Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin for type 1 diabetes: A population-based cohort followed over 10 years.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin (ILAHI) for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world clinical practice.

Methods

Individual-level analyses were conducted within a longitudinal population-based cohort of 540 propensity score-matched T1D patients (LAIAs, n = 270; ILAHI, n = 270) with over 10 years of follow-up using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2004-2013, from third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. The study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events (eg, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related complications), medical costs, and cost per case of events prevented. Cost estimates are presented in 2013 British pounds (GBP, £).

Results

The NNTs using LAIAs vs ILAHI to avoid one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia and any diabetes-related complications were 12, 9 and 10 for mean follow-up periods of 5.84, 6.02 and 3.62 years, respectively. From third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives, using LAIAs instead of ILAHI saved GBP6924-GBP7116 per case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance prevented, GBP5346-GBP5508 per case of outpatient hypoglycaemia prevented, and GBP3570-GBP3680 per case of any diabetes-related complications prevented. Sensitivity analyses considering sampling uncertainty showed that using LAIAs over ILAHI yields at least a 76% probability of cost-saving for avoiding one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia or any diabetes-related complications.

Conclusions

This real-world evidence reveals that compared with ILAHI, the greater pharmaceutical costs associated with LAIAs for patients with T1D could be substantially offset by savings from averted hypoglycaemia or diabetes-related complications.

SUBMITTER: Lee TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7163379 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCardiovascular events and mortality are the principal causes of excess mortality and health care costs for people with type 2 diabetes. No large studies have specifically compared long-acting insulin alone with long-acting plus short-acting insulin with regard to cardiovascular outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare cardiovascular events and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving long-acting insulin who do or do not add short-acting insulin.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study emulated a randomized experiment in which adults with type 2 diabetes who experienced a qualifying glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 6.8% to 8.5% with long-acting insulin were randomized to continuing treatment with long-acting insulin (LA group) or adding short-acting insulin within 1 year of the qualifying HbA1c level (LA plus SA group). Retrospective data in 4 integrated health care delivery systems from the Health Care Systems Research Network from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2013, were used. Analysis used inverse probability weighting estimation with Super Learner for propensity score estimation. Analyses took place from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019.ExposuresLong-acting insulin alone or with added short-acting insulin within 1 year from the qualifying HbA1c level.Main outcomes and measuresMortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.ResultsAmong 57 278 individuals (39 279 with data on cardiovascular mortality) with a mean (SD) age of 60.6 (11.5) years, 53.6% men, 43.5% non-Hispanic White individuals, and 4 years of follow-up (median follow-up of 11 [interquartile range, 5-20] calendar quarters), the LA plus SA group was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with the LA group (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49) and a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). Treatment with long-acting plus short-acting insulin was not associated with increased risks of congestive heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality.Conclusions and relevanceFindings of this retrospective cohort study suggested an increased risk of all-cause mortality and a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction for the LA plus SA group compared with the LA group. Given the lack of an increase in major cardiovascular events or cardiovascular mortality, the increased all-cause mortality with long-acting plus short-acting insulin may be explained by noncardiovascular events or unmeasured confounding.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included.Results39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference -0.39%, 95% confidence interval -0.59% to -0.19%; -0.26%, -0.48% to -0.03%; and -0.36%, -0.65% to -0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: -5.51 kg, -6.56 to -4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: -5.14 kg, -6.07 to -4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses.ConclusionsLong acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A1c. Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013003610.

Project description:Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) causes progressive destruction of pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency. Treatment of T1DM requires insulin, and some evidence suggests that longer acting insulin analogues might have a higher effectiveness and greater safety profile compared to intermediate-acting insulin. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of long-acting insulin versus intermediate-acting insulin through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Studies examining long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin or placebo preparations for adult T1DM patients will be included. The primary outcome is glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), and secondary outcomes include emergency department and physician visits, hospital admissions, weight gain, quality of life, microvascular complications (e.g., retinopathy), macrovascular complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease), all-cause mortality, incident cancers, and cost. We will include experimental [randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs], quasi-experimental (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), observational (cohort), and cost studies, of any duration of follow-up, conducted during all time periods, and disseminated in any language.We will conduct comprehensive searches of electronic databases from inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. We will also search for difficult to locate and unpublished literature by searching dissertation databases, public health organization websites, and trial registries. After a calibration exercise using our eligibility criteria and data abstraction forms, two reviewers will screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved by team discussion. Using a similar process, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Risk of Bias tool will be used to appraise the risk of bias of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of cohort studies. If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis, as well as a network meta-analysis.Our systematic review will be of utility to healthcare providers, policy-makers, T1DM patients and family members regarding treatment options of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin preparations.PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003610.

