Dataset Information

Safety, effectiveness, and cost of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin for type 1 diabetes: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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 We will also search for difficult to locate and unpublished literature by searching dissertation databases, public health organization websites, and trial registries.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.

SUBMITTER: Tricco AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3847127 | biostudies-other | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety, effectiveness, and cost of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin for type 1 diabetes: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Tricco Andrea C AC Ashoor Huda M HM Soobiah Charlene C Hemmelgarn Brenda B Moher David D Hutton Brian B Yu Catherine H CH Majumdar Sumit R SR Straus Sharon E SE

Systematic reviews 20130910

<h4>Background</h4>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 system ...[more]

PMID: 24020869

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) results from insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency. T2DM treatment is a step-wise approach beginning with lifestyle modifications (for example, diet, exercise), followed by the addition of oral hypoglycemic agents (for example, metformin). Patients who do not respond to first-line therapy are offered second-line therapy (for example, sulfonylureas). Third-line therapy may include insulin and/or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.It is unclear whether DPP-4 inhibitors are safer and more effective than intermediate acting insulin for third-line management of T2DM. As such, our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors versus intermediate acting insulin for T2DM patients who have failed both first- and second-line diabetes treatments.Design/methodsElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and grey literature (for example, trial registries, public health websites) will be conducted to identify studies examining DPP-4 inhibitors compared with each other, intermediate acting insulin, no treatment, or placebo for adults with T2DM. The outcomes of interest include glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) (primary outcome), as well as emergency department visits, physician visits, hospital admissions, weight gain, quality of life, microvascular complications, macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, and cost (secondary outcomes). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, controlled before-after, interrupted time series, cohort studies, and cost studies reporting data on these outcomes will be included. Eligibility will not be restricted by publication status, language of dissemination, duration of study follow-up, or time period of study conduct.Two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts resulting from the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles, in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and quality will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussion.Our results will be described narratively. Random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be conducted, if feasible and appropriate.DiscussionOur systematic review results can be used to determine the most effective, safe and cost-effective third-line strategies for managing T2DM. This information will be of great use to health policy-makers and clinicians, as well as patients living with T2DM and their families.Trial registrationPROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003624.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors versus intermediate-acting insulin for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and poor glycaemic control despite treatment with two oral agents.SettingStudies were multicentre and multinational.ParticipantsTen studies including 2967 patients with T2DM.InterventionsStudies that examined DPP-4 inhibitors compared with each other, intermediate-acting insulin, no treatment or placebo in patients with T2DM.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, body weight, fractures, quality of life, microvascular complications, macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, harms, cost and cost-effectiveness.Results10 randomised clinical trials with 2967 patients were included after screening 5831 titles and abstracts, and 180 full-text articles. DPP-4 inhibitors significantly reduced HbA1c versus placebo in network meta-analysis (NMA; mean difference (MD) -0.62%, 95% CI -0.93% to -0.33%) and meta-analysis (MD -0.61%, 95% CI -0.81% to -0.41%), respectively. Significant differences in HbA1c were not observed for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin versus placebo and DPP-4 inhibitors versus NPH insulin in NMA. In meta-analysis, no significant differences were observed between DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo for severe hypoglycaemia, weight gain, cardiovascular disease, overall harms, treatment-related harms and mortality, although patients receiving DPP-4 inhibitors experienced less infections (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91).ConclusionsDPP-4 inhibitors were superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c levels in adults with T2DM taking at least two oral agents. Compared with placebo, no safety signals were detected with DPP-4 inhibitors and there was a reduced risk of infection. There was no significant difference in HbA1c observed between NPH and placebo or NPH and DPP-4 inhibitors.Trial registration numberPROSPERO # CRD42013003624.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).ResultsWe included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).ConclusionsOur results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.Prospero registrationCRD42017077051.

