Healthcare costs and adherence associated with human regular U-500 versus high-dose U-100 insulin in patients with diabetes

A machine learning-based algorithm to identify U-500R insulin candidates among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in US retrospective databases

OBJECTIVE

To develop a machine learning-based predictive algorithm to identify patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are candidates for initiation of U-500R insulin (U-500R).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients with T2DM was used from a large US administrative claims and electronic health records (EHR) database affiliated with Optum. Predictor variables derived from the data were used to identify appropriate supervised machine learning models including least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and extreme gradient boosted (XGBoost) methods. Predictive performance was assessed using precision-recall (PR) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC). The clinical interpretation of the final model was supported by fitting the final set of variables from the LASSO and XGBoost models to a traditional logistic regression model. Model choice was determined by comparing Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), residual deviances, and scaled Brier scores.

RESULTS

Among 81,242 patients who met the study eligibility criteria, 577 initiated U-500R and were assigned to the positive class. Predictors of U-500R initiation included overweight/obesity, neuropathy, HbA1c ≥9% and 8%-9%, BUN 23.8 to <112 mg/dl, ALT 35.9-2056.2 U/L, no radiological chest exams, no GFR labs, and gait/mobility abnormalities. The best performing model was the LASSO model with an ROC AUC of 0.776 on the hold-out test set.

CONCLUSION

This study successfully developed and validated a machine learning-based algorithm to identify U-500R candidates among patients with T2DM. This may help health care providers and decision-makers to understand important characteristics of patients who could use U-500R therapies which in turn could support policies and guidelines for optimal patient management.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Before and After Humulin R U-500 Initiation Among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Prescribed ≤ 200 Units/day of U-100 Insulin

INTRODUCTION

Humulin R U-500 (U-500R) utilization has increased in the past few years, raising concerns as U-500R is indicated only for patients requiring > 200 units of insulin. Thus, evidence of dispensed total daily dose (dTDD) > 200 units of prior U-100 insulin based on pharmacy claims is increasingly used as a criterion to determine appropriate switching to U-500R by payers. The study compared the treatment patterns and outcomes before and after U-500R initiation among patients who were identified with ≤ 200 units/day U-100 insulin fill in order to understand the appropriateness of switching.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated U-500R (index date = first fill) with ≤ 200 units/day pre-index dTDD and > 200 units/day post-index dTDD were identified in a Veterans Health Administration dataset between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2017. Descriptive analysis was conducted on treatment patterns (dTDD, insulin dosage [units/kg], adherence, number of prescription fills) and clinical outcomes (HbA1c, symptomatic hypoglycemic events). Associations between U-500R exposure and outcomes were evaluated using mixed-effects models. Subgroups of U-500R syringe and KwikPen users were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Among 1191 U-500R initiators identified in the study the mean dTDD increased from the pre- to post-index periods (147.2 vs 346.3; p < 0.0001). The mean HbA1c decreased from pre- to post-initiation (9.6% vs 8.6%; p < 0.0001), and symptomatic hypoglycemia events per patient per year increased (2.0 vs 3.3, p < 0.0001). Mixed-effects models confirmed the significance of the changes (p < 0.0001). Device subgroups followed similar trends.

CONCLUSIONS

U-500R initiation was associated with large dTDD increases, improved glycemic control, and modest increases in hypoglycemia events, suggesting U-500R initiation may have corrected previous treatment compliance issues. Imposing dTDDs > 200 units before switching to U-500R criterion could hurt the opportunities for patients who need a simplified regimen for better outcomes.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Human Regular U-500 Insulin Administered via Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Subcutaneous Injection in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes and High-Dose Insulin Requirements

INTRODUCTION

Human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) is approved for subcutaneous (SC) injection in patients with diabetes requiring >200 units/day of insulin. Here, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles following U-500R administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and SC injection in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on high-dose insulin were studied.

METHODS

In this randomized, crossover, euglycemic clamp study, patients received a 100-unit bolus of U-500R via SC injection or CSII with basal infusion using a U-500R specific pump. PK parameters were estimated using non-compartmental methods. PD estimates were derived from the glucose infusion rate during the euglycemic clamp procedure.

