Insulin degludec early clinical experience: does the promise from the clinical trials translate into clinical practice--a case-based evaluation

Insulin Degludec in People with Type 2 Diabetes in China: A Non-interventional, Retrospective Chart Review Study (CN-TREAT)

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (degludec), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin analogue, provides equivalent glycemic control to other basal insulin analogues, with lower risk of hypoglycemia and flexible dosing. Chinese TREsiba AudiT (CN-TREAT) investigated outcomes with degludec in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice in China.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study in adults with T2D initiating or switching to degludec at 50 sites in China between January 2020 and July 2021. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of study (EOS; week 20). Secondary endpoints included change from baseline to EOS in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), daily insulin dose, and rate of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Data from 936 participants were included (499 insulin-naïve; 437 insulin-experienced). Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) HbA1c change from baseline to EOS was - 1.48%-points (- 1.57; - 1.38; P < 0.0001) overall: - 1.95%-points (- 2.08; - 1.81; P < 0.0001) in insulin-naïve participants and - 0.95%-points (- 1.08; - 0.82; P < 0.0001) in insulin-experienced participants. Mean (95% CI) changes in FPG and SMPG were - 2.27 mmol/L (- 2.69; - 1.85; P < 0.0001) and - 2.89 mmol/L (- 3.52; - 2.25; P < 0.0001), respectively, with similar reductions in insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced subgroups. Rate of hypoglycemia did not change statistically significantly from baseline to EOS overall, or in insulin-experienced participants, except when adjusted for baseline hypoglycemia. Basal insulin dose did not change statistically significantly in insulin-experienced participants.

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice in China, initiation or switching to degludec was associated with improvements in glycemic control in people with T2D, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinialTrials.gov, NCT04227431.

Reduced Rates of Hypoglycemia in Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes After Switching to Insulin Degludec: Results from the Italian Cohort of the ReFLeCT Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate in an Italian real-world setting the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec 100 units/mL, given once daily in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after switching from other basal insulins.

METHODS

ReFLeCT was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted across seven European countries which involved adult patients whose physician planned to switch their medication from basal insulin to insulin degludec. The primary outcome was the change in the number of hypoglycemic episodes before and after the switch to insulin degludec. Results are expressed as 12-month follow-up/baseline incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

The Italian cohort of the ReFLect study comprised 148 patients with T1DM and 311 patients with T2DM. In patients with T1DM, the switch to insulin degludec was associated with significantly lower rates of overall (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82), non-severe (IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.85), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.69). Following the switch, hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels decreased significantly by 0.35% (95% CI - 0.50 to  - 0.20), with no significant changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and basal insulin dose. Body weight increased by 0.83 kg (95% CI 0.16-1.50). In patients with T2DM, significant reductions in the rates of overall (IRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.55), non-severe (IRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34-0.63), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.86) were documented. HbA_1c and FPG decreased significantly by 0.45% (95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.31) and 0.90 mmol/L (95% CI - 1.21 to - 0.59], respectively, with no significant changes in basal insulin dose or body weight. Treatment satisfaction significantly improved in both diabetes types.

CONCLUSION

In Italian routine clinical practice, switching from other basal insulins to insulin degludec reduced the total episodes of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with T1DM and T2DM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02392117.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

BACKGROUND

This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.

METHODS

A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure.

RESULTS

In Bulgaria, degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM. The ICERs were estimated to be 4493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM_BOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM_B/B), which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Degludec was associated with higher insulin costs in all three patient groups; however, savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 partially offset these costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM_BOT and 91.3% in T2DM_B/B.

CONCLUSION

Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

Switching to Degludec From Other Basal Insulins Is Associated With Reduced Hypoglycemia Rates: A Prospective Study

CONTEXT

Observational studies of insulin degludec (degludec) with hypoglycemia events prospectively recorded are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of degludec in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) switching from other basal insulins in routine care.

DESIGN

Results From Real-World Clinical Treatment With Tresiba® was a multinational, multicenter, prospective, observational, single-arm study comprising a 4-week baseline period (preswitch basal insulin) and 12-month follow-up (degludec).

SETTING

Routine clinical practice.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Insulin-treated patients (≥18 years) with T1D (n = 556) or T2D (n = 611) with treatment plans to initiate degludec.

INTERVENTIONS

Switching to degludec from other basal insulins.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Change from baseline in number of overall hypoglycemic events recorded in patient diaries.

RESULTS

In T1D, the 12-month follow-up/baseline rate ratios (95% CI) of overall [0.80 (0.74 to 0.88)], nonsevere [0.83 (0.76 to 0.91)], severe [0.28 (0.14 to 0.56)], and nocturnal [0.61 (0.50 to 0.73)] hypoglycemia suggested significantly lower hypoglycemia rates with degludec (all Ps < 0.001). At 12 months, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and basal insulin dosage decreased significantly. Body weight increased, and treatment satisfaction improved significantly. In T2D, the hypoglycemia rate ratios were overall [0.46 (0.38 to 0.56)], nonsevere [0.53 (0.44 to 0.64)], and nocturnal [0.35 (0.20 to 0.62)] (all Ps < 0.001; too few events for analysis of severe hypoglycemia). At 12 months, HbA1c and FPG decreased significantly. Body weight and insulin dosages remained unchanged, and treatment satisfaction was significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

In a routine clinical care setting, switching to degludec from other basal insulins was associated with significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia, improved glycemic control, and treatment satisfaction in patients with T1D or T2D.

Switching "Real-World" Diabetes Patients to Degludec from Other Basal Insulins Provides Different Clinical Benefits According to Their Baseline Glycemic Control

INTRODUCTION

The stable, ultra-long duration of action of insulin degludec (degludec) minimizes fluctuations in glucose-lowering activity over the daily (24-h) dosing period, and comparative studies with other basal insulins suggest that these properties translate into a lower risk of hypoglycemia at equivalent levels of glycemic control. Results from the real-world European multicenter, retrospective chart review study of 2550 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (T1D and T2D) in routine clinical care EU-TREAT (NCT02662114) showed that patients benefited from improved glycemic control and significantly reduced rates of hypoglycemia following a switch to degludec.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, EU-TREAT patients were stratified into good (≤ 7.5% HbA1c), intermediate (> 7.5 to ≤ 8.5% HbA1c), and poor (> 8.5% HbA1c) glycemic control at baseline to investigate the possibility of differential benefits, either improved control or reduced risk of hypoglycemia, whichever the need. Changes in HbA1c, overall hypoglycemia, and total insulin dose from baseline to 6 and 12 months follow-up were assessed for each group.

RESULTS

For both T1D and T2D patients, those in good initial control experienced significant reductions in rates of hypoglycemia and total insulin dose following the switch, without compromising control. Those in poor initial control achieved significant improvements in HbA1c with no change in rates of hypoglycemia or total insulin dose.

CONCLUSION

This analysis expands the findings of EU-TREAT by showing differential changes in the clinical endpoints depending on particular need. It introduces the possibility that the differential benefits of degludec could address two of the renowned clinical challenges faced when treating diabetes: improving glycemic control for optimal management of T1D and titrating insulin dose in T2D, both without fear of increased hypoglycemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02662114.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting

BACKGROUND

Understanding which therapeutic innovations in diabetes represent the best value requires rigorous economic evaluation. Data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies indicate that insulin degludec has a hypoglycemia advantage versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100), the most widely prescribed basal insulin analogue in the UK. This analysis was done to more rigorously assess cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.

METHODS

Data from two double-blinded, randomised, two-period crossover trials in type 1 (SWITCH 1) and type 2 (SWITCH 2) diabetes mellitus were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of degludec vs. glargine U100 with an economic model. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon based on the different rates of hypoglycaemia and actual doses of insulin used, rather than glycaemic control due to the treat-to-target trial design.

RESULTS

In type 1 diabetes mellitus, degludec was highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £984 (increased costs of only £23/year and improvement in participant health of 0.0232 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). In type 2 diabetes mellitus, it was estimated that quality of life was improved (0.0065 QALYs gain) with degludec compared with glargine U100 at an increased annual cost of £117 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £17,939). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to changes in parameters in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

The rigorous design of the SWITCH trials, coupled with a representative patient population and a definition of hypoglycaemia that is relevant for real-world patients, makes the results of these trials highly generalisable. The within-trial analysis has the added value of being able to include doses and event rates directly from the trials. This short-term economic analysis estimated that IDeg would be cost-effective relative to IGlar U100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.

Quality-of-life and treatment satisfaction in actual clinical practice of patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and hypoglycemia treated with insulin degludec

OBJECTIVE

The frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM is high and results in a poorer quality-of-life and low treatment satisfaction. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the effect of changing the basal insulin (glargine or detemir) to insulin degludec.

METHODS

An observational analytical study was conducted on a cohort of 110 patients with T1DM. The patients were administered three questionnaires to assess treatment satisfaction (DTSQ-s), fear of hypoglycemia (HFS-II) and quality-of-life (EQ-5D), before the change and at 6 months. A statistical analysis was performed for repeated measures.

RESULTS

The 110 patients with T1DM had a mean diabetes duration of 19.1 (11.6) years, 53.6% were men, the mean age was 43.4 (15.4) years, and the mean BMI was 25.2 (4.2) kg/m². After 6 months, there was a significant reduction in baseline fasting plasma glucose (from 159.1 [68.6] to 132.9 [56.6] mg/dL; p < .001) and HbA1c levels (from 7.82% [1.2] to 7.6% [1.2]; p = .002). A reduction in the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes (0.17 [0.5] vs 0.05 [0.2]; p = .03) was observed. At 6 months, an improvement in the DTSQ-s (from 24.3 [5.5] to 27.3 [5.4]; p < .001) was observed. There was a decrease in the mean number of perceived hypoglycemia (from 2.9 [1.4] to 2.3 [1.4]; p = .003) and hyperglycemia (from 3.5 [1.3] to 2.7 [1.4]; p < .001). There was also a decrease in the mean HFS-II score (from 24.1 [14.0] to 20.0 [13.0]; p < .001). There were no significant differences in the EQ-5D index (from 0.91 [0.14] to 0.89 [0.16]; p = .13). However, there was significant improvement in the EQ-5D as measured by VAS (from 70.5 [16.5] to 73.6 [14.4]; p = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The change to insulin degludec in patients with T1DM improved their metabolic control, increased their satisfaction with the insulin therapy, and offered them improved quality-of-life.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Serbia

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Serbia.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis, implementing a simple short-term model, was used to compare treatment costs and outcomes with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Cost-effectiveness was analysed in a 1-year setting, based on data from clinical trials. Costs were estimated from the healthcare payer perspective, the Serbian Health Insurance Fund (RFZO). The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Degludec is highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100 for people with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. The ICERs are estimated at 417,586 RSD/QALY gained in T1DM, 558,811 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 1,200,141 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal-bolus therapy (T2DMB/B). All ICERs fall below the commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in Serbia (1,785,642 RSD/QALY gained). In all three patient groups, insulin costs are higher with degludec than with glargine U100, but these costs are partially offset by savings from a lower daily insulin dose in T1DM and T2DMBOT, a reduction in hypoglycaemic events in all three patient groups and reduced costs of SMBG testing in the T2DM groups with degludec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSION

Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. Degludec may particularly benefit those suffering from hypoglycaemia or where the patient would benefit from the option of flexible dosing.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Clinical and Cost Implications of Insulin Degludec in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycemia: A Quality Improvement Project

INTRODUCTION

To assess the real-life clinical benefits and cost implications of switching from another basal insulin to insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on basal-bolus regimens with recurrent hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness.

METHODS

Patients with T1D who were aged ≥ 18 years, were on a basal-bolus regimen, and had switched to degludec plus bolus insulin for at least 6 months were included. Patients had to have switched to degludec as a result of recurrent hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness.

RESULTS

Six months of follow-up data were available for 42 patients. At 6 months, there was a significant reduction in median (interquartile range) HbA_1c, from 8.6 (8.0-9.3)% [70 (64-78) mmol/mol] to 8.4 (7.9-8.9)% [68 (63-74) mmol/mol]; p < 0.05. Median daily basal insulin dose reduced significantly from 30.0 (14.7-45.0) to 25.5 (14.0-30.2) units; p < 0.0001. Data from hospital records showed reductions in the frequency of episodes of severe hypoglycemia from eight in the 6 months preceding degludec initiation to two in the 6 months following initiation. In the same period, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes reduced from two before degludec initiation to no episodes after initiation. No patients reported worsening treatment satisfaction after switching to degludec. Considering the reductions in the basal dose required and the frequency of hypoglycemia episodes, we estimate that switching such patients to degludec from other basal insulins could provide significant savings in direct healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T1D, switching to degludec was associated with an improvement in HbA_1c and reductions in basal insulin dose, severe hypoglycemia, and DKA. When used in appropriate patients, degludec could lead to significant cost savings.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

A European, multicentre, retrospective, non-interventional study (EU-TREAT) of the effectiveness of insulin degludec after switching basal insulin in a population with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec (IDeg) in insulin-treated patients with either type 1 diabetes (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) under conditions of routine clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a multicentre, retrospective, chart review study. In all patients, basal insulin was switched to IDeg at least 6 months before the start of data collection. Baseline was defined as the most recent recording during the 3-month period before first prescription of IDeg. Values are presented as mean [95%CI].

RESULTS

T1DM (n = 1717): HbA1c decreased by -2.2 [-2.6; -2.0] mmol/mol (-0.20 [-0.24; -0.17]%) at 6 months vs baseline (P < .001). Rate ratio of overall (0.79 [0.69; 0.89]), non-severe nocturnal (0.54 [0.42; 0.69]) and severe (0.15 [0.09; 0.24]) hypoglycaemia was significantly lower in the 6-month post-switch period vs the pre-switch period (P < .001 for all). Total daily insulin dose decreased by -4.88 [-5.52; -4.24] U (-11%) at 6 months vs baseline (P < .001). T2DM (n = 833): HbA1c decreased by -5.6 [-6.3; -4.7] mmol/mol (-0.51 [-0.58; -0.43] %) at 6 months vs baseline (P < .001). Rate ratio of overall (0.39 [0.27; 0.58], P < .001), non-severe nocturnal (0.10 [0.06; 0.16], P < .001) and severe (0.075 [0.01; 0.43], P = .004) hypoglycaemia was significantly lower in the 6-month post-switch period vs the pre-switch period. Total daily insulin dose decreased by -2.48 [-4.24; -0.71] U (-3%) at 6 months vs baseline (P = .006). Clinical outcomes for T1DM and T2DM at 12 months were consistent with results at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that switching patients to IDeg from other basal insulins improves glycaemic control and significantly reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia in routine clinical practice.

The potential effect of ultra-long insulin degludec on glycemic variability

Despite the therapeutic advances in the treatment of diabetes, metabolic control instability due to glycemic variability (GV) is frequently observed in patients with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy and is associated with hyperglycemic peaks and hypoglycemic episodes. Hyperglycemia associated with GV has been implicated in the development of chronic complications due to its pro-oxidative consequences. On the other hand, hypoglycemia can be associated with increased cardiovascular risk secondarily to adrenergic activation. The ultra-long-acting insulin analogue, insulin degludec (IDeg), presents a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect both in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes patients. In pharmacodynamic studies, IDeg has been associated with a lower variability in its insulin action than other alternatives for basal insulin, which might have clinical advantages for the stability of the glycemic control. The main objective of this review is to present pharmacological and clinical data regarding the efficacy and safety of IDeg for the treatment of diabetes focusing on its effects on GV and on hypoglycemia frequency.

Improved Glycemic Control Achieved by Switching to Insulin Degludec in Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: a Non-interventional, Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Retrospective cohort study evaluating the clinical effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes switching from other insulins to IDeg in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Maccabi Health Management Organization in Israel and included patients treated with IDeg between 1 September 2014 and 29 February 2016. Main inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and treated with insulin for at least 1 year prior to IDeg initiation. HbA1c, insulin dose, body weight, and body mass index were recorded before and 90 and 180 days post-switch.

RESULTS

Of 211 eligible patients, 57% were male, mean age ± SD 62.2 ± 12.1 years, and diabetes duration >10 years. Switching to IDeg decreased HbA1c from a mean 8.8 ± 1.5% (73.0 ± 16.4 mmol/mol) baseline by 0.58 ± 1.0% (6.3 ± 10.9 mmol/mol) (p < 0.001). Baseline HbA1c of >8.5% (69.0 mmol/mol) and daily insulin dose of ≥50 U were associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c [1.0 ± 1.1% (10.9 ± 12.0 mmol/mol) and 1.2 ± 1.1% (13.1 ± 12.0 mmol/mol), respectively] compared with the total population. At 180 days post-switch, the mean daily basal insulin dose increased by 2 U compared with pre-switch. There was no significant change in body weight post-switch.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, switching from another insulin to IDeg significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, without significant weight gain and with only a modest increase in insulin dose after IDeg initiation.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Glycemic Control in a Real-Life Setting in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with IDegLira at a Single Swiss Center

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to describe clinical outcomes in a real-world population of Swiss patients with long-standing, poorly controlled type 2 diabetes after switching to IDegLira [a combination of insulin degludec (IDeg) and liraglutide (Lira)].

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, single-center observational follow-up at the Cabinet Medical de Diabétologie, Lausanne, Switzerland, of 61 patients [HbA_1c 9.2% (77 mmol/mol) and 56.1 U total insulin] initiated with IDegLira at 20 dose steps (20 U IDeg/0.72 mg Lira), except in insulin-naïve patients who began treatment at 16 dose steps. Thereafter, the dose was titrated by four dose steps once weekly, according to individualized fasting blood glucose targets. Information about glycemic control, total insulin dose, weight, and blood pressure, along with any adverse events, was collected from medical records and patient reports during clinic visits at baseline, 3 months, and end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Over 6 months of follow-up, mean HbA_1c improved (decrease of 1.7%) to 7.5% with concomitant weight loss. Switching to IDegLira resulted in a lower (-14.6 U) total insulin dose compared with baseline for those patients previously on insulin. There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia during treatment with IDegLira. There were small decreases in both mean systolic and mean diastolic blood pressure with IDegLira. Six patients discontinued treatment early because of adverse gastrointestinal events with IDegLira.

CONCLUSION

Switching to IDegLira, mostly from regimens using insulin in conjunction with oral antidiabetic medications in a real-world population of patients with type 2 diabetes, resulted in improved glucose control with a lower insulin dose and weight loss.

Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and new-to-market basal insulin analogues in patients with diabetes in order to aid decision-making in a complex basal insulin market.

METHODS

A simple, short-term model was used to evaluate the costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar U100 over a 12-month period in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. New-to-market basal insulin analogues were evaluated in scenario analyses.

