Regular Insulin Administered With the V-Go Disposable Insulin Delivery Device in a Clinical Diabetes Setting: A Retrospective Analysis of Efficacy and Cost

Addressing the Burden of Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in Type 2 Diabetes with Insulin Pump Technology: A Narrative Review

The growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains a leading health concern in the US. Despite new medications and technologies, glycemic control in this population remains suboptimal, which increases the risk of poor outcomes, increased healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. This article reviews the clinical and economic impacts of suboptimal glycemic control in patients on basal-bolus insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) and discusses how new technologies, such as tubeless insulin delivery devices, referred to as "patch pumps", have the potential to improve outcomes in patients with T2D.

Opportunities to overcome underutilization of enhanced insulin delivery technologies in people with type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

Use of innovative technologies such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin delivery systems have been shown to be safe and effective in helping patients with diabetes achieve significantly improved glycemic outcomes compared to their previous therapies. However, these technologies are underutilized in many primary care practices. This narrative review discusses some of the clinical and economic benefits of tubeless insulin delivery devices and discusses how this technology can overcome the main obstacles inherent to use of conventional insulin delivery devices.

Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness comparison between U-100 human regular insulin and rapid acting insulin when delivered by V-Go wearable insulin delivery device in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

We compared the efficacy and safety of human regular insulin (HRI) versus rapid-acting insulin (RAI) in a type 2 diabetes population already using the V-Go insulin delivery device.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 14-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase IV, non-inferiority study. Patients ≥21years of age, with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who were currently using the V-Go insulin delivery system with RAI, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/L) to ≤12.5% (≤108 mmol/L) were randomized 1:1 to RAI continuation or switch to HRI. The primary outcome was estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c least-squares mean change from baseline at 14 weeks (prespecified non-inferiority hypothesis with 95% CI upper limit <0.4%). Primary analysis was by per protocol (PP); safety analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

We randomized 136 patients to continued RAI treatment (n=67) or HRI (n=69); 113 patients were included in the PP analysis (RAI, n=54; HRI, n=59). Mean change in HbA1c from baseline to study end was -0.60±1.1% (95% CI -0.90 to -0.29); -6.6±12.0 mmol/mol (95% CI -9.8 to -3.2) with HRI treatment and -0.38±1.3% (95% CI -0.70 to -0.05); -4.2±14.2 mmol/mol (95% CI -7.7 to -0.5) with RAI treatment, with ETD of -0.22% (95% CI -0.67 to 0.22); -2.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -7.3 to 2.4), p=0.007, confirming non-inferiority of HRI to RAI. No between-group differences in changes in total daily insulin doses, number of hypoglycemic values (≤70 mg/dL (≤39 mmol/L) or body weight were observed. No severe hypoglycemic events were reported. Direct pharmacy cost savings (-US$265.85; 95% CI -US$288.60 to -US$243.11; p<0.0001) were observed with HRI treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin can be treated with V-Go wearable insulin delivery device using HRI, safely and effectively, and potentially at a much lower cost compared with RAI, which can lead to improved access to insulin therapy for these individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03495908.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Compare the Real-World Effectiveness of V-Go versus Standard Delivery of Insulin in Patients with Advanced Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not have adequate glycemic control, leading to poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective pragmatic clinical trial evaluated V-Go, a wearable insulin delivery device, compared with standard treatment optimization (STO) among insulin-treated patients with T2DM in a real-world, community-based practice setting.

METHODS

Study sites, rather than individual patients, were randomized to V-Go or STO via cluster randomization. Patients were treated according to routine clinical practice and followed up to 4 months. T2DM medications and supplies were purchased utilizing usual insurance and co-pay systems. The primary analysis was an unadjusted treatment group comparison of glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to end of study (EOS). A cost of therapy analysis was completed on patients who had received comparable baseline T2DM treatment with multiple daily basal-bolus insulin injections (MDI).

RESULTS

Analysis included 415 patients (169 V-Go, 246 STO) enrolled from 52 US sites. Mean baseline HbA1c (9.6%) was higher in V-Go (9.9%, range 8.0% - 14.2%) than STO (9.3%, range 7.9% - 13.9%, p <.001). HbA1c decreased from baseline to EOS in both V-Go (-1.0%, p<.001) and STO (-0.5%, p<.001); V-Go had significantly larger decrease (p=.002). V-Go had a significant reduction (p<.001) in mean insulin total daily dose (TDD; 0.76 U/kg baseline, 0.57 U/kg EOS), not seen in STO (0.72 U/kg baseline and EOS). The MDI group included 95 (56.2%) V-Go and 113 STO (45.9%) patients. Mean baseline HbA1c was significantly higher in V-Go (9.9%) than STO (9.4%). V-Go also experienced larger decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-1.0%) than STO (-0.36%) (p=.006) with a decrease in TDD, while STO TDD remained unchanged. EOS mean per patient per day cost of diabetes treatment was lower for V-Go ($30.59) vs STO ($32.20) (p=.006). V-Go was more cost effective than STO ($24.02 per 1% drop in HbA1c vs $58.86, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This pragmatic clinical trial demonstrated improved HbA1c levels, lower cost, and decreased insulin dose in patients with T2DM initiating V-Go vs STO in a real-world community-based practice setting. Observed baseline HbAlc indicated use of V-Go in more difficult to manage diabetes patients.