication possession ratio ≥80%) compared with the vial cohort (adjusted odds ratio = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.12-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive assessment of outcomes and costs between 2 commonly used rapid-acting insulin products. Overall, there was little differentiation between products, although adherence improved significantly with pen devices. These findings may simplify decisions related to formulary options and choice of therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Racsa and Ellis are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a subsidiary of Humana, and Saverno was employed with Comprehensive Health Insights at the time of this study. Meah is an employee of, and owns stock in, Humana. The authors have no financial disclosures or potential conflicts of interest to report. All authors contributed equally to study concept and design, data interpretation, and manuscript preparation. Racsa collected the data.

Rapid Acting Insulin Use and Persistence among Elderly Type 2 Diabetes Patients Adding RAI to Oral Antidiabetes Drug Regimens.

We examined the real-world utilization and persistence of rapid acting insulin (RAI) in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes who added RAI to their drug (OAD) regimen. Insulin-naïve patients aged ≥65 years, with ≥1 OAD prescription during the baseline period, who were continuously enrolled in the US Humana Medicare Advantage insurance plan for 18 months and initiated RAI were included. Among patients with ≥2 RAI prescriptions (RAIp), persistence during the 12-month follow-up was assessed. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified factors affecting RAI use and persistence. Of 3734 patients adding RAI to their OAD regimen, 2334 (62.5%) had a RAIp during follow-up. Factors associated with RAIp included using ≤2 OADs; cognitive impairment, basal insulin use during follow-up; and higher RAI out-of-pocket costs ($36 to <$56 versus $0 to $6.30). Patients were less likely to persist with RAI when on ≤2 OADs versus ≥3 OADs and when having higher RAI out-of-pocket costs ($36 to <$56 versus $0 to $6.30) and more likely to persist when they had cognitive impairment and basal insulin use during follow-up. Real-world persistence of RAI in insulin-naïve elderly patients with type 2 diabetes was very poor when RAI was added to an OAD regimen.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in diabetes: patient populations, safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics.

The level of glycaemic control necessary to achieve optimal short-term and long-term outcomes in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) typically requires intensified insulin therapy using multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. For continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, the insulins of choice are the rapid-acting insulin analogues, insulin aspart, insulin lispro and insulin glulisine. The advantages of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion over multiple daily injections in adult and paediatric populations with T1DM include superior glycaemic control, lower insulin requirements and better health-related quality of life/patient satisfaction. An association between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and reduced hypoglycaemic risk is more consistent in children/adolescents than in adults. The use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion is widely recommended in both adult and paediatric T1DM populations but is limited in pregnant patients and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. All available rapid-acting insulin analogues are approved for use in adult, paediatric and pregnant populations. However, minimum patient age varies (insulin lispro: no minimum; insulin aspart: ≥2 years; insulin glulisine: ≥6 years) and experience in pregnancy ranges from extensive (insulin aspart, insulin lispro) to limited (insulin glulisine). Although more expensive than multiple daily injections, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion is cost-effective in selected patient groups. This comprehensive review focuses on the European situation and summarises evidence for the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, particularly when used with rapid-acting insulin analogues, in adult, paediatric and pregnant populations. The review also discusses relevant European guidelines; reviews issues that surround use of this technology; summarises the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on patients' health-related quality of life; reviews relevant pharmacoeconomic data; and discusses recent advances in pump technology, including the development of closed-loop 'artificial pancreas' systems. © 2015 The Authors. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Comparison of vials and prefilled pens of a rapid-acting insulin analog on pharmacy budgets in a long-term care setting.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate budgetary impact for skilled nursing facility converting from individual patient supply (IPS) delivery of rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) 10-mL vials or 3-mL prefilled pens to 3-mL vials. DESIGN: A budget-impact model used insulin volume purchased and assumptions of length of stay (LOS), daily RAIA dose, and delivery protocol to estimate the cost impact of using 3-mL vials. SETTING: Skilled nursing facility. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Part A patients. INTERVENTIONS: Simulations conducted using 12-month current and future scenarios. Comparisons of RAIA use for 13- and 28-day LOS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RAIA costs and savings, waste reduction. RESULTS: For patients with 13-day LOS using 20 units/day of IPS insulin, the model estimated a 70% reduction in RAIA costs and units purchased and a 95% waste reduction for the 3-mL vial compared with the 10-mL vial. The estimated costs for prefilled pen use were 58% lower than for use of 10-mL vials. The incremental savings associated with 3-mL vial use instead of prefilled pens was 28%, attributable to differences in per-unit cost of insulin in vials versus prefilled pens. Using a more conservative scenario of 28-day LOS at 20 units/day, the model estimated a 40% reduction in RAIA costs and units purchased, resulting in a 91% reduction in RAIA waste for the 3-mL vial, compared with 10-mL vial. CONCLUSION: Budget-impact analysis of conversion from RAIA 10-mL vials or 3-mL prefilled pens to 3-mL vials estimated reductions in both insulin costs and waste across multiple scenarios of varying LOS and patient daily doses for skilled nursing facility stays.

Undeniable need for ultrafast-acting insulin: the pediatric perspective.

Insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) poses a special challenge because childhood is an unsteady state with increasing weight, height, and caloric needs, leading to varying insulin requirements. The current rapid-acting insulin analogs are not as fast and short-acting as needed to meet these challenges. This review describes the unique characteristics of insulin action in youth with T1DM based on previously published euglycemic clamp studies. It also explains the rationale behind the need for ultrafast-acting insulins to advance open- and closed-loop insulin therapy for the pediatric population with diabetes. Lastly, it briefly summarizes ongoing and future projects to accelerate insulin action in youth with T1DM.

The effort required to achieve and maintain optimal glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: Insulin therapy is most effective when dosage is frequently adjusted. We sought to evaluate the effort required to maintain A1C below 7% once attained in older patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 2380 insulin dosage adjustment episodes were analyzed for their intensity and frequency. The data were divided into an "induction period" (n=608), defined as the time before subjects' A1C dropped below 7% for the first time, and a "maintenance period" (n=1772), defined as the remaining study period. The data originated from a published study and included 26 older subjects with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes treated for a year with intensive insulin therapy. To achieve therapy goals, the study team contacted the subjects once every few weeks, reviewed records and optimized the insulin dosage. RESULTS: During both the induction and maintenance periods, insulin dosage (both long-acting and fast-acting) was adjusted by more than 20%. Maintaining A1C below 7% required dosage adjustments every 2.7(±1.0) weeks, averaging 11.4% (±4.0) in 2.0 (±0.3) different components of insulin dosage (i.e., two of either long-acting or short-acting for breakfast, lunch or dinner) per contact. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable effort was required to maintain optimal A1C levels in older patients with type 2 diabetes. Since the full benefit of insulin therapy is attained only when multiple components of insulin dosage are frequently adjusted and given the growing shortage of care providers' availability, innovative approaches are needed to empower patients to safely make their own insulin adjustments.