RESULTS

IDeg is dominant (more effective and less costly) versus IGlar U100 in patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM on a basal-only therapy regimen (T2DM_BOT), and is cost-effective versus IGlar U100 in patients with T2DM on a basal-bolus regimen (T2DM_B/B). In T1DM, lower costs are primarily driven by lower insulin costs, as a result of a lower daily dose of IDeg. In T2DM_BOT, lower overall costs with IDeg are driven by lower costs of severe hypoglycaemic events due to the significant reduction in number of events with IDeg versus IGlar U100. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are a result of the reduced incidence of hypoglycaemic events. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the results are robust. Scenario analyses versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues indicate that in patients with T1DM and T2DM_BOT, IDeg is likely to be highly cost-effective versus IGlar biosimilar Abasaglar^® and dominant versus IGlar U300 (Toujeo^®). In T2DM_B/B, IDeg is likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the accepted threshold.

CONCLUSION

IDeg is a cost-effective alternative to IGlar U100 for patients with diabetes in the UK, and it also likely to be cost-effective versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins: evidence from Swedish real-world data

OBJECTIVES

Health economic analysis from a healthcare and societal point of view was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) after switching from other basal insulins in people with type 1 diabetes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, single arm, observational follow-up from August 2013 to October 2015 of 476 consecutive patients at Danderyd Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) who switched to IDeg from other basal insulins (99% basal insulin analogs). The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to predict the cost-effectiveness of life-long treatment with IDeg vs. other basal insulins, based on a Swedish setting.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) duration of follow-up was 21.7 (6.0) weeks. Mean HbA_1c decreased by 2.7 mmol/mol, mean basal insulin dose decreased by 13.1% (p < .0001), and mean bolus insulin dose decreased by 7.5% (p < .0001) after switching. Frequencies of non-severe daytime hypoglycemia and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia decreased by 12% (p = .0127) and 53% (p < .0001) respectively and severe hypoglycemia was reduced by 62% (p = .0225). The CDM predicted a gain in life expectancy of 0.33 years, a discounted gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.54, and lower estimated direct lifetime healthcare costs of SEK 22,757 for patients switching to IDeg. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed IDeg as dominant (i.e. higher effectiveness with a lower cost). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results.

CONCLUSION

Based on this prospective, real-world, follow-up and using the CDM, it was estimated that switching to IDeg from other basal insulins translated into QALY gains including improved life expectancy and health-related quality of life, as well as dominant ICER, meaning cost-savings for the healthcare system. However, the study is limited by its observational design. Extrapolation into the future is only estimated since the actual treatment effect cannot be projected with certainty.

Budget impact of treating commercially insured type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in the United States with insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the annual budget impact if all US commercially insured type 1 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T1DM_BBT), type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-oral therapy (T2DM_BOT), and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on basal-bolus therapy (T2DM_BBT) switched from insulin glargine (IGlar) to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

A short-term (1 year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of IDeg vs. IGlar in three treatment groups (T1DM_BBT, insulin-naïve T2DM_BOT, and T2DM_BBT) through a simulation for a potential US health plan population of 35 million. The analysis captured direct medical costs associated with insulin treatment (insulin, needles, and self-monitored glucose testing) and costs related to managing hypoglycemic episodes. There were a total of 59,780 T1DM_BBT patients, 383,145 T2DM_BOT patients, and 171,325 T2DM_BBT patients expected to be using long-acting insulin. A sensitivity analysis on the entire US population was also conducted.

RESULTS

Among T1DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an annual cost savings of -$357.13 per patient per year (PPPY), driven primarily by reduced insulin utilization. IDeg was also found to be cost saving among T2DM_BOT patients (-$1206.61 PPPY), driven primarily by reductions in the cost of treating severe hypoglycemic episodes. Among T2DM_BBT patients, IDeg was associated with an additional cost to the plan of $1420.04 PPPY; however, this result was driven by a higher insulin dose for IDeg compared to IGlar. Overall, IDeg demonstrated cost savings of $240 million per year, which accounted for total cost savings of 3.5% vs. IGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that the reduced insulin utilization and fewer hypoglycemic episodes associated with IDeg may translate into reduced costs for payers. The model is limited by simplification of a complex disease state and assumptions surrounding disease state, treatment patterns, and costs. Therefore, results may not accurately reflect actual health plans or real-world practice patterns.

