Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes of basal insulin and oral antidiabetic agents as an add-on to dual therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

ABSTRACT: While basal insulin remains the most effective antidiabetic agent and substantially reduces the risk of hypoglycemia, few studies have examined the comparative effect of basal insulin in the real-world setting. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of adding basal insulin compared with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as a third antidiabetic agent in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A retrospective cohort study involving T2DM was conducted with health administrative data in Taiwan. Patients starting a third antidiabetic agent after receiving a metformin-containing dual combination were identified. The study endpoints included composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hypoglycemia. Propensity score matching and Cox modeling were used for analysis. After matching, the basal insulin and TZD groups contained 6,101 and 11,823 patients, respectively, and the basal insulin and DPP-4i groups contained 6,051 and 11,900 patients, respectively. TZDs and DPP-4is were both associated with similar risks of MACEs and hypoglycemia but a lower risk of all-cause mortality than basal insulin (TZDs: HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81; DPP-4is: HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.82). Further studies are needed to elucidate the findings of increased all-cause mortality risk in patients receiving basal insulin, especially those with advanced diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Cheng CN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7113251 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical outcomes of basal insulin and oral antidiabetic agents as an add-on to dual therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Cheng Chih-Ning CN Wang Chih-Yuan CY Lin Hung-Wei HW Chang Ting-Yu TY Lin Hsu-Ju HJ Chou Chiahung C Lin Fang-Ju FJ

Scientific reports 20200401 1

While basal insulin remains the most effective antidiabetic agent and substantially reduces the risk of hypoglycemia, few studies have examined the comparative effect of basal insulin in the real-world setting. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of adding basal insulin compared with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as a third antidiabetic agent in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A retrospective cohort study involving T2DM was conducted ...[more]

PMID: 32238842

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) has been evaluated in the Dual Action of Liraglutide and Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes (DUAL) phase 3 clinical trial program. In this post hoc analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of IDegLira in the Indian subpopulation with the results from the global trial population of DUAL trials. The analysis includes participants uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in DUAL I and DUAL IV and participants uncontrolled on basal insulin and OADs in DUAL II.MethodsThree phase 3 trials were included in the analysis: DUAL I extension (IDegLira vs. insulin degludec or liraglutide 1.8 mg in participants uncontrolled on metformin ± pioglitazone; 52 weeks; n = 1663), DUAL IV (IDegLira vs. placebo as an add-on to a regimen of sulfonylurea ± metformin; 26 weeks; n = 435) and DUAL II (IDegLira vs. insulin degludec in participants uncontrolled on basal insulin + OADs; 26 weeks; n = 398). There were 251, 64 and 64 participants, respectively, at the Indian sites.ResultsIn the Indian subpopulations, the reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with IDegLira were substantial [DUAL I: 1.96% (-21 mmol/mol); DUAL IV: -1.40% (-15 mmol/mol); DUAL II: -2.20% (-24 mmol/mol)] and significantly greater than those in the comparators in each trial. IDegLira was generally weight-neutral after the administration of OADs (-0.3 and +0.6 kg in DUAL I and DUAL IV) and resulted in weight loss after the administration of basal insulin (-2.1 kg in DUAL II). Hypoglycemia rates were 1.98, 1.08 and 0.37 events/patient-years of exposure (PYE) for IDegLira, insulin degludec and liraglutide in DUAL I, 4.06 and 0.36 events/PYE for IDegLira and placebo in DUAL IV and 1.16 and 0.83 events/PYE with IDegLira and insulin degludec in DUAL II.ConclusionsResults from the Indian subpopulations reflect those of the global study populations, supporting IDegLira as an effective and safe treatment option for people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on OADs or basal insulin + OADs in the South Asian population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01336023 (DUAL I), NCT01392573 (DUAL II), NCT01618162 (DUAL IV).FundingNovo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both added to basal insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.MethodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics cohort model for T2D was used to compare liraglutide and lixisenatide (both added to basal insulin), with a societal perspective and with comparative treatment effects derived by indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Drug prices were 2016 values, and all other costs 2015 values. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin was also assessed, under different sets of assumptions.ResultsFrom the ITC, decreases in HbA1c were -1.32% and -0.43% with liraglutide and lixisenatide, respectively; decreases in BMI were -1.29 and -0.65 kg/m2, respectively. An estimated 2348 cases of retinopathy, 265 of neuropathy and 991 of nephropathy would be avoided with liraglutide compared with lixisenatide in a cohort of 10,000 patients aged over 40 years. In the base-case analysis, total direct costs were higher with liraglutide than lixisenatide, but costs associated with complications were lower. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for liraglutide added to basal insulin was SEK30,802. Base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses, except when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) differences for liraglutide added to basal insulin were abolished, suggesting these benefits were driving the cost/QALY. With liraglutide 1.2 mg instead of liraglutide 1.8 mg (adjusted for efficacy and cost), liraglutide added to basal insulin was dominant over lixisenatide 20μg.IDegLira was dominant versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin when a defined daily dose was used in the model.ConclusionsThe costs/QALY for liraglutide, 1.8 or 1.2 mg, added to basal insulin, and for IDegLira (all compared with lixisenatide 20 μg added to basal insulin) were below the threshold considered low by Swedish authorities. In some scenarios, liraglutide and IDegLira were cost-saving.

Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes of basal insulin and oral antidiabetic agents as an add-on to dual therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Publications

Clinical outcomes of basal insulin and oral antidiabetic agents as an add-on to dual therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets