Availability, price and affordability of insulin, delivery devices and self-monitoring blood glucose devices in Indonesia.

Insulin is essential for the survival of people with type 1 diabetes and for better management of people with type 2 diabetes. People with diabetes using insulin also require self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) devices (e.g., meters, strips, continuous monitoring systems) for day-to-day management. It is essential to ensure that insulin and these devices are available and affordable. This study aimed to evaluate the availability, price, and affordability of insulin and SMBG devices in Indonesia using an adaptation of the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) price survey. A total of 34 public health facilities (hospitals, primary healthcare centres/Puskesmas) and 37 private pharmacies were sampled. Information from three major online marketplaces was also collected. Prices were expressed as median patient prices (US$). Affordability was defined as the number of days' wages needed by the lowest paid unskilled government worker (LPGW) to purchase 30 days' supply of insulin, delivery devices and SMBGs. Availability of analogue insulin was slightly higher in public facilities (63.6%) than in the private sector (43.2%), with no human insulin available in both sectors. Conversely, better availability was observed in private facilities for SMBG devices as public sector facilities did not supply devices for self-testing. Median prices for 1000IU analogues varied between the public sector (US$ 5.26) and the private sector (US$11.24). The highest median price of analogues was seen in online marketplaces (US$ 28.65). The least costly median price of SMBG devices were observed in online platforms (meter: US$ 18.37, test strip: US$ 0.27, lancet: US$ 0.02). A low-income person had to work 2-3 days to buy 1000IU of analogues. It required 5-7 days' and 4-5 day's wages to purchase a meter and a month's supply of test strips, respectively. The availability and affordability of insulin and SMBG devices remain important issues in Indonesia requiring holistic approaches for further improvement.

Development of a target product profile for new glucose self-monitoring technologies for use in low- and middle-income countries.

AIMS: Most glucose self-monitoring devices have been developed with high-income countries in mind. We developed a target product profile (TPP) for new glucose self-monitoring technologies for users in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A draft TPP including 39 characteristics was developed by an expert group including diabetes specialists, device specialists, and people with diabetes, incorporating findings from qualitative research in LMICs. Each characteristic had minimal and optimal requirements for two use cases, frequent and sporadic use. Characteristics requiring refinement were identified via online survey. Characteristics with agreement level <90% for any requirement were reviewed by the expert group and amended as appropriate. RESULTS: One characteristic (shelf life) had agreement <75% (both requirements for both use cases). Characteristics with agreement ≥75% and <90% for the frequent use case included infrastructure level, measurement cycle, duration of use before replacement, interchangeability, and calibration (both requirements), and activity log and price per month to end payer (minimal requirement). Intended use (both requirements), accuracy, and price per month to end payer (optimal requirement) had agreement ≥75% and <90% for the sporadic use case. CONCLUSIONS: This TPP will inform developers on requirements for glucose self-monitoring technologies for LMICs, and support decision-makers in evaluating existing devices.

User requirements for non-invasive and minimally invasive glucose self-monitoring devices in low-income and middle-income countries: a qualitative study in Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Peru and Tanzania.

AIMS: Development of non-invasive and minimally invasive glucose monitoring devices (NI-MI-GMDs) generally takes place in high-income countries (HICs), with HIC's attributes guiding product characteristics. However, people living with diabetes (PLWD) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) encounter different challenges to those in HICs. This study aimed to define requirements for NI-MI-GMDs in LMICs to inform a target product profile to guide development and selection of suitable devices. METHODS: This was a multiple-methods, exploratory, qualitative study conducted in Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Peru and Tanzania. Interviews and group discussions/activities were conducted with healthcare workers (HCWs), adults living with type 1 (PLWD1) or type 2 diabetes (PLWD2), adolescents living with diabetes and caregivers. RESULTS: Among 383 informants (90 HCW, 100 PLWD1, 92 PLWD2, 24 adolescents, 77 caregivers), a range of differing user requirements were reported, including preferences for area of glucose measurement, device attachment, data display, alert type and temperature sensitivity. Willingness to pay varied across countries; common requirements included ease of use, a range of guiding functions, the possibility to attach to a body part of choice and a cost lower than or equal to current glucose self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Ease-of-use and affordability were consistently prioritised, with broad functionality required for alarms, measurements and attachment possibilities. Perspectives of PLWD are crucial in developing a target product profile to inform characteristics of NI-MI-GMDs in LMICs. Stakeholders must consider these requirements to guide development and selection of NI-MI-GMDs at country level, so that devices are fit for purpose and encourage frequent glucose monitoring among PLWD in these settings.

Management of type 1 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: Comparative health system assessments in Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Peru and Tanzania.

AIMS: To describe and compare the health system responses for type 1 diabetes in Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Peru and Tanzania. METHODS: The Rapid Assessment Protocol for Insulin Access, a multi-level assessment of the health system, was implemented in Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Peru and Tanzania using document reviews, site visits and interviews to assess the delivery of care and access to insulin. RESULTS: Despite the existence of noncommunicable or diabetes strategies and Universal Health Coverage policies including diabetes-related supplies, this has not necessarily translated into access to insulin or diabetes care for all. Insulin and related supplies were often unavailable and unaffordable. Across the four countries test strips and insulin, when paid for by the individual, represented respectively 48-82% and 25-36% of total costs. Care was mainly delivered at tertiary-level hospitals by specialists. Only Kyrgyzstan had data collection systems integrated into the Ministry of Health structure. In addition, issues with healthcare worker training and education and empowerment of people with diabetes were present in these health systems. CONCLUSIONS: People with type 1 diabetes in these countries face different barriers, including the cost of insulin and care. Given the renewed attention to diabetes on the global health agenda tailored health system responses for type 1 diabetes are needed. Insulin should be prioritized as it is the foundation of type 1 diabetes care, but other elements of care and support need to be fostered by different actors.