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:IntroductionCigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death in the UK and worldwide. Public health guidance recommends the use of varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as smoking cessation aids in the UK. Additionally, the first electronic cigarette has been licensed for use as a smoking cessation medicine. However, there are ongoing concerns about the safety of these medicines. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine how these smoking cessation medicines compare to each other with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety in adult smokers. Secondary aims include updating the evidence regarding the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of these medicines for use in a cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods and analysisWe will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies with control groups comparing monotherapy with varenicline, bupropion, NRT or electronic cigarette and combination therapies to each other, placebo or usual care. The primary composite safety outcome will be serious adverse events, defined as events that resulted in death, were life threatening, required hospitalisation or resulted in significant disability or congenital/birth defect. The preferred effectiveness outcome will be sustained smoking cessation defined as abstinence for a minimum of 6?months as determined by biochemical validation. We will include trials identified by previous reviews and search relevant databases for newly published trials as well as contacting study authors to identify unpublished information. We will conduct fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses for each pairwise comparison of treatments and outcome; where these estimates differ, we will consider reasons for heterogeneity, quantified using the between-study variance (?2). For each outcome, we will construct a NMA in a Bayesian framework which will be compared with the pair-wise results, allowing us to rank treatments. The effectiveness estimates from the NMA will be entered into a probabilistic economic model.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study as it involves analysis of secondary data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. The review will make an important contribution to the knowledge base around the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines. Results will be disseminated to the general public, healthcare practitioners and clinicians, academics, industry and policy makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42016041302.

Project description:BackgroundWorld-wide healthcare systems are faced with an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. In the United Kingdom, clinical care is primarily provided by general practitioners (GPs) rather than hospital specialists. Intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD) potentially provide a model for supporting GPs in their care of people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes and in their management of cardiovascular risk factors. This study aims to (1) compare patients with type 2 diabetes registered with practices that have access to an ICCD service with those that have access only to usual hospital care; (2) assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (3) explore the views and experiences of patients, health professionals and other stakeholders.Methods/designThis two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (with integral economic evaluation and qualitative study) is set in general practices in three UK Primary Care Trusts. Practices are randomized to one of two groups with patients referred to either an ICCD (intervention) or to hospital care (control). Intervention group: GP practices in the intervention arm have the opportunity to refer patients to an ICCD - a multidisciplinary team led by a specialist nurse and a diabetologist. Patients are reviewed and managed in the ICCD for a short period with a goal of improving diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control and are then referred back to practice. orControl groupStandard GP care, with referral to secondary care as required, but no access to ICCD. Participants are adults aged 18 years or older who have type 2 diabetes that is difficult for their GPs to control. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants reaching three risk factor targets: HbA1c (≤7.0%); blood pressure (<140/80); and cholesterol (<4 mmol/l), at the end of the 18-month intervention period. The main secondary outcomes are the proportion of participants reaching individual risk factor targets and the overall 10-year risks for coronary heart disease(CHD) and stroke assessed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine. Other secondary outcomes include body mass index and waist circumference, use of medication, reported smoking, emotional adjustment, patient satisfaction and views on continuity, costs and health related quality of life. We aimed to randomize 50 practices and recruit 2,555 patients.DiscussionForty-nine practices have been randomized, 1,997 patients have been recruited to the trial, and 20 patients have been recruited to the qualitative study. Results will be available late 2012.Trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT00945204].

Project description:To evaluate the 3-year incremental cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.Randomized, controlled, clinical trial.Patients with active or recently active intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial.Data on cost and health utility during 3 years after randomization were evaluated at 6-month intervals. Analyses were stratified by disease laterality at randomization (31 unilateral vs 224 bilateral) because of the large upfront cost of the implant.The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio of the difference in cost (in United States dollars) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs of medications, surgeries, hospitalizations, and regular procedures (e.g., laboratory monitoring for systemic therapy) were included. We computed QALYs as a weighted average of EQ-5D scores over 3 years of follow-up.The ICER at 3 years was $297,800/QALY for bilateral disease, driven by the high cost of implant therapy (difference implant - systemic [?]: $16,900; P < 0.001) and the modest gains in QALYs (? = 0.057; P = 0.22). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.003 and 0.04, respectively. The ICER for unilateral disease was more favorable, namely, $41,200/QALY at 3 years, because of a smaller difference in cost between the 2 therapies (? = $5300; P = 0.44) and a larger benefit in QALYs with the implant (? = 0.130; P = 0.12). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.53 and 0.74, respectively.Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was reasonably cost-effective compared with systemic therapy for individuals with unilateral intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis but not for those with bilateral disease. These results do not apply to the use of implant therapy when systemic therapy has failed or is contraindicated. Should the duration of implant effect prove to be substantially >3 years or should large changes in therapy pricing occur, the cost-effectiveness of implant versus systemic therapy would need to be reevaluated.

Dataset Information

Safety, effectiveness, and cost of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin for type 1 diabetes: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Safety, effectiveness, and cost of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin for type 1 diabetes: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets