Efficacy and Safety of Commonly Used Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Diabetic Ketoacidosis: A Bayesian Indirect Treatment Comparison.

PURPOSE: Insulin analogues (IAs) are the mainstay for the management of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). However, the relative efficacy of newer IAs is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and safety of IAs for the management of DKA using an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-, rapid-, and long-acting IAs in patients with DKA. The primary outcomes of interest were time taken to normalize DKA and time taken to normalize blood glucose levels. The secondary outcomes of interest were the amount of insulin needed to normalize DKA, the length of hospital stay, and the number of hypoglycemic events in the intervention and comparator groups. Bayesian ITC was performed by using the gemtc package in the R program. Continuous outcomes are reported as mean difference (MD), and binary outcomes are reported as odds ratios (ORs), with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included RCTs. FINDINGS: Ten RCTs randomizing 435 participants to treatment were included in this ITC. A total of 5 interventions (lispro, glargine with regular insulin [RI], glulisine, aspart, and regular insulin) were compared for both safety and efficacy outcomes in DKA. Glargine co-administered with regular insulin showed superiority for clinical outcomes compared with regular insulin: consuming less time (MD, -3.1 h; 95% CrI, -7.9 to 1.8), amount of insulin required (MD, -32 U; 95% CrI, 83.0 to 18.0), and the length of hospitalization (MD, -0.82 day; 95% CrI, -2.7 to 1.0) to normalize DKA. However, these results were not statistically significant. Insulin aspart had fewer reports of hypoglycemic events (OR, 1.7; 95% CrI, 0.34 to 9.3) than regular insulin. IMPLICATIONS: Newer IAs were found to be equally effective and safe as regular insulin in the treatment of DKA. Thus, administering these IAs can be considered a safe and cost-effective alternative for DKA management in non-ICU settings. Cost-effective analysis of the newer IAs is needed because these agents are expensive compared with regular insulin.

Reducing the Burden of Diabetes Treatment: A Review of Low-cost Oral Hypoglycemic Medications.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of individuals diagnosed with diabetes are low/middle income and may have access to only three of the 11 oral hypoglycemic medications (OHMs) due to cost: metformin intermediate release (IR) or extended release (ER), sulfonylureas (glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide), and pioglitazone. Sulfonylureas and pioglitazone have had significant controversy related to potential adverse events, but it remains unclear whether these negative outcomes are class, drug, or dose-related. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a narrative review of low-cost OHMs. METHODS: We evaluated the maximum recommended (MAX) compared to the most effective (EFF) daily dose, time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels, and adverse events of low-cost oral hypoglycemic medications. RESULTS: We found that the MAX was often greater than the EFF: metformin IR/ER (MAX: 2,550/2,000 mg, EFF: 1,500-2,000/1,500-2,000 mg), glipizide IR/ER (MAX: 40/20 mg, EFF: 20/5 mg), glyburide (MAX: 20 mg, EFF: 2.5-5.0 mg), pioglitazone (MAX: 45 mg, EFF: 45 mg). Time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels occurred at weeks 12-20 (sulfonylureas), 25-39 (metformin), and 25 (pioglitazone). Glimepiride was not associated with weight gain, hypoglycemia, or negative cardiovascular events relative to other sulfonylureas. Cardiovascular event rates did not increase with lower glyburide doses (p<0.05). Glimepiride and pioglitazone have been successfully used in renal impairment. CONCLUSION: Metformin, glimepiride, and pioglitazone are safe and efficacious OHMs. Prescribing at the EFF rather than the MAX may avoid negative dose-related outcomes. OHMs should be evaluated as individual drugs, not generalized as a class, due to different dosing and adverse-event profiles; Glimepiride is the preferred sulfonylurea since it is not associated with the adverse events as others in its class.

Why do people appeal to the courts for access to medication? The case of insulin analogues in Bahia (Brazil). / Por que as pessoas recorrem ao Judiciário para obter o acesso aos medicamentos? O caso das insulinas análogas na Bahia.

Insulin analogues have been the object of controversy concerning their therapeutic superiority to human insulin. Perhaps, in part, because of this, insulin analogues are frequently the subject of lawsuits. The judicialization of health has been well studied, but little is known about the reasons that lead people to go to the courts to obtain access to medicines on SUS (the Brazilian National Health System). Therefore, this study aims to analyze the reasons that led people to appeal to the courts to obtain access to insulins analogues in the state of Bahia. This is a case study based on documentary sources. Between 2010 and 2013, 149 lawsuits requiring insulin analogues from the state health authority were filed in the courts. The main reasons for the appeal to the courts, cited in the cases, can be grouped into four categories: the users' lack of finances, an essential need for insulin analogue, the duty and obligation of the state to provide them and bureaucratic difficulties. People turned to the courts, mostly, because doctors who accompany their patients have shifted from the official policy, believing that insulin analogues are better than human insulins. They also recognize that the public health system does not distribute them nor does it give doctors the wherewithal to purchase them with their own resources.