Project description:The effects of insulin on cardiomyocytes, such as positive inotropic action and glucose uptake are well described. However, in vitro studies comparing long-acting insulin analogues with regard to cardiomyocyte signalling and function have not been systematically conducted.Insulin receptor (IR) binding was assessed using membrane embedded and solubilised IR preparations. Insulin signalling was analysed in adult rat ventricular myocytes (ARVM) and HL-1 cardiac cells. Inotropic effects were examined in ARVM and the contribution of Akt to this effect was assessed by specific inhibition with triciribine. Furthermore, beating-rate in Cor.4U(®) human cardiomyocytes, glucose uptake in HL-1 cells, and prevention from H2O2 induced caspase 3/7 activation in cardiac cells overexpressing the human insulin receptor (H9c2-E2) were analysed. One-way ANOVA was performed to determine significance between conditions.Insulin degludec showed significant lower IR affinity in membrane embedded IR preparations. In HL-1 cardiomyocytes, stimulation with insulin degludec resulted in a lower Akt(Ser(473)) and Akt(Thr(308)) phosphorylation compared to insulin, insulin glargine and its active metabolite M1 after 5- and 10-min incubation. After 60-min treatment, phosphorylation of Akt was comparable for all insulin analogues. Stimulation of glucose uptake in HL-1 cells was increased by 40-60 %, with a similar result for all analogues. Incubation of electrically paced ARVM resulted for all insulins in a significantly increased sarcomere shortening, contractility- and relaxation-velocity. This positive inotropic effect of all insulins was Akt dependent. Additionally, in Cor.4U(®) cardiomyocytes a 10-20 % increased beating-rate was detected for all insulins, with slower onset of action in cells treated with insulin degludec. H9c2-E2 cells challenged with H2O2 showed a fivefold increase in caspase 3/7 activation, which could be abrogated by all insulins used.In conclusion, we compared for the first time the signalling and functional impact of the long-acting insulin analogues insulin glargine and insulin degludec in cardiomyocyte cell models. We demonstrated similar efficacy under steady-state conditions relative to regular insulin in functional endpoint experiments. However, it remains to be shown how these results translate to the in vivo situation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).DesignSystematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.Data extraction and synthesisWe requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.ResultsWe included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).ConclusionsLong-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.Prospero registration numberCRD42015023511.

Project description:IntroductionDiabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is traditionally managed using intravenous regular insulin infusion (RII) in intensive care unit (ICU)/high dependency unit (HDU). Subcutaneous fast-acting insulin analogues (FAIAs) may help to manage DKA outside ICU/HDU. Furthermore, combining subcutaneous long-acting insulin (LAI) with subcutaneous FAIAs may accelerate ketoacidosis resolution. The latest (2016) Cochrane review was inconclusive regarding subcutaneous FAIAs versus intravenous RII in DKA. It was limited by small sample sizes, unclear risk of bias (RoB) in primary trials and did not examine subcutaneous FAIAs with subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. We report the protocol for an updated meta-analysis on the safety and benefits of subcutaneous FAIAs with/without subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA.Methods and analysisWe will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, from inception until December 2022, without language restrictions, for randomised trials on subcutaneous FAIAs with/without subcutaneous LAI versus intravenous RII in DKA. We also search ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu and reference lists of included trials. Primary outcomes include all-cause in-hospital mortality, time to DKA resolution, in-hospital DKA recurrence and hospital readmission for DKA post-discharge. Secondary outcomes include resource utilisation and patient satisfaction. Safety outcomes include important complications of DKA and insulin. Reviewers will extract data, assess overall RoB and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We will assess statistical heterogeneity by visually inspecting forest plots and the I2 statistic. We will synthesise data using the random-effects model. Predefined subgroup analyses are: mild versus moderate versus severe DKA; age <20 vs ≥20 years; pregnant versus non-pregnant; infective versus non-infective DKA precipitating cause; subcutaneous FAIAs alone versus subcutaneous FAIAs and subcutaneous LAI; and high versus low overall RoB. We will also perform trial sequential analysis for primary outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthics board approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42022369518.