Patient?adjusted versus health professional?adjusted insulin dosing for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ng C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6513647 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundChronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search strategyWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.Main resultsThis review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.Authors' conclusionsOur analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.
| S-EPMC6486036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of ultra‐long acting insulin compared with long‐acting insulin in patients with T1DM.
| S-EPMC6513582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and new-to-market basal insulin analogues in patients with diabetes in order to aid decision-making in a complex basal insulin market.MethodsA simple, short-term model was used to evaluate the costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar U100 over a 12-month period in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. New-to-market basal insulin analogues were evaluated in scenario analyses.ResultsIDeg is dominant (more effective and less costly) versus IGlar U100 in patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM on a basal-only therapy regimen (T2DMBOT), and is cost-effective versus IGlar U100 in patients with T2DM on a basal-bolus regimen (T2DMB/B). In T1DM, lower costs are primarily driven by lower insulin costs, as a result of a lower daily dose of IDeg. In T2DMBOT, lower overall costs with IDeg are driven by lower costs of severe hypoglycaemic events due to the significant reduction in number of events with IDeg versus IGlar U100. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are a result of the reduced incidence of hypoglycaemic events. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the results are robust. Scenario analyses versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues indicate that in patients with T1DM and T2DMBOT, IDeg is likely to be highly cost-effective versus IGlar biosimilar Abasaglar® and dominant versus IGlar U300 (Toujeo®). In T2DMB/B, IDeg is likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the accepted threshold.ConclusionIDeg is a cost-effective alternative to IGlar U100 for patients with diabetes in the UK, and it also likely to be cost-effective versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues.
| S-EPMC5380498 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8095010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Serbia.MethodsA cost-utility analysis, implementing a simple short-term model, was used to compare treatment costs and outcomes with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Cost-effectiveness was analysed in a 1-year setting, based on data from clinical trials. Costs were estimated from the healthcare payer perspective, the Serbian Health Insurance Fund (RFZO). The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsDegludec is highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100 for people with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. The ICERs are estimated at 417,586 RSD/QALY gained in T1DM, 558,811 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 1,200,141 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal-bolus therapy (T2DMB/B). All ICERs fall below the commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in Serbia (1,785,642 RSD/QALY gained). In all three patient groups, insulin costs are higher with degludec than with glargine U100, but these costs are partially offset by savings from a lower daily insulin dose in T1DM and T2DMBOT, a reduction in hypoglycaemic events in all three patient groups and reduced costs of SMBG testing in the T2DM groups with degludec versus glargine U100.ConclusionDegludec is a cost-effective alternative to glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. Degludec may particularly benefit those suffering from hypoglycaemia or where the patient would benefit from the option of flexible dosing.FundingNovo Nordisk.
| S-EPMC5984929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.MethodsA simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure.ResultsIn Bulgaria, degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM. The ICERs were estimated to be 4493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DMB/B), which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Degludec was associated with higher insulin costs in all three patient groups; however, savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 partially offset these costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DMBOT and 91.3% in T2DMB/B.ConclusionDegludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.
| S-EPMC6891960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlucose variability (GV) remains a key limiting factor in the success of diabetes management. While new technologies, for example, accurate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and connected insulin delivery devices, are now available, current treatment standards fail to leverage the wealth of information generated. Expert systems, from automated insulin delivery to advisory systems, are a key missing element to richer, more personalized, glucose management in diabetes.MethodsTwenty four subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), 15 women, 37 ± 11 years of age, hemoglobin A1c 7.2% ± 1%, total daily insulin (TDI) 46.7 ± 22.3 U, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections with carbohydrate counting, completed two randomized crossover 48-h visits at the University of Virginia, wearing Dexcom G4 CGM, and using either usual care or the UVA decision support system (DSS). DSS consisted of a combination of automated insulin titration, bolus calculation, and CHO treatment advice. During each admission, participants were exposed to a variety of meal sizes and contents and two 45-min bouts of exercise. GV and glucose control were assessed using CGM.ResultsThe use of DSS significantly reduced GV (coefficient of variation: 0.36 ± 08. vs. 0.33 ± 0.06, P = 0.045) while maintaining glycemic control (average CGM: 155.2 ± 27.1 mg/dL vs. 155.2 ± 23.2 mg/dL), by reducing hypoglycemia exposure (%<70 mg/dL: 3.8% ± 4.6% vs. 1.8% ± 2%, P = 0.018), with nonsignificant trends toward reduction of significant hyperglycemia overnight (%>250 mg/dL: 5.3% ± 9.5% vs. 1.9% ± 4.6%) and at mealtime (11.3% ± 14.8% vs. 5.8% ± 9.1%).ConclusionsA CGM/insulin informed advisory system proved to be safe and feasible in a cohort of 24 T1DM subjects. Use of the system may result in reduced GV and improved protection against hypoglycemia.