RESULTS

When corrected for the basal infusion, the PK profiles for the 100-unit bolus of U-500R were similar for CSII and SC injection. Without correction for basal infusion, PK and PD profiles showed a greater insulin concentration and effect when U-500R was administered via CSII compared to SC injection, primarily due to basal insulin infusion for CSII. The ratio of geometric least squares AUC_0-tlast means SC:CSII (90% CI) is 0.857 (0.729, 1.01) with correction (mean AUC_0-tlast: 5230 pmol*L/h [SC injection] and 6070 pmol*L/h [CSII, with correction]) and 0.424 (0.361, 0.499) without correction (mean AUC_0-tlast: 12300 pmol*L/h [CSII, without correction]). Median time-to-peak insulin concentration was six hours (range 0.5-8 hours) via SC injection and five hours (0.5-12 hours) via CSII.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with T2D on high-dose insulin, U-500R PK/PD parameters were similar for a 100-unit bolus when given by SC injection or CSII via a U-500R pump.

Treatment patterns and outcomes before and after human regular U-500 insulin initiation via KwikPen® among US veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

A dedicated Humulin R U-500 (U-500R) prefilled disposable insulin pen (KwikPen) became available in 2016, yet limited evidence exists on treatment patterns and outcomes of U-500R via KwikPen (U500-KP).

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study among adults with ≥2 claims for type 2 diabetes initiating U500-KP (index date: first claim) identified in Veterans Health Administration database. Treatment patterns and outcomes were evaluated in 9-month pre- and post-index periods, including dispensed total daily insulin dosage derived from claims expressed in units (dTDD) and units/kg, HbA1c, symptomatic hypoglycemia, and body weight. Multivariable modeling was used to confirm the associations between U500-KP initiation and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 647 U500-KP initiators were identified. The mean age was 64 years, and mean Quan-Charlson Comorbidity-index score was 3.8. Before U500-KP initiation, 62% of patients had dTDD ≤ 200 units with mean A1c 9.5%. Mean dTDD increased from 188.2 to 269.9 units after U500-KP initiation with mean A1c decreased by 0.83% (SD = 1.67) and mean weight gain of 1.5 kg (SD = 6.74). Hypoglycemia events increased from 4.3 to 5.3 (p < 0.05) per person per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of U500-KP brought significant improvement in dispensed insulin dose and glycemic control accompanied by moderate increases in hypoglycemia and weight.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes, Before and After Humulin R U-500 Initiation, Among High-Dose Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Severely insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients face unique treatment challenges. Humulin R U-500 (U-500R) as insulin monotherapy with both basal/bolus properties addresses these challenges, although it remains understudied. This retrospective study compared real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes before and after U-500R initiation.

METHODS

Adults with T2D on dispensed doses of >180 units/d U-500R monotherapy (index date=first fill) with ≥9-month continuous enrollment both pre- and post-index date and ≥180 units/d insulin pre-index were identified using Veterans Health Administration data (January 1, 2014-January 30, 2017). Overall group was further stratified into elderly and 201 to 300 units dispensed total daily dose (dTDD) subgroups. Syringe and KwikPen users were separately analyzed as subcohorts. Treatment patterns (dTDD), insulin dosage (units/kg), proportion of days covered (PDC) with insulins, and outcomes (HbA1c and hypoglycemic events) were descriptively evaluated, with regression models used to confirm associations between exposure and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 951 U-500R initiators (overall group), mean dTDD (248.5 vs 392.1), percentage of patients with insulin dosage >2 units/kg (38.6% vs 88.1%), and mean PDC (73% vs 77%) significantly increased from the pre- to post-index periods (all P<.001). Changes in HbA1c (9.3% vs 8.5%; P<.0001) and hypoglycemia events per patient per year (2.1 vs 3.1, P<.0001) were statistically significant and confirmed by regression models (P<.0001). Subgroups (elderly, 492; 201 to 300 units, 148) and device subcohorts (syringe, 714; KwikPen, 244) showed similar trends.

CONCLUSION

U-500R initiation was associated with significantly improved treatment compliance patterns and glycemic control, with modest increase in hypoglycemia events.

Clinical Impact of Initiation of U-500 Insulin vs Continuation of U-100 Insulin in Subjects With Diabetes

Background

The prevalence of obesity and diabetes mellitus (DM) has each increased drastically according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Growth of severe insulinresistant DM is predicted. U-500 insulin is highly concentrated and can replace less concentrated formulations in patients that need high insulin dosages. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of U-500 and U-100 insulin regimens in veterans with obesity and insulin resistance.

Methods

A single-site retrospective chart analysis of adult subjects was conducted from July 2002 to June 2011. Data for repeated measures spanned a period from 3 months before the intervention (baseline) through 12 months afterward. The main outcome was the variation in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c). Other outcomes included incidence of severe hypoglycemia, weight changes, cardiovascular events, and number of injections.