Por que as pessoas recorrem ao Judiciário para obter o acesso aos medicamentos? O caso das insulinas análogas na Bahia / Why do people appeal to the courts for access to medication? The case of insulin analogues in Bahia (Brazil)

Resumo As insulinas análogas são alvo de controvérsias quanto à sua superioridade terapêutica em relação às humanas. Talvez, em parte, devido a isso, são objetos frequentes de ações judicias. A judicialização da saúde tem sido muito estudada, mas pouco se sabe sobre os motivos que levam as pessoas a recorrerem ao Judiciário para obter acesso a medicamentos no SUS. Sendo assim, o presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar os motivos que levaram as pessoas a recorrerem ao Judiciário para obter o acesso às insulinas análogas no estado da Bahia, tratando-se de um estudo de caso apoiado em fonte documental. Foram analisadas, entre 2010 e 2013, 149 ações judiciais que solicitaram o fornecimento de análogas pela secretaria estadual da saúde. Os motivos do recurso à Justiça, citados nos autos, podem ser classificados em: hipossuficiência financeira do usuário, necessidade de insulina análoga, dever e obrigação do Estado em fornecê-las e dificuldades burocráticas. Majoritariamente, as pessoas recorreram ao Judiciário, porque os médicos que as acompanham, divergindo das políticas oficiais, acreditam que as insulinas análogas são melhores do que às humanas e o sistema público de saúde não as dispensa, não dispondo elas de condições financeiras que lhes permitam adquiri-las com recursos próprios.

Abstract Insulin analogues have been the object of controversy concerning their therapeutic superiority to human insulin. Perhaps, in part, because of this, insulin analogues are frequently the subject of lawsuits. The judicialization of health has been well studied, but little is known about the reasons that lead people to go to the courts to obtain access to medicines on SUS (the Brazilian National Health System). Therefore, this study aims to analyze the reasons that led people to appeal to the courts to obtain access to insulins analogues in the state of Bahia. This is a case study based on documentary sources. Between 2010 and 2013, 149 lawsuits requiring insulin analogues from the state health authority were filed in the courts. The main reasons for the appeal to the courts, cited in the cases, can be grouped into four categories: the users’ lack of finances, an essential need for insulin analogue, the duty and obligation of the state to provide them and bureaucratic difficulties. People turned to the courts, mostly, because doctors who accompany their patients have shifted from the official policy, believing that insulin analogues are better than human insulins. They also recognize that the public health system does not distribute them nor does it give doctors the wherewithal to purchase them with their own resources.

Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Insulin Analogues in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Insulin analogues have a pharmacokinetic advantage over human insulin and are increasingly used to treat diabetes mellitus. A summary of their cost effectiveness versus other available treatments was required. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the published cost-effectiveness studies of insulin analogues for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: We searched major databases and health technology assessment agency reports for economic evaluation studies published up until 30 September 2015. Two reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the quality of the data using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. RESULTS: Seven of the included studies assessed short-acting insulin analogues, 12 assessed biphasic insulin analogues, 30 assessed long-acting insulin analogues and one assessed a combination of short- and long-acting insulin analogues. Only 17 studies involved patients with T1DM, all were modelling studies and 12 were conducted in Canada. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for short-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US435,913 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the ICERs for biphasic insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US57,636 per QALY gained and the ICERs for long-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US599,863 per QALY gained. A total of 15 studies met all the CHEERS guidelines reporting quality criteria. Only 26 % of the studies assessed heterogeneity in their analyses. CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that insulin analogues are cost effective for T1DM; however, evidence for their use in T2DM is not convincing. Additional evidence regarding compliance and efficacy is required to support the broader use of long-acting and biphasic insulin analogues in T2DM. The value of insulin analogues depends strongly on reductions in hypoglycaemia event rates and its efficacy in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).

Cost Effectiveness of IDegLira vs. Alternative Basal Insulin Intensification Therapies in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in a UK Setting.

OBJECTIVES: Once-daily insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) is the first basal insulin and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist combined in one delivery device. Our aim was to investigate the cost effectiveness of IDegLira vs. basal insulin intensification therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on basal insulin (glycosylated haemoglobin; HbA1c >7.5 %; 58 mmol/mol) in a UK setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline cohort and clinical parameters were sourced from a pooled analysis comparing IDegLira with basal insulin plus liraglutide and basal-bolus therapy, and from the DUAL™ V trial comparing IDegLira with up-titrated insulin glargine (IGlar; Lantus(®)). The CORE Diabetes Model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes with IDegLira vs. these comparators from a UK healthcare payers' perspective. All costs were expressed in 2015 GBP. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of key parameters in the model. RESULTS: Treatment with IDegLira resulted in mean increases in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.12, 0.41 and 0.24 vs. basal insulin plus liraglutide, basal-bolus therapy and up-titrated IGlar, respectively. IDegLira was associated with lower costs of £971 and £1698 vs. basal insulin plus liraglutide and basal-bolus therapy, respectively, and increased costs of £1441 vs. up-titrated IGlar. IDegLira was dominant, i.e., both more effective and less costly vs. basal insulin plus liraglutide and basal-bolus therapy, and highly cost effective vs. up-titrated IGlar with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6090/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily IDegLira may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for prescribers, to improve glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled on basal insulin without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain, and without adding to their injection burden.

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US.

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum. Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources. Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments. Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs. Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.

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.

Biosimilar Insulin and Costs: What Can We Expect?

The costs for insulin treatment are high, and the steady increase in the number of patients with diabetes on insulin presents a true challenge to health care systems. Therefore, all measures to lower these costs are welcomed by patients, physicians, and health care providers. The market introduction of biosimilar insulins presents an option to lower treatment costs as biosimilars are usually offered at a lower price than the originator product. However, the assumption that a drastic reduction in insulin prices will take place, as was observed with many generic drugs, is most probably not realistic. As the first biosimilar insulin has now been approved in the EU, this commentary discusses a number of aspects that are relevant when it comes to the potential cost reduction we will see with the use of biosimilar insulins.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine, or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all ± oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita. RESULTS: Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, -0.68 in India, -0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, -0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all ± OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.