| S-EPMC6080127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Insulin degludec (degludec) is a basal insulin with an ultra-long, stable action profile and reduced pharmacodynamic variability. Seven phase 3a trials compared degludec with insulin glargine (glargine). Patient-level meta-analyses were performed to obtain a comprehensive overview of differences between the insulin preparations, possible because consistent outcome definitions were utilized. METHODS:Three categories of trials were analyzed: basal-bolus-treated type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DMB/B), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DMinsulin-naïve), and basal-bolus-treated T2DM (T2DMB/B). Regression models were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Endpoints analyzed were glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin dose and hypoglycemic rates analyzed in mutually exclusive groups: non-severe nocturnal, non-severe daytime, and severe. RESULTS:As with previous treat-to-target trials, reductions in HbA1c were similar between degludec and glargine. Reductions in FPG were significantly greater with degludec in T1DMB/B and T2DMinsulin-naïve. Total daily insulin dose was significantly lower with degludec in T1DMB/B and T2DMinsulin-naïve. Estimated hypoglycemia rate ratios for degludec/glargine were as follows for T1DMB/B, T2DMinsulin-naïve and T2DMB/B, respectively: non-severe nocturnal 0.83, 0.64, 0.75 (all P < 0.05); non-severe daytime 1.14 [not significant (ns)], 0.89 (ns), and 0.83 (P < 0.05). Rate ratios for severe events were 1.12 (ns) (T1DMB/B); 0.14 (P < 0.05) (T2DMinsulin-naïve); and not analyzed (T2DMB/B) due to too few events. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with glargine, degludec is associated with equivalent HbA1c control and significantly lower nocturnal hypoglycemia rates. In T1DMB/B and T2DMinsulin-naïve, degludec is also associated with significantly greater reductions in FPG and lower total doses of insulin versus glargine.
| S-EPMC4269648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and relates strongly to insulin resistance (IR). Lean and obese adolescents with T1DM have marked IR. Metformin improves surrogate markers of IR in T1DM, but its effect on directly measured IR and vascular health in youth with T1DM is unclear. We hypothesized that adolescents with T1DM have impaired vascular function and that metformin improves this IR and vascular dysfunction.MethodsAdolescents with T1DM and control participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the ascending (AA) and descending aorta to assess pulse wave velocity, relative area change, and maximal (WSSMAX) and time-averaged (WSSTA) wall shear stress. Participants with T1DM also underwent assessment of carotid intima-media thickness by ultrasound, brachial distensibility by DynaPulse, fat and lean mass by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, fasting laboratories after overnight glycemic control, and insulin sensitivity by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (glucose infusion rate/insulin). Adolescents with T1DM were randomized 1:1 to 3 months of 2000 mg metformin or placebo daily, after which baseline measures were repeated.ResultsForty-eight adolescents with T1DM who were 12 to 21 years of age (40% body mass index [BMI] ≥90th percentile; 56% female) and 24 nondiabetic control participants of similar age, BMI, and sex distribution were enrolled. Adolescents with T1DM demonstrated impaired aortic health compared with control participants, including elevated AA and descending aorta pulse wave velocity, reduced AA and descending aorta relative area change, and elevated AA and descending aorta WSSMAX and WSSTA. Adolescents with T1DM in the metformin versus placebo group had improved glucose infusion rate/insulin (12.2±3.2 [mg·kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL versus -2.4±3.6 [mg·kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL, P=0.005; 18.6±4.8 [mg·lean kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL versus -3.4±5.6 [mg·lean kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL, P=0.005) and reduced weight (-0.5±0.5 kg versus 1.6±0.5 kg; P=0.004), BMI (-0.2±0.15 kg/m2 versus 0.4±0.15 kg/m2; P=0.005), and fat mass (-0.7±0.3 kg versus 0.6±0.4 kg; P=0.01). Glucose infusion rate/insulin also improved in normal-weight participants (11.8±4.4 [mg·kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL versus -4.5±4.4 [mg·kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL, P=0.02; 17.6±6.7 [mg·lean kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL versus -7.0±6.7 [mg·lean kg-1·min-1]/μIU/μL, P=0.02). The metformin group had reduced AA WSSMAX (-0.3±0.4 dyne/cm2 versus 1.5±0.5 dyne/cm2; P=0.03), AA pulse wave velocity (-1.1±1.20 m/s versus 4.1±1.6 m/s; P=0.04), and far-wall diastolic carotid intima-media thickness (-0.04±0.01 mm versus -0.00±0.01 mm; P=0.049) versus placebo.ConclusionsAdolescents with T1DM demonstrate IR and impaired vascular health compared with control participants. Metformin improves IR, regardless of baseline BMI, and BMI, weight, fat mass, insulin dose, and aortic and carotid health in adolescents with T1DM. Metformin may hold promise as a cardioprotective intervention in T1DM.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01808690.
| S-EPMC6428045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common diseases, that managed by several medications such as Glimepiride and Dapagliflozin. This study aims to compare the effects of Dapagliflozin versus Glimepiride on glycemic control, insulin resistance, and biomarkers as (extracellular domain of insulin regulated aminopeptidase) IRAPe, (interleukin-34) IL-34, and (N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide) NT-proBNP. This study included 60 type 2 diabetic patients, who are randomized to receive either Glimepiride 4 mg/day (group 1) or Dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (group 2). Blood samples were collected at baseline and after 3 months of treatment for biochemical analysis. Additionally, HOMA-IR is calculated. After 3 months of receiving the intervention, there is no significant difference between the effects of Glimepiride and Dapagliflozin on FBG, PPBG, HbA1C%, fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR. The difference between both groups is significant for IL-34 (p = 0.002) and non-significant for IRAPe (p = 0.12) and NT-Pro BNP (p = 0.68). Both Glimepiride and Dapagliflozin significantly improve glycemic control, and HOMA-IR with no significant difference between them. Both drugs significantly improved the level of NT-proBNP. Dapagliflozin has a borderline significant effect on IRAPe but not IL-34, and Glimepiride has significant effect on IL-34 but not IRAPe. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04240171).
| S-EPMC10113266 | biostudies-literature