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

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.

Diabetes Technology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Novel Indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes technology has been continuously evolving. Current versions of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use minimally invasive designs, monitor glucose values with high accuracy, and can be used to guide insulin dosing. Extensive evidence supports the use of diabetes technology for monitoring and insulin administration in people with type 1 diabetes. However, there is emerging evidence for people with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we present the different technological devices used to monitor glucose and deliver insulin and the evidence supporting their use in people with type 2 diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of CGMs in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or non-insulin therapies has been associated with improvements in glycemic control and time spent in hypoglycemia. Smart insulin pens and smart connected devices are options to track compliance and guide insulin delivery in people who do not require insulin pump therapy. Mechanical patch pumps can be used to reduce the burden of multiple daily insulin injections. Automated insulin delivery algorithms improve glycemic control without an increase in hypoglycemia. The use of technology in the management of type 2 diabetes generates glycemic data previously inaccessible, reduces barriers for insulin initiation, improves glycemic control, tracks adherence to therapy, and improves user satisfaction.

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.

The Evolution of Diabetes Technology - Options Towards Personalized Care

Advances in diabetes technology, especially in the last few decades, have transformed our ability to deliver care to persons with diabetes (PWD). Developments in glucose monitoring, especially continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), have revolutionized diabetes care and empowered our patients to manage their disease. CGM has also played an integral role in advancing automated insulin delivery systems. Currently available and upcoming advanced hybrid-closed loop systems aim to decrease patient involvement and are approaching the functionality of a fully automated artificial pancreas. Other advances, such as smart insulin pens and daily patch pumps, offer more options for patients and require less complicated and costly technology. Evidence to support the role of diabetes technology is growing, and PWD and clinicians must choose the right type of technology with a personalized strategy to manage diabetes effectively. Here, we review currently available diabetes technologies, summarize their individual features and highlight key patient factors to consider when creating a personalized treatment plan. We also address current challenges and barriers to the adoption of diabetes technologies.

Costs and Outcomes Comparison of Diabetes Technology Usage Among People With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin

BACKGROUND

Does initiation of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or insulin pump lower health care utilization and/or costs?

METHODS

Distinct cohorts of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) using a blood glucose monitor (BGM), CGM, pump, or CGM with pump were identified from a large claims database. Patients ≥40 years old with 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after the device start date qualified for the study. Outcomes included one-year medical utilization and costs (minus device) for events such as hospitalizations and office visits. Generalized linear models were fitted, controlling for numerous baseline covariates. The Holm method corrected for the multiplicity of hypotheses tested.

RESULTS

Of the 8235 total patients, the BGM control group was the largest, had the lowest percentage of patients with T1D, and was significantly different from the device groups in most baseline categories. Formally, only two comparisons were statistically significant: Compared with BGM, the pump cohort had greater adjusted first-year total medical and office visit costs. Other secondary outcomes such as days hospitalized, emergency department visits and labs, favored pump. Most endpoints were favorable for CGM. Results for CGM with pump generally were intermediate between CGM and pump alone.

CONCLUSIONS

During a one-year follow-up, unadjusted medical costs of both CGM and pump appear lower than BGM, but multivariable modeling yielded adjusted savings only for CGM use. Economic benefits might be observable sooner for CGMs than for pumps. Generalized linear models fitted to health care utilization event rates produced favorable results for both CGM and pump.

J. Schreiber L, Wallace EJ, Wylie R, O'Sullivan J, Dolan EB, Duffy GP. Medical devices, smart drug delivery, wearables and technology for the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus refers to a group of metabolic disorders which affect how the body uses glucose impacting approximately 9% of the population worldwide. This review covers the most recent technological advances envisioned to control and/or reverse Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), many of which will also prove effective in treating the other forms of diabetes mellitus. Current standard therapy for T1DM involves multiple daily glucose measurements and insulin injections. Advances in glucose monitors, hormone delivery systems, and control algorithms generate more autonomous and personalised treatments through hybrid and fully automated closed-loop systems, which significantly reduce hypo- and hyperglycaemic episodes and their subsequent complications. Bi-hormonal systems that co-deliver glucagon or amylin with insulin aim to reduce hypoglycaemic events or increase time spent in target glycaemic range, respectively. Stimuli responsive materials for the controlled delivery of insulin or glucagon are a promising alternative to glucose monitors and insulin pumps. By their self-regulated mechanism, these "smart" drugs modulate their potency, pharmacokinetics and dosing depending on patients' glucose levels. Islet transplantation is a potential cure for T1DM as it restores endogenous insulin and glucagon production, but its use is not yet widespread due to limited islet sources and risks of chronic immunosuppression. New encapsulation strategies that promote angiogenesis and oxygen delivery while protecting islets from recipients' immune response may overcome current limiting factors.

Simplified, Low-Cost Method on Glucose Tolerance Testing in High-Risk Group of Diabetes, Explored by Simulation of Diagnosis

Objective: Explore the distribution of basic characteristics of high-risk groups of diabetes; verify the practical significance and diagnostic value of the “three-point method”; layered analysis of glycated hemoglobin and glycated serum albumin, and study its value and significance in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, Type II and pre-diabetes mellitus, Type II.Methods: 1304 high-risk individuals with T2D in Shanghai, 529 males and 841 females with an average of (50.5 ± 15.2) years old, were examined by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c and GA were determined. Process the data by Python and GraphPad; judge the diagnostic value of HbA1C, GA by ROC.Results: (1) The numbers of DM, NGT, HOG, IFG, Mild–IGT and Mid–IGT in the objects were 647, 141, 70, 4, 208 and 234 respectively. In the 43-49 age group with a higher incidence, the proportion of selected high-risk groups is low. (2) The sensitivity and specificity about “three-point method” used to determine NGT is 100% and 90.11%; to determine IGR is 75.11% and 97.32%; to determine HOG is 97.14% and 100%; to determine DM is 94.67% and 100%. (3) According to ROC judgment, it is found that these 2 did not have the function of separate diagnoses, the optimal critical point of HbA1C related to DM status is 5.95%, (P<.01); HbA1C related to IGR status is 5.75% (P<.01); of GA related to DM status is 15.25% (P<.01); GA related to IGR status is 14.95% (P<.01).

Effectiveness of Wearable Device-based Intervention on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A System Review and Meta-Analysis

With the development of flexible electronics and chip technology, the application value of wearable devices in lifelong treatment of chronic diseases is increasing. In view of its rapid development and diversified forms, wearable device-based intervention seems to provide a promising option to solve the problems of long-term glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, to date, it is unclear whether the intervention based on wearable device is effective on glycemic control in patients with T2D. In order to explore whether this choice is effective in glycemic control in patients with T2D, after database search and study screening, 6 studies and 1001 patients were selected from 181studies for this meta-analysis. The results guided that the wearable device-based intervention may be more effective than usual care on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Subgroup analysis showed that when the duration of intervention was equal to or less than 12 weeks, the effect of wearable device-based intervention was significantly different from that of usual care, but when the intervention duration greater than 12 weeks, the effect was not significantly different. The intervention effect of wearable devices with goal-setting or encouragement functions was significantly better than that of usual care, and there was no significant difference between automatic drug delivery wearable devices and usual care. In conclusion, the wearable device-based intervention is effective on glycemic control in patients with T2D. In general, this choice of wearable devices for patients with T2D may be effective to some extent.

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes With the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery Device in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Uncontrolled type 2 diabetes can lead to a multitude of health complications. Insulin therapy is recommended when patients are unable to reach their A1C goal with oral or noninsulin injectable diabetes medications. This study evaluated the clinical benefits of switching from multiple daily insulin injections to a wearable insulin delivery device (V-Go). A retrospective chart review was conducted on 44 patients who received prescriptions for the V-Go at two family medicine offices. Investigators found a significant reduction in A1C and daily insulin requirements with no impact on weight or BMI.

Clinical Evaluation of Basal-Bolus Therapy Delivered by the V-Go® Wearable Insulin Delivery Device in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Analysis

Insulin therapy is frequently required to achieve glycemic targets (A1c) in type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, clinicians and patients face barriers with the complexities of multiple daily injection regimens. Patch-like wearable insulin devices, such as V-Go, may simplify and optimize this complexity. This study evaluated the change in A1C and insulin total daily dose (TDD) in a suboptimally-controlled (not achieving A1C targets) T2D population after switching to V-Go. A retrospective chart analysis at a diabetes clinic was performed to evaluate change in A1c measurements from baseline (V-Go initiation) to end of study observation. Of the 139 patients enrolled, A1C significantly decreased from baseline (−1.5 ± 1.79%; p < 0.001). Patients prescribed insulin at baseline (n = 122) used significantly less insulin TDD (−8 u/day; p = 0.006). The percentage of patients meeting the target of A1C < 8% increased from 14% at baseline to 48% at study completion (p = 0.008). Patients prescribed a basal-bolus regimen prior to V-Go achieved an A1C reduction of 1.5 ± 2.0% (p < 0.0001) and experienced the greatest reduction in TDD (−24 u/day; p < 0.0001). Thus, patients switching to V-Go from a variety of therapies at baseline experienced reductions in A1C while using less insulin, with a reduction in clinically relevant hypoglycemia, indicating the potential benefit of V-Go in optimizing and simplifying T2D care.

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.

Multicenter Real-World Assessment of the Effectiveness of V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery Device in Adult Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (ENABLE Study): A Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

Patch-like wearable insulin delivery devices are gaining acceptance as a treatment modality for insulin delivery in patients with diabetes. These devices aim to simplify and optimize insulin delivery while reducing barriers associated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen. As clinicians aim to learn more about this method of insulin delivery, real-world evidence can provide insight for patient identification and treatment guidance. This study was performed to evaluate the change in glycemic control (A1C) and insulin total daily dose (TDD) after switching to V-Go wearable insulin delivery device in a type 2 diabetes population with suboptimal control using conventional insulin delivery regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Electronic health records were queried to identify patients meeting inclusion criteria. Study objectives evaluated change in A1C and insulin TDD compared to baseline. A total of 283 patients were enrolled across 9 diabetes specialty sites.

RESULTS

A1C significantly decreased from baseline at 3 months (-1.01% ± 0.09; P=0.0001) and 7 months (-1.04% ± 0.10; P<0.0001) after switching to V-Go. TDD of insulin significantly decreased at 3 months (-17 ± 3 U/day; P<0.0001) and 7 months (-14 ± 3 U/day; P<0.0001). Stratifying by prescribed baseline insulin regimen (basal-bolus, basal only or premix) or diabetes duration (<5 years to >20 years) demonstrated significant glycemic improvements from baseline with V-Go regardless of baseline regimen or duration of diabetes. After 7 months of V-Go use, the percent of patients considered high risk (A1C >9.0%) was reduced by nearly half (46% to 24%), and 52% of patients overall achieved an A1C <8%.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the largest real-world study of the effectiveness of V-Go in patients with type 2 diabetes. Significant improvements in glycemic control with a reduction in insulin utilization were achieved across varying baseline insulin regimens and regardless of diabetes duration supporting the clinical benefits of this patch-like wearable insulin delivery device.

Effectiveness of V-Go® for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

V-Go is a wearable, patch-like, 24-h insulin delivery device that delivers both a continuous preset basal rate and on-demand bolus dosing. The aim of this study was to observe glycemic control, insulin dosing, and hypoglycemia risk in patients switched to V-Go in a real-world setting. The primary objective was to compare change in mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of V-Go use.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, multicenter study recruited patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) across 28 centers. Efficacy analyses were conducted for all patients with a post-baseline HbA1c and results stratified based on prior antihyperglycemic medication therapies. Insulin dosing was at the discretion of the health care provider and the protocol did not mandate glycemic targets. Treatment satisfaction surveys were utilized to gain patient feedback on the use of V-Go.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, among whom 140 patients had a valid post-baseline HbA1c and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Use of V-Go resulted in a change of - 0.64%; (P = 0.003) in HbA1c from baseline, and in those prescribed insulin, the total daily dose of insulin was decreased by 12 units/day (P < 0.0001). Twenty-two patients (12%) reported hypoglycemic events (≤ 70 mg/dL), with an event rate of 1.51 events/patient/year.

CONCLUSION

In a T2D population with suboptimal HbA1c, initiating V-Go therapy in a real-world setting significantly improved glycemic control and led to significant insulin dose reductions. ClinicalTrial.gov registry identifier: NCT01326598.

