Comparative risks of diabetes-related complications of basal insulins: a longitudinal population-based cohort of type 1 diabetes 1999-2013 in Taiwan

A nationwide cohort study for comparative vascular safety of long-acting insulin analogue versus intermediate-acting human insulin in type 2 diabetes

Little is known about the comparative vascular safety of basal insulins (intermediate-acting human insulin [IAHI] or long-acting insulin analogue [LAIA]) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study sought to examine the vascular and hypoglycemic effects associated with IAHI versus LAIA in real-world patients with T2D. We utilized Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database to identify T2D patients who stably used IAHI (N = 11,521) or LAIA (N = 37,651) in the period 2004–2012. A rigorous three-step matching algorithm that considered the initiation date of basal insulin, previous exposure of antidiabetic treatments, comorbidities, diabetes severity and complications, and concomitant medications was applied to achieve the between-group comparability. Study outcomes, including cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), microvascular diseases (MVDs), and hypoglycemia, were assessed up to the end of 2013. Compared with LAIA, the use of IAHI was associated with greater risks of composite CVDs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–2.67) and hospitalized hypoglycemia (aHR: 1.82; 95% CI 1.51–2.20), but a lower risk of composite MVDs (aHR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.84–0.91). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed a consistent trend of results with that in the primary analyses. In summary, although the use of IAHI versus LAIA among T2D patients in usual practice may be associated with a lower risk of MVDs, strategies should be optimized for minimizing the risks of hypoglycemia and CVDs in this population.

Quality of reporting of drug exposure in pharmacoepidemiological studies

Purpose

Exposure definitions vary across pharmacoepidemiological studies. Therefore, transparent reporting of exposure definitions is important for interpretation of published study results. We aimed to assess the quality of reporting of exposure to identify where improvement may be needed.

Method

We systematically reviewed observational pharmacoepidemiological studies that used routinely collected health data, published in 2017 in six pharmacoepidemiological journals. Reporting of exposure was scored using 11 items of the ISPE‐ISPOR guideline on reporting of pharmacoepidemiological studies.

Results

Of the 91 studies included, all studies reported the type of exposure (100%), while most reported the exposure risk window (85%) and the exposure assessment window (98%). Operationalization of the exposure window was described infrequently: 16% (14/90) of the studies explicitly reported the presence or absence of an induction period if applicable, 11% (5/47), and 35% (17/49) reported how stockpiling and gaps between exposure episodes were handled, respectively, and 35% (17/49) explicitly mentioned the exposure extension. Switching/add‐on was reported in 62% (50/81). How switching between drugs was dealt with and specific drug codes were reported in 52 (57%) and 24 (26%) studies, respectively.

Conclusion

Publications of pharmacoepidemiological studies frequently reported the type of exposure, the exposure risk window, and the exposure assessment window. However, more details on exposure assessment are needed, especially when it concerns the operationalization of the exposure risk window (eg, the presence or absence of an induction period or exposure extension, handling of stockpiling and gaps, and specific codes), to allow for correct interpretation, reproducibility, and assessment of validity.

Association of insulin regimens with severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: A Danish case-control study

AIMS

To evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia for patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) when exposed to insulin regimens including human insulin only or insulin analogues.

METHODS

A total of 19 896 patients with T1D were extracted from the Danish National Patient Register. Of these, 6379 T1D patients experiencing 1 of more severe hypoglycaemic episodes (total of 17 242 episodes) were matched 1:1 with T1D patients without severe hypoglycaemia. A logistic regression model with last insulin regimen used as exposure was constructed to analyse the effect on severe hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

People on a basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues had a reduced risk of severe hypoglycaemia of 39% (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.68) compared to patients on a basal-bolus human insulin only regimen. Furthermore, patients on a premixed regimen containing an insulin analogue had a 58% (odds ratio: 0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.49) reduced risk of severe hypoglycaemia compared to patients on premixed human insulin only.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that use of a basal-bolus insulin regimen with an insulin analogue is safer with respect to severe hypoglycaemia in patients with T1D than the use of a basal-bolus human insulin only regimen.

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

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.

Comparative risks of diabetes-related complications of basal insulins: a longitudinal population-based cohort of type 1 diabetes 1999-2013 in Taiwan

AIM

We compared the effects of two types of basal insulin: long-acting insulin analogues vs. intermediate/long-acting human insulin, on diabetes-related complications in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 1188 patients with type 1 diabetes who had recently started on long-acting insulin analogues or intermediate/long-acting human insulin were identified in 2004-2008 and followed until death or the end of 2013. Clinical outcomes included acute (i.e. hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia) and chronic (i.e. nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular diseases) complications. Diabetes-related complications were measured as a composite outcome which included acute and chronic complications. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the time to event hazard ratio. Three propensity score (PS) methods were applied to adjust for baseline imbalances between basal insulin groups, including the PS-matching approach (as the main analysis), standardized mortality ratio weighting (SMRW) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

Long-acting insulin analogues vs. intermediate/long-acting human insulin had a lower risk for a composite of diabetes-related complications {adjusted hazards ratios [aHRs] [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.782 [0.639, 0.956], 0.743 [0.598, 0.924] and 0.699 [0.577, 0.846] according to the PS-matching approach, SMRW and IPTW, respectively}. Compared with intermediate/long-acting human insulin, using long-acting insulin analogues had a lower hypoglycaemia risk: aHRs (95% CI) 0.681 (0.498, 0.930), 0.662 (0.466, 0.943) and 0.639 (0.471, 0.867) from the PS-matching approach, SMRW and IPTW, respectively. No statistical differences were found between two types of insulin on individual chronic complications.

CONCLUSION

A trend of lower diabetes-related complications associated with long-acting insulin analogues vs. intermediate/long-acting human insulin was observed. A reduced hypoglycaemia risk with long-acting insulin analogues was confirmed in this 'real-world' study.