Dataset Information

Insulin glargine compared to NPH among insulin-naive, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We compared basal regimens of glargine or NPH among insulin-naïve, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients who were sub-optimally controlled on maximally tolerated doses of combination oral agents.

Methods

Eighty-five subjects were randomized to 26 weeks of open-label, add-on therapy using single doses of bedtime NPH, bedtime glargine, or morning glargine; initially through an 8-week dose titration phase, followed by a 16-week maintenance phase during which insulin doses were adjusted only to avoid symptomatic hypoglycemia.

Results

All three groups were comparable at baseline (mean HbA(1c) 9.3 ± 1.4%), and improved their HbA(1c) (to 7.8 ± 1.3%), fasting, and pre-supper glucose readings, with no significant between-group differences. Weight gain was greater with either glargine regimen (+3.1 ± 4.1 kg and +1.7 ± 4.2 kg) compared to NPH (-0.2 ± 3.9 kg), despite comparable total insulin doses. Pre-supper hypoglycemia occurred more frequently with morning glargine, but nocturnal hypoglycemia and improvements in treatment satisfaction did not differ among groups.

Conclusions

Among inner city ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients in the U.S., we found no differences in basal glycemic control or nocturnal hypoglycemia between glargine and NPH, although glargine precipitated greater weight gain.

SUBMITTER: Hsia SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3055948 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Insulin glargine compared to NPH among insulin-naïve, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients.

Hsia Stanley H SH

Diabetes research and clinical practice 20101213 3

<h4>Aims</h4>We compared basal regimens of glargine or NPH among insulin-naïve, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients who were sub-optimally controlled on maximally tolerated doses of combination oral agents.<h4>Methods</h4>Eighty-five subjects were randomized to 26 weeks of open-label, add-on therapy using single doses of bedtime NPH, bedtime glargine, or morning glargine; initially through an 8-week dose titration phase, followed by a 16-week maintenance phase during which ...[more]

PMID: 21146881

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundCompared to conventional human basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn; NPH) the long-acting analogue insulin glargine (GLA) is associated with a number of advantages regarding metabolic control, hypoglycaemic events and convenience. However, the unit costs of GLA exceed those of NPH. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence comparing GLA with NPH in basal-bolus treatment (intensified conventional therapy; ICT) of type 1 diabetes in order to facilitate informed decision making in clinical practice and health policy.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed for the period of January 1st 2000 to December 1st 2009 via Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, the databases GMS (German Medical Science) and DAHTA (Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment), and the abstract books of relevant international scientific congresses. Retrieved studies were reviewed based on predefined inclusion criteria, methodological and quality aspects. In order to allow comparison between studies, currencies were converted using purchasing power parities (PPP).ResultsA total of 7 health economic evaluations from 4 different countries fulfilled the predefined criteria: 6 modelling studies, all of them cost-utility analyses, and one claims data analysis with a cost-minimisation design. One cost-utility analysis showed dominance of GLA over NPH. The other 5 cost-utility analyses resulted in additional costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for GLA, ranging from € 3,859 to € 57,002 (incremental cost effectiveness ratio; ICER). The cost-minimisation analysis revealed lower annual diabetes-specific costs in favour of NPH from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).ConclusionsThe incremental cost-utility-ratios (ICER) show favourable values for GLA with considerable variation. If a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 30,000 (National Institute of Clinical Excellence, UK) is adopted, GLA is cost-effective in 4 of 6 cost utility analyses (CUA) included. Thus insulin glargine (GLA) seems to offer good value for money. Comparability between studies is limited because of methodological and country specific aspects. The results of this review underline that evaluation of insulin therapy should use evidence on efficacy of therapy from information synthesis. The concept of relating utility decrements to fear of hypoglycaemia is a plausible approach but needs further investigation. Also future evaluations of basal-bolus insulin therapy should include costs of consumables such as needles for insulin injection as well as test strips and lancets for blood glucose self monitoring.