Hypoglycaemia and treatment patterns among insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes who switched to insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus other basal insulin in a real-world setting

Real-world persistence, adherence, health care resource utilization, and costs in people with type 2 diabetes switching from a first-generation basal insulin to a second-generation (insulin glargine 300 U/mL) vs an alternative first-generation basal insulin

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who change their basal insulin (BI) may have variable persistence with therapy. Compared with first-generation (long-acting) BI analogs (insulin glargine 100U/mL [Gla-100]; insulin detemir [IDet]), second-generation (longer-acting) BI analogs (insulin glargine 300U/mL [Gla-300]; insulin degludec) have similar glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) attainment and lowered hypoglycemia risk, which could impact treatment persistence. OBJECTIVE: To compare persistence, adherence, health care resource utilization (HRU), and costs for individuals switching from neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or a first-generation BI analog with either the second-generation BI, Gla-300, or an alternative first-generation BI analog (Gla-100 or IDet). METHODS: We used Optum Clinformatics claims data from adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with T2D who had received BI (neutral protamine Hagedorn, Gla-100, IDet) in the 6-month baseline period, and switched to either Gla-300 or an alternative first-generation BI (Gla-100 or IDet; treatment switch = index date) between April 1, 2015, and August 31, 2019. Participants were followed for 12 months, until plan disenrollment, or until death, whichever occurred first. Cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) on baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the proportion who were persistent with therapy at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were adherence (proportion of days covered); change in HbA1c; and all-cause, diabetes-related, and hypoglycemia-related HRU and costs. RESULTS: PSM generated 3,077 participants/group (mean age: 68 years, 52% female). Cohorts were well balanced except for hospitalization, which was adjusted in models as a covariate. During the 12-month follow-up period, participants who received Gla-300 vs first-generation BI had greater persistence with (45.5% vs 42.1%; adjusted P = 0.0001), and adherence to (42.8% vs 38.2%; adjusted P = 0.0006), BI therapy and a statistically larger reduction in HbA1c at 12 months (-0.65% vs -0.45%; adjusted P = 0.0040). The proportion of participants achieving HbA1c less than 8% (47.2% vs 40.9%; P < 0.0001), but not less than 7% (21.2% vs 20.8%), was significantly higher for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI. All-cause (45.3 vs 65.9 per 100 patient-years [P100PY]) and diabetes-related (21.5 vs 29.1 P100PY), but not hypoglycemia-related, hospitalizations (1.0 vs 1.5 P100PY) were significantly (P < 0.0001) lower for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI. Similarly, all-cause (111.9 vs 148.8 P100PY), diabetes-related (54.8 vs 74.2 P100PY), and hypoglycemia-related (2.9 vs 5.7 P100PY) emergency department (ED) visits were significantly lower for Gla-300 (all P < 0.0001). Costs for all-cause hospitalizations and hypoglycemia-related ED visits were significantly lower for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI. Although pharmacy costs were significantly higher for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI, all-cause total health care costs were not significantly different: $41,255 vs $45,316 per person per year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this claims-based analysis of people with T2D receiving BI, switching to Gla-300 was associated with significantly better persistence, adherence, and HbA1c reduction compared with switching to an alternative first-generation BI analog. All-cause HRU was significantly lower; despite significantly higher pharmacy costs, total health care costs were similar. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi US. Medical writing support was provided by Helen Jones, PhD, CMPP, of Evidence Scientific Solutions and funded by Sanofi US. Dr Wright is on the speakers' bureau and sits on the advisory boards for Abbot Diabetes, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi; sits on the advisory board for Medtronic; and is a consultant for Abbot Diabetes, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr Malone is on advisory boards for Novartis and Avalere and consults for Pear Therapeutics, Sarepta, and Strategic Therapeutics. Dr Trujillo sits on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Drs Gill, Zhou, and Preblick and Mr Li are employees and stockholders of Sanofi. Mr Huse is an employee of Evidera and a contractor for Sanofi. Dr Reid is a speaker and consultant for Novo Nordisk and Sanofi-Aventis and is a consultant for AstraZeneca and Intarcia.