Results

A total of 142 subjects (68 taking U-500 and 74 taking U-100) were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except for weight, which was higher among U-500 subjects. Mean HbA_1c was reduced by 0.84% and 0.56% in U-500 and U-100, respectively (P = .003). Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 5 subjects in the U-500 group and 1 in the U-100 group (P = .08). No significant difference was noted in the number of cardiovascular events. The mean number of daily injections was 2 in the U-500 group, and 4 in the U-100 group (P < .001).

Conclusions

U-500 insulin, when compared with U-100 insulin regimens, led to a statistically significant reduction in HbA_1c and number of insulin injections. Additional research is necessary to assess the risk of severe hypoglycemia in U-500 users. Neither regimen was associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

The Association Between Adherence to Insulin Therapy and Health Care Costs for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Evidence from a U.S. Retrospective Claims Database

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that many patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are not adherent to their medication regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between adherence to insulin therapy and all-cause health care costs for patients with T2D.

METHODS

This study used the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus Linkable to Ambulatory Electronic Medical Record data from January 1, 2012, through September 30, 2017. Patients were included if they were identified with T2D and initiated therapy on basal insulin (BAS) or basal-bolus (BAS-BOL) combination at any time from January 1, 2013, through October 1, 2016. Patients aged < 18 years, who used an insulin pump, identified as pregnant, or did not have continuous insurance coverage from 1 year before initiation on insulin therapy through 1 year after initiation were excluded. Descriptive statistics compared patient characteristics and costs (in U.S. 2017 dollars) between patients who were adherent or nonadherent to their insulin therapy in the 1-year postperiod, where adherence was defined as having proportion of days covered (PDC) of at least 80%. In addition, generalized linear models were used to compare costs between adherent and nonadherent patients, while controlling for patient characteristics, previous general health and comorbidities, resource utilization, medication use and type of insulin.

RESULTS

13,296 patients were included in the BAS cohort (5,502 adherent; 7,794 nonadherent) and 10,069 in the BAS-BOL cohort (2,006 adherent; 8,063 nonadherent). Adherent patients had significantly lower all-cause total unadjusted costs following initiation on BAS ($29,322 vs. $31,888, P = 0.0134) and BAS-BOL combination ($36,229 vs. $40,147, P = 0.0078). Drug costs comprised 39.5%-45.4% of costs among adherent patients and 23.0%-25.9% of costs among nonadherent patients. Multivariable analyses revealed that adherent patients had significantly lower adjusted all-cause total costs than nonadherent patients in the BAS cohort ($30,127 vs. $37,049, 95% CI for difference -$8,460 to -$5,384) and the BAS-BOL cohort ($36,603 vs. $44,702, 95% CI for difference -$9,129 to -$6,980).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D who initiated BAS or BAS-BOL combination therapy, adherence was associated with significantly lower all-cause total health care costs, despite significantly higher drug costs. These results illustrate the potential economic benefits associated with adherence to insulin therapy. DISCLOSURES": Eli Lilly and Company funded this study and was responsible for study design and execution. Bajpai, Eby, Faries, and Haynes are employees and own stock in Eli Lilly and Company. Lage received compensation from Eli Lilly and Company for her work on this research project.

Treatment Patterns, Adherence, and Persistence Associated With Human Regular U-500 Insulin: A Real-World Evidence Study

OBJECTIVE | Human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) is concentrated insulin with basal and prandial activity that can be used as insulin monotherapy. The goal of this study was to better understand treatment patterns (total daily dose [TDD] and concomitant medications), adherence, and persistence in real-world patients treated with U-500R. DESIGN AND METHODS | We selected patients from the Truven Health MarketScan database who initiated U-500R between 2010 and 2013. We collected data for three periods: pre-index (12 months before initiation), post-index (12 months after initiation or until a gap of ≥60 days in U-500R claims), and follow-up (12 months after post-index). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a regression model as appropriate. RESULTS | We identified 1,582 patients who met the selection criteria. The median TDD of U-500R during the post-index period was 333 units/day, with 70.0% of patients using 300-400 units/day. During the post-index period, 74.1% of patients had U-500R claims that did not overlap with prescriptions for other insulins, interpreted as U-500R monotherapy. Among patients with ≥1 U-500R fill in the post-index period (n = 1,208), 54.4% had a medication possession ratio (MPR, a measure of adherence) ≥80%. Although 849 patients had a gap of ≥60 days in U-500R claims in the post-index period, 602 of those resumed U-500R in the follow-up period. Of the 733 patients who had no gap in U-500R claims in the post-index period, 286 had a gap of ≥60 days in claims in year 2, and 447 continued with U-500R treatment beyond 2 years. CONCLUSION | These results demonstrate that U-500R was commonly used as insulin monotherapy, with a median TDD >300 units/day. Compared with published, relevant studies of other insulins, U-500R showed similar or greater adherence and persistence rates. These new data may help guide clinical decision-making when choosing insulin therapy for patients requiring high doses of insulin.

