Evaluating the Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With Mild and Severe Hypoglycemia in Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

This study to assess the incidence rates and risk factors of hypoglycemia in a wide real-life sample of patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

In a prospective epidemiological study, data from 817 subjects were collected from medical records and via interviews. Over a 3-month period, hypoglycemic episodes were recorded via self-measurement of glucose levels at least twice daily. Cox proportional and negative binomial multivariable models were applied to estimate adjusted and unadjusted hazard ratios and incidence rate ratios of hypoglycemic events.

RESULTS

Of the 817 patients, 52.9% experienced hypoglycemia, 38.1% had only nonsevere episodes, and 14.8% had at least 1 severe episode. Total events per patient-year were estimated at 13.3 (±24.8), with 11.8 (±21.6) and 1.4 (±4.7) being nonsevere and severe, respectively. History of hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were consistent risk factors of hypoglycemia. Intensification of therapy was associated with higher incidence rates, whereas the effect on the hazard rates was more moderate. Longer duration of insulin therapy and the presence of congestive heart failure were associated with a higher risk of developing and frequency of hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia awareness was found to independently affect only mild hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoglycemia is a common complication in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus. The risk factors of developing hypoglycemia are to some extent different from those of the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. Particular attention is required for patients with recurrent hypoglycemic events and on intensive antidiabetic therapy.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg

AIM

To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.

Health-related quality of life and health utilities in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the impact of related comorbidities/complications

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of multiple comorbidities/complications on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health utilities in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

In a non-interventional, epidemiological study, data were collected from medical records and via interviews for 938 subjects from various geographical areas of Greece. HRQoL and health utilities were explored with the EQ-5D-5L. Univariate associations were evaluated with the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous and Chi-squared tests for nominal variables, and binary logistic regressions were employed to obtain marginal effects. Employing a split sample approach, various specifications of ordinary least squares regression models were evaluated in terms of goodness of fit, model specification, shrinkage and predictive and discriminative performance, to select the best model for mapping health utilities using the whole dataset.

RESULTS

Overall, the most important factors of impaired HRQoL and health utilities were higher age, female gender, obesity, poor glycemic control and increased duration of insulin treatment. History and increasing concurrence of all complications assessed were associated with exacerbated HRQoL problems, decreased health utilities and diminished health state, although it was not always statistically significant. The highest disutilities were associated with stroke (- 0.082), diabetic retinopathy (- 0.066), diabetic neuropathy (- 0.051) and severe hypoglycemia (- 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

The deleterious impact of comorbidities on insulin-dependent T2DM subjects' HRQoL has been confirmed and clinicians should adapt the priorities of disease management accordingly. The derived health utility estimates may be valuable for conducting economic evaluations of interventions in the area of T2DM when data are not available.

Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Insulin Intensification Regimens for the Treatment of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the insulin degludec/liraglutide combination (IDegLira) versus basal insulin intensification strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not optimally controlled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the QuintilesIMS Health CORE Diabetes model, an interactive internet-based model that simulates clinical outcomes and costs for cohorts of patients with diabetes. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Czech Republic public payer. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters.

RESULTS

The use of IDegLira was associated with an improvement in the quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.31 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), at an additional cost of Czech Koruna (CZK) 107,829 over a patient's lifetime compared with basal-bolus therapy, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CZK 345,052 per QALY gained. In a scenario analysis, IDegLira was associated with an ICER of CZK 693,763 per QALY gained compared to basal insulin + glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). The ICERs are below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold (CZK 1,100,000/QALY gained at the time of this analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this evaluation suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option compared with basal-bolus therapy and basal insulin + GLP-1 RA for patients with T2DM in the Czech Republic whose diabetes is not optimally controlled with basal insulin.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin - from the UK health care cost perspective

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are considered appropriate for treatment with a basal insulin analogue, using a short-term economic model.

METHODS

Meta-analysis data from three phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results.

RESULTS

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option versus IGlar in patients with T2DM using basal insulin. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at £15,795 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and £13,078 per QALY, which are below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that hypoglycaemia event rates had an important effect on the results. With higher event rates for non-severe hypoglycaemia IDeg was less costly and more effective than IGlar (dominant). Conversely, using lower event rates for severe hypoglycaemia generated higher ICERs. Using hypoglycaemia rates from a subgroup of patients who experienced ≥1 hypoglycaemic event per year IDeg was highly cost-effective versus IGlar; with estimated ICERS of £4887 and £2625 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

This short-term modelling approach allows the economic evaluation of newer insulin analogues when advanced long-term modelling based on HbA1c differences is inappropriate. For patients with T2DM who are considered appropriate for treatment with a basal insulin analogue, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar and offers additional benefits to subgroups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent hypoglycaemia.