Treatment Costs of Basal Insulin Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in France

OBJECTIVE

Our objectives were to describe the basal insulin treatment regimens most widely used in a real-world setting in France and to estimate the associated treatment costs in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted (November 2017-February 2018) among adult patients with T2DM requiring basal insulin therapy for their own use in a representative sample of pharmacies. Costs were compared between patients treated with three recently marketed insulins (glargine 300 U/ml [Gla-300], biosimilar glargine 100 U/ml [Gla-100] and a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) and those treated with three established basal or intermediate insulins: branded glargine 100 U/ml, insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin [NPH]).

RESULTS

Overall, 1933 patients were analysed. Gla-300 accounted for 59.9% of novel basal insulin prescriptions, and branded Gla-100 accounted for 67.9% of established insulin prescriptions. Recent insulins were more frequently associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues. Results confirmed a lower rate of severe hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100. On average, weekly total costs of treatment with all basal insulins were not significantly different, except with detemir, where they were higher.

CONCLUSION

New basal insulins are expected to be integrated into clinical practice. This analysis shows that their use does not impact upon the management cost of insulin therapy in people with T2DM.

The Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Hypoglycemia and Use in Other Special Populations: A Narrative Review

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Reduced Hypoglycemia Risk in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Switched to/Initiating Insulin Glargine 300 vs 100 U/ml: A European Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials and real-world data from the USA have shown similar glycemic control with insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) and reduced hypoglycemia risk with Gla-300. This real-world study describes the efficacy and safety of Gla-300 and Gla-100 in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in France, Spain, and Germany.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review analysis used anonymized data for adults with T2D switching basal insulin analog (BIA) therapy to Gla-300 or Gla-100, or insulin-naïve patients initiating Gla-300 or Gla-100. Outcomes included change from baseline to 6-month follow-up in glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), total and severe hypoglycemia incidences and events, insulin dose, and reasons for BIA choice.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-five physicians (33.8% Spain, 31.7% France, 34.4% Germany) provided chart data for patients switching to Gla-300 (n = 679) or Gla-100 (n = 429) or initiating Gla-300 (n = 719) or Gla-100 (n = 711). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, A1C reductions from baseline were similar for patients switching to Gla-300 or Gla-100 (- 0.87% vs. - 0.93%; p = 0.326) while those switched to Gla-300 vs. Gla-100 had a significantly greater mean reduction in hypoglycemic events (- 1.29 vs. - 0.81 events during 6 months; p = 0.012). Mean insulin doses after titration were 0.43 ± 0.36 and 0.40 ± 0.28 U/kg in Gla-300 and Gla-100 switchers, respectively. Factors that significantly influenced BIA choice included a lower risk of hypoglycemia (for Gla-300) and physician familiarity (for Gla-100). Outcomes for insulin-naïve patients were broadly similar to those of switchers.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world European study, patients with T2D who switched therapy to Gla-300 or Gla-100 had improved glycemic control and reduced hypoglycemia at 6 months, with significant hypoglycemia advantages with Gla-300.

CONCENTRATED INSULINS: CLINICAL UPDATE OF THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS

Improved glycemic control is associated with a reduced risk of diabetic complications. Optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes includes nutritional therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are initially managed with oral antidiabetic agents, but as β-cell function declines and the disease progresses, insulin therapy is frequently needed to maintain glycemic control. Insulin therapy given with multidose insulin injection regimen or by continuous insulin infusion is needed for patients with type 1 diabetes to achieve control. Obesity and its associated insulin resistance contribute to greater insulin requirements in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes to achieve glycemic control, creating a need for concentrated insulin. Concentrated insulin formulations can be prescribed as an alternative to 100 unit/mL insulin and provide the advantage of low injection volume, leading to less pain and possibly fewer insulin injections. This review includes a stepwise analysis of all currently available concentrated insulin products, analyzes the most up-to-date evidence, and presents this in combination with expert guidance and commentary in an effort to provide clinicians with a thorough overview of the characteristics and benefits of concentrated insulins in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes-instilling confidence when recommending, prescribing, and adjusting these medications. Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin; β-cell = pancreatic betacell; BG = blood glucose; CI = confidence interval; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; MDI = multiple daily injections; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PD = pharmacodynamic; PK = pharmacokinetic; TDD = total daily dose; U100 = 100 units/mL; U200 = 200 units/mL; U300 = 300 units/mL; U500 = 500 units/mL; USD = United States dollars.