Treatment Patterns and Characteristics of Individuals Initiating High-Dose Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined patient characteristics and treatment patterns of high-dose insulin therapy (> 200 units/day) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

OBJECTIVE

To understand patient characteristics, dosing, adherence, and persistence related to high-dose insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study that used administrative claims from a large national health plan. Patients were identified who had been diagnosed with T2DM and who were aged 18-89 years, enrolled in a commercial or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan, newly initiated on a total daily dose (TDD) > 200 units of insulin between January 2011 and August 2015. Patients were required to be enrolled 6 months before and 12 months after the index date. Patients were categorized to Regimen-100 if treated with U-100 insulin only or Regimen-500 if treated with U-500R with or without U-100. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. An adjustment factor for the days supply was calculated as the ratio of median time between insulin claims, and median pharmacy reported days supply for each insulin prescription. Adjusted days supply, quantity, and concentration were used to calculate TDD for each quarter after the index date. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) for each regimen. Persistence was measured in 2 ways: the percentage of patients remaining on index medications in each quarter and the proportion of patients who maintained TDD > 200 units during all 4 quarters of the 12-month post-index period.

RESULTS

We identified 2,339 patients newly titrated up to TDD > 200 units on either Regimen-100 (2,062, 88.2%) or Regimen-500 (277, 11.8%). Patients on Regimen-500 were slightly younger with higher prevalence of comorbidities. The mean TDD (SD) for Regimen-100 decreased from 228.6 (36.0) units during the first quarter to 194.2 (181.4) units during the last quarter. The mean TDD (SD) for Regimen-500 increased from 294.2 (102.2) units in the first quarter to 304.8 (281.6) units in last quarter. The average adherence to the high-dose insulin regimen was 68.2% (30.7; median 72.6%) for the Regimen-100 cohort and 75.5% (27.0; median 85.2%) for the Regimen-500 cohort. In the Regimen-100 and Regimen-500 cohorts, 45.3% and 55.2% had a PDC ≥ 80%, respectively. Only 23.0% and 51.6% of patients maintained TDD > 200 units for the Regimen-100 and Regimen-500 cohorts, respectively, throughout the 4 quarters after the index date.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that many patients did not maintain high-dose insulin use over time, especially those on standard U-100 insulin only. This dosing pattern appears to reflect the differences in patient characteristics, insulin needs, and adherence/persistence behavior between those on Regimen-100 and those on Regimen-500.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly and Company to Humana as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Chen, Brown, Fan, Taylor, and He are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Nair and Meah are employees of Humana, which received funding to complete this research. Siadaty was an employee of Humana at the time of this study.

Human regular U-500 insulin via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in adults with type 2 diabetes: The VIVID study

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of U500-R delivered by a novel, specifically designed U500-R insulin pump with U-500R delivered by multiple daily injections (MDI).

METHODS

The phase 3 VIVID study randomized people with type 2 diabetes to U-500R by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or MDI. Participants (aged 18-85 years) had HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤12.0% and a total daily dose of insulin >200 and ≤600 U/day. After a 2-week transition to three times daily injections of U-500R, participants were treated for 24 weeks with U-500R by CSII or MDI. Treatment arms were compared using mixed model repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

The study randomized 420 participants (CSII: 209, MDI: 211) with 365 completers. Mean changes from baseline were: HbA1c, -1.27% (-13.9 mmol/mol) with CSII and -0.85% (-9.3 mmol/mol) with MDI (difference - 0.42% [-4.6 mmol/mol], P <0.001); fasting plasma glucose, -33.9 mg/dL (-1.9 mmol/L) with CSII and 1.7 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L) with MDI (difference - 35.6 mg/dL [-2.0 mmol/L], P <0.001); total daily dose, 2.8 U with CSII and 51.3 U with MDI (P < 0.001). Weight changes and rates of documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were similar between groups; the CSII group had a higher rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes requiring high doses of insulin, both methods of U-500R delivery lowered HbA1c. However, the CSII group attained greater HbA1c reduction with significantly less insulin. Individualized dose titration will be important to balance glycaemic control with hypoglycaemia risk.

Concentrated insulins in current clinical practice

New concentrated insulins (exceeding 100 units/mL) and dedicated devices have recently become available, offering new treatment options for people with diabetes, for basal and prandial insulin supplementation. The concentrated insulin formulations range from 2-fold concentration (insulin lispro 200 units/mL) with rapid-acting prandial action to 5-fold concentration (human regular insulin, 500 units/mL) with basal and short-acting prandial actions. Long-acting basal insulins include degludec 200 units/mL and glargine 300 units/mL. Concentrated insulins have been developed with the goal of easing insulin therapy by reducing the volume and number of injections and in some cases making use of altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. This review summarizes the unique characteristics of each concentrated insulin to help healthcare providers and people with diabetes understand how to best use them.

U500 Disposable Patch Insulin Pump: Results and Discussion of a Veterans Affairs Pilot Study

We present a Veterans Affairs–sponsored pilot study of U500 concentrated insulin administered via disposable patch insulin pump (DPIP) vs twice-daily (BID) injections with an insulin pen in a case series format. We conducted a prospective, single-center, randomized, intent-to-treat pilot study. Ten participants were enrolled with poorly controlled diabetes, defined as hemoglobin A1C >8.0 and severe insulin resistance defined as total daily dose >200 units. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either U500 DPIP or U500 BID insulin titration protocols for 14 weeks. A clinical pattern emerged where four participants randomized to the DPIP treatment arm were withdrawn early as the DPIP did not work well for the purpose studied. There was not a statistically significant difference in the rate of hypoglycemia between treatment arms. Based on our clinical experience and results, we argue against the general use of U500 DPIP in clinical practice.

Understanding concentrated insulins: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compile, analyze, and summarize the literature on concentrated insulins (i.e. concentrations >100 units/mL) from randomized controlled trials and derive guidance on appropriate use of these agents.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Trialtrove (through April 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (through April 2017) for phase 1-4 clinical studies using concentrated insulins. Selected studies included multiple-arm, randomized controlled trials evaluating subcutaneously administered concentrated insulins. Trial registration numbers (selected studies) were searched in Medline, Embase and Google Scholar (through April 2017). Late-phase studies were graded using guidance from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight completed trials (7900 participants) and 34 qualifying publications were identified. Four marketed concentrated insulins were evaluated: two long-acting basal (insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec 200 units/mL [IDeg200]), one rapid-acting prandial (insulin lispro 200 units/mL [ILis200]), and one prandial/basal (human regular insulin 500 units/mL). Early-phase trials established bioequivalence for IDeg200 and ILis200 with the corresponding 100 units/mL formulations. Efficacy studies showed noninferior glycemic control between comparators for long-acting basal and prandial/basal products with generally low severe hypoglycemia. Six additional concentrated insulins with completed early-phase development were also identified.

CONCLUSION

Concentrated-insulin products demonstrated efficacious and safe outcomes in appropriate patients. Clinical findings (HbA1c and hypoglycemia) and methodology (initiation and titration), patient factors (insulin experience and dosing requirements) and treatment characteristics (bioequivalence, potency and device features) are important considerations. This overview of these and other factors provides essential information and guidance for using concentrated insulins in clinical practice.

A Systematic Review of Insulin Adherence Measures in Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes care is associated with a considerable burden to the health care system in the United States, and measuring the quality of health care is an important development goal of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Diabetes is a priority disease within the National Quality Strategy and should therefore remain a focus in the measurement of health care quality. Despite the importance of measuring quality in diabetes care management, no quality measure is currently associated with adherence to insulin treatment, and measuring adherence to insulin is known to be complicated.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) identify methods to measure insulin adherence in patients with diabetes and (b) evaluate whether identified methods could be considered for testing as a quality measure.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in the online electronic databases Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented with additional manual searches to identify publications on insulin adherence from the year 2000 onward. Identified citations were screened for relevance against predefined eligibility criteria, and methods to measure adherence to insulin were extracted from relevant studies into data extraction tables. Methods were critiqued on the feasibility for consideration as a quality measure.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight publications met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Included studies reported various indirect methods to measure adherence to insulin, using prescription claims or self-report questionnaires. Commonly reported methods included the (adjusted) medication possession ratio, proportion of days covered, persistence, daily average consumption, and the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. All types of identified methods were associated with measuring challenges varying from accuracy of estimated adherence, complexity of data collection, absence of validated threshold for good adherence, and reliability of adherence outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Without additional research, none of the identified methods are appropriate for use as a quality measure for insulin adherence. We suggest patient involvement in future research and additional quality measure development.

DISCLOSURES

Novo Nordisk paid DRG Abacus to complete the systematic review and manuscript and was involved in the study design, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings of the systematic review. Kroes and Webb report personal fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study and personal fees from DRG Abacus, outside of the submitted work. Webb is employed by DRG Abacus, and Kroes was employed by DRG Abacus at the time of this study. Wisniewski is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the systematic review reported in this