Effect of V-Go Versus Multiple Daily Injections on Glycemic Control, Insulin Use, and Diabetes Medication Costs Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Coping with discomfort and the uncertainties of daily adjustments are prominent challenges confronting individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. For this growing population, wearable, disposable devices capable of delivering consistent and sustained doses of basal-bolus therapy may help to alleviate concerns and improve outcomes. However, studies on the comparative effectiveness of new, innovative delivery systems versus MDI on insulin requirements, glycemic control, and health care costs are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To examine glycemic control, insulin use, and diabetes medication costs for users of the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery device compared with MDI insulin therapy among individuals with T2DM in a commercially insured population in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study queried administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database from July 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017. Cohorts included individuals with T2DM aged 21-80 years either newly initiating V-Go or using MDI for basal/bolus insulin. The date of earliest claim for V-Go prescription fill or for bolus insulin was defined as the index date, depending on the cohort. Previous insulin therapy was required in both cohorts. Baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were identified during the 6 months before and 15 days after the index date; results closest to 12 months after the index date were selected as follow-up. Insulin use and diabetes medication cost data were examined during the 6 months baseline and the second half of the 1-year follow-up. V-Go and MDI users were 1:1 matched on baseline insulin exposure, A1c level, and other characteristics of interest. Univariate and multivariate tests were used to compare follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts included 118 well-balanced pairs (mean age: 56 years; mean baseline A1c: 9.2%). During follow-up, both cohorts experienced improvements in glycemic control relative to baseline (% with A1c ≤ 9%, baseline/follow-up: V-Go 49/69, P < 0.001; MDI 50/60, P = 0.046). With similar baseline insulin prescription fills and diabetes medication costs, V-Go users required fewer insulin prescription fills (mean change: -0.8 vs. +1.8 fills, P < 0.001; -17% vs. +38%); had a smaller increase in diabetes medication costs (mean change in 2016 USD: $341 vs. $1,628, P = 0.012; +10% vs. +47%); and a decrease in insulin total daily dose (mean change in insulin units per day: -29.2 vs. +5.8, P < 0.001; -21% vs. +4%), compared with MDI users, during the last 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of V-Go for up to a 1-year follow-up period. Relative to MDI users, V-Go users had similar glycemic control but lower insulin use and lower diabetes medication costs during follow-up. V-Go therapy may provide an opportunity to improve quality measures more cost-effectively in people with T2DM who require basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Valeritas. Nguyen is an employee of Valeritas. Zhou, Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which received funding for this study from Valeritas. Raval was an employee of HealthCore at the time the study was conducted. Partial findings from this study were presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23rd Annual International Meeting; May 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD; and the 54th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting; October 1-5, 2018; Berlin, Germany.

Effect of V-Go Versus Multiple Daily Injections on Glycemic Control, Insulin Use, and Diabetes Medication Costs Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Coping with discomfort and the uncertainties of daily adjustments are prominent challenges confronting individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. For this growing population, wearable, disposable devices capable of delivering consistent and sustained doses of basal-bolus therapy may help to alleviate concerns and improve outcomes. However, studies on the comparative effectiveness of new, innovative delivery systems versus MDI on insulin requirements, glycemic control, and health care costs are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To examine glycemic control, insulin use, and diabetes medication costs for users of the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery device compared with MDI insulin therapy among individuals with T2DM in a commercially insured population in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study queried administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database from July 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017. Cohorts included individuals with T2DM aged 21-80 years either newly initiating V-Go or using MDI for basal/bolus insulin. The date of earliest claim for V-Go prescription fill or for bolus insulin was defined as the index date, depending on the cohort. Previous insulin therapy was required in both cohorts. Baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were identified during the 6 months before and 15 days after the index date; results closest to 12 months after the index date were selected as follow-up. Insulin use and diabetes medication cost data were examined during the 6 months baseline and the second half of the 1-year follow-up. V-Go and MDI users were 1:1 matched on baseline insulin exposure, A1c level, and other characteristics of interest. Univariate and multivariate tests were used to compare follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts included 118 well-balanced pairs (mean age: 56 years; mean baseline A1c: 9.2%). During follow-up, both cohorts experienced improvements in glycemic control relative to baseline (% with A1c ≤ 9%, baseline/follow-up: V-Go 49/69, P < 0.001; MDI 50/60, P = 0.046). With similar baseline insulin prescription fills and diabetes medication costs, V-Go users required fewer insulin prescription fills (mean change: -0.8 vs. +1.8 fills, P < 0.001; -17% vs. +38%); had a smaller increase in diabetes medication costs (mean change in 2016 USD: $341 vs. $1,628, P = 0.012; +10% vs. +47%); and a decrease in insulin total daily dose (mean change in insulin units per day: -29.2 vs. +5.8, P < 0.001; -21% vs. +4%), compared with MDI users, during the last 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of V-Go for up to a 1-year follow-up period. Relative to MDI users, V-Go users had similar glycemic control but lower insulin use and lower diabetes medication costs during follow-up. V-Go therapy may provide an opportunity to improve quality measures more cost-effectively in people with T2DM who require basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Valeritas. Nguyen is an employee of Valeritas. Zhou, Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which received funding for this study from Valeritas. Raval was an employee of HealthCore at the time the study was conducted. Partial findings from this study were presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23rd Annual International Meeting; May 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD; and the 54th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting; October 1-5, 2018; Berlin, Germany.