Quality of Life of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Using Insulin Analog Glargine Compared with NPH Insulin: A Systematic Review and Policy Implications.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin analog glargine (GLA) has been available as one of the therapeutic options for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to enhance glycemic control. Studies have shown that a decrease in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes improves the quality of life (QoL) of diabetic patients. However, there are appreciable acquisition cost differences between different insulins. Consequently, there is a need to assess their impact on QoL to provide future guidance to health authorities. METHOD: A systematic review of multiple databases including Medline, LILACS, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases with several combinations of agreed terms involving randomized controlled trials and cohorts, as well as manual searches and gray literature, was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was a change in QoL. The quality of the studies and the risk of bias was also assessed. RESULTS: Eight studies were eventually included in the systematic review out of 634 publications. Eight different QoL instruments were used (two generic, two mixed, and four specific), in which the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was the most used. The systematic review did not consistently show any significant difference overall in QoL scores, whether as part of subsets or combined into a single score, with the use of GLA versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Only in patient satisfaction measured by DTSQ was a better result consistently seen with GLA versus NPH insulin, but not using the Well-being Inquiry for Diabetics (WED) scale. However, none of the cohort studies scored a maximum on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality, and they generally were of moderate quality with bias in the studies. CONCLUSION: There was no consistent difference in QoL or patient-reported outcomes when the findings from the eight studies were collated. In view of this, we believe the current price differential between GLA and NPH insulin in Brazil cannot be justified by these findings.

Budget Impact of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues: The Case in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes (T1D) treatment have been available on the Brazilian market since 2002. However, the population cannot access the analogues through the public health system. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental budget impact of long-acting insulin analogues coverage for T1D patients in the Brazilian public health system compared to NPH insulin. METHODS: We performed a budget impact analysis of a five-year period. The eligible population was projected using epidemiological data from the International Diabetes Federation estimates for patients between 0-14 and 20-79 years old. The prevalence of T1D was estimated in children, and the same proportion was applied to the 15-19-year-old group due to a gap in epidemiological information. We considered 4,944 new cases per year and a 34.61/100,000 inhabitants mortality rate. Market share for long-acting insulin analogues was assumed as 20% in the first year, reaching 40% in the fifth year. The mean daily dose was taken from clinical trials. We calculated the bargaining power of the Ministry of Health by dividing the price paid for human insulin in the last purchase by the average regulated price. We performed univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental budget impact of long-acting insulin analogues was US$ 28.6 million in the first year, and reached US$ 58.7 million in the fifth year. The total incremental budget impact was US$ 217.9 million over the five-year period. The sensitivity analysis showed that the percentage of T1D among diabetic adults and the insulin analogue price were the main factors that affected the budget impact. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of the first year of long-acting insulin analogue coverage would correspond to 0.03% of total public health expenditure. The main advantage of this study is that it identifies potential bargaining power because it features more realistic profiles of resource usage, once centralized purchasing is established as an economically sustainable strategy. Clinical guidelines restricting the use of insulin analogues would make the decision towards insulin analogue coverage more affordable.

The study of once- and twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sitagliptin and metformin-The Sit2Mix trial.

AIMS: Investigate efficacy and tolerability of intensifying diabetes treatment with once- or twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) added to sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on sitagliptin. METHODS: Open-label, three-arm, 24-week trial; 582 insulin-naïve patients were randomized to twice-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp BID+Sit), once-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp QD+Sit) or twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin (BIAsp BID), all with metformin. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, HbA1c reduction (%) was superior with BIAsp BID+Sit vs. BIAsp QD+Sit (BIAsp BID+Sit minus BIAsp QD+Sit difference: -0.36 [95% CI -0.54; -0.17], P<0.001) and BIAsp BID (BIAsp BID minus BIAsp BID+Sit difference: 0.24 [0.06; 0.43], P=0.01). Observed final HbA1c values were 6.9%, 7.2% and 7.1% (baseline 8.4%), and 59.8%, 46.5% and 49.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0%, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemia was lower with BIAsp QD+Sit vs. BIAsp BID (P=0.015); rate: 1.17 (BIAsp QD+Sit), 1.50 (BIAsp BID+Sit) and 2.24 (BIAsp BID) episodes/patient-year. Difference in bodyweight change favoured BIAsp QD+Sit vs. both BID groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding BIAsp 30 to patients with T2D poorly controlled with sitagliptin and metformin is efficacious and well tolerated; however, while BIAsp BID+Sit showed superior glycaemic control, BIAsp QD+Sit had a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and showed no weight gain.

Insulin glargine in a Brazilian state: should the government disinvest? An assessment based on a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The costs of the insulin analogue (insulin glargine) have been growing appreciably in the State of Minas Gerais in Brazil, averaging 291% per year in recent years. This growth has been driven by an increasing number of successful law suits and a 536% price difference between insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. One potential way to address this is to undertake a systematic review assessing the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine analogue compared with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and, as a result, provide published data to support future recommended activities by the State of Minas Gerais. These could include maintaining it on the list of the Public Health System (SUS) provided there is a price reduction. Alternatively, the review could provide potential arguments to defend against future law suits should the authorities decide to delist insulin glargine. METHODS: A systematic review of published studies researching the effectiveness of insulin glargine in patients with T1DM between January 1970 and July 2009 in MEDLINE (PubMed), the Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health Sciences Information, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Databases and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Inclusion criteria included insulin glargine on its own or combined with other insulin formulations. Only randomised controlled clinical trials were included. Initially, the titles of all studies were assessed by two independent reviewers before being potentially discarded, with the quality of papers assessed using a modified Jadad scale. The outcome measures included blood levels of glycated haemoglobin, episodes of hypoglycaemia, adverse effects and the reduction of microvascular and macrovascular end-organ complications of T1DM. RESULTS: Out of 803 studies found in the selected databases, only eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were of poor methodological quality or had a high risk of bias, with a mean score of 2.125 on the Jadad scale. No study could be classified as double-blind, and only one study documented the increased efficacy of insulin glargine in relation to both glycaemic control and hypoglycaemic episodes. Typically, there was no significant difference between insulin glargine and NPH insulins. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed no therapeutic benefit of insulin glargine over other insulin formulations studied when analysing together glycaemic control and the frequency and severity of hypoglycaemia. We therefore recommend to the State Authority to delist insulin glargine or renegotiate a price reduction with the manufacturer. This systematic review provides support for this decision as well as documentation to combat potential law suits if discussions are unsatisfactory.