Insulin Degludec in Clinical Practice: A Review of Japanese Real-World Data

INTRODUCTION

In this literature review we evaluated the real-world clinical effectiveness of switching Japanese diabetic patients from their current insulin regimen to insulin degludec (IDeg).

METHODS

Studies were identified from Japanese Diabetes Society (JDS) abstracts (2014-2015) and PubMed (2012 onwards). Inclusion criteria were: Japanese population, >15 participants, and studies switching patients from basal or basal-bolus insulin regimens to IDeg. Randomized controlled trials and case reports were excluded. Weighted mean changes in safety and effectiveness endpoints were calculated using the number of patients in each study.

RESULTS

In total, 81 JDS abstracts and seven manuscripts met the search criteria, representing 4238 patients [1028 with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 602 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), 2608 with unspecified or mixed diabetes]. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) was reported in 93% of studies, with an improvement in 84% of these (51% significant, 33% numerical), no change in 12%, and worsening in 4% (3% numerical, 1% significant). Across all studies, the weighted mean absolute change in HbA_1c was -0.3% (-2.7 mmol/mol). Basal insulin dose was reported in 58% of studies and was lower in 60% of these (30% significant, 30% numerical), numerically unchanged in 26%, and higher in 14% (2% significant, 12% numerical). The weighted mean change in basal insulin dose was -4.8% and -3.0% for all studies and for studies with only significant results, respectively. The weighted mean change in basal dose based on all studies was -8.9, -5.5, and -2.9% for the T1D, T2D, and unspecified patient populations, respectively. Hypoglycemia was recorded in 31% of the studies. After switching treatment to IDeg, 55% of studies reported decreased hypoglycemia, 29% no change, and 16% an increase. Quality of life (QoL) was measured in 11% of studies, of which 82% reported improved QoL after switching, and 18% reported no change in QoL.

CONCLUSION

Switching from a conventional basal insulin to IDeg has the potential to improve HbA_1c with a lower insulin dose. Switching to IDeg may also provide a reduced risk of hypoglycemia and improvement in QoL.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Clinical safety of insulin detemir in patients with Type 2 diabetes in the Gulf countries: The multicenter, noninterventional, open-label LevSafe study

AIM

To evaluate the safety profile of insulin detemir (IDet) in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Gulf countries in the 32-week, noninterventional LevSafe study.

METHODS

People with T2DM whose physicians had opted to start IDet therapy were included in the study. Safety parameters, including serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and hypoglycemia, and changes in body weight and glycemic control were evaluated at baseline, week 16 and week 32.

RESULTS

A total of 686 patients were exposed to IDet therapy with a mean (±standard deviation) age, body mass index, and diabetes duration of 51.3 ± 11.0 years, 31.3 ± 5.5 kg/m(2), and 10.2 ± 6.1 years, respectively. The mean total daily dose of IDet was 32.0 ± 32.8 U at baseline and 44.7 ± 60.7 U at week 32. No SADRs were reported during the study. Total hypoglycemia decreased from 435 events at baseline to 204 events at week 32 (mean change analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank test: -0.34; P = 0.0115), and no major hypoglycemia was reported at week 32. Over the 32-week treatment period, the mean body weight decreased from 85.7 ± 15.2 kg to 85.4 ± 14.5 kg (P = 0.0203), glycated hemoglobin A1c from 9.9 ± 1.67% to 7.7 ± 1.36% (P < 0.0001), and fasting plasma glucose from 11.9 ± 3.27 mmol/L to 7.4 ± 1.85 mmol/L (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

IDet therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with a decreased number of hypoglycemic events and improved glycemic control after 32 weeks in patients with T2DM in the Gulf countries.

A meta-analysis of rate ratios for nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine using different definitions for hypoglycaemia

AIMS

A prospective meta-analysis of phase 3 trials showed lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine. We investigated the consistency of the results across different definitions of hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

This post-hoc, patient-level meta-analysis included six randomized, controlled, 26- or 52-week phase 3a trials in insulin-naïve participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 diabetesinsulin naïve ), participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus using basal-bolus therapy (Type 2 diabetesBB ) and those with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. We used three definitions of hypoglycaemia and different timescales for the nocturnal period. Rates were analysed for the entire core trial period, the 'maintenance period' only, and the extension trial set population. Analyses utilized a negative binomial regression model.

RESULTS

In Type 2 diabetesinsulin naïve participants, risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine for all hypoglycaemia definitions and trial periods. Risk was also lower for the timescale 21.59-05.59, but not 00.01-07.59. For Type 2 diabetesBB , nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine across all definitions, timescales and trial periods, with one exception. For individuals with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk was significantly lower with insulin degludec during the maintenance period for the original definition (plasma glucose < 3.1 mmol/l, timescale 00.01-05.59) and in the extension trial set population for all hypoglycaemia definitions except for the nocturnal timescale 00.01-07.59.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec is associated with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and similar or lower rates in Type 1 diabetes mellitus, across different definitions.

Changes in HbA1c, insulin dose and incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes after switching to insulin degludec in an outpatient setting: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

Insulin degludec, a basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, became available in Sweden from July 2013. The diabetes team at Danderyd Hospital decided to perform a clinical follow-up of patients with type 1 diabetes switching to insulin degludec to evaluate its clinical performance, using a simple form and available measures, thereby indirectly assessing cost-effectiveness.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, single-arm, observational, clinical follow-up from August 2013 to February 2015 of consecutive patients who switched to insulin degludec according to predefined indications (i.e., currently administering basal insulin twice daily, unacceptable HbA1c, repeated hypoglycemic events and/or unstable glucose, difficulty with fixed-time administration) in conjunction with professional judgment and patient wishes. Information about HbA1c, insulin dose and frequency of hypoglycemia (self-reported by patient recall) was collected at baseline and repeated after 4-6 months.

RESULTS

In February 2015, data were available on 357 patients. Median time to follow-up was 20 weeks. Mean (SD) HbA1c decreased from 68.9 (15.7) to 65.8 (14.3) mmol/mol, p < 0.0001, and this improvement was achieved despite less insulin. Median reduction of the total insulin dose (basal + prandial) was 12% (interquartile range [IQR] -20% to -3%). The mean (SD) number of self-reported hypoglycemic events in the previous 4 weeks decreased from 8.2 (8.9) to 6.4 (7.6) events, p < 0.0001, and nocturnal hypoglycemic events were reduced from 1.6 (2.9) to 0.7 (2.0) events, p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSION

Due to improvement in glycemic control, reduction of hypoglycemic events and reduction of insulin dose, we concluded that insulin degludec was clinically useful and economically justifiable for our patients with type 1 diabetes. Not every patient may benefit to the same degree after switching to insulin degludec. Controlled studies are needed to confirm these benefits in a larger sample of real-world patients.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec: from clinical trials to clinical practice

The increasing prevalence of diabetes presents one of the greatest challenges to healthcare provision in modern times, with the cost of treating diabetes and its related complications representing a significant proportion of healthcare expenditure. In recent years, many new therapeutic entities have been developed with the aim of improving glycemic control, and thus slowing the development of micro- and macrovascular complications. Insulin degludec is a new-generation basal insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action and low day-to-day and hour-to-hour intrapatient variability in blood glucose-lowering action. In this review, we consider evidence from clinical trials and real-world studies demonstrating the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec and its potential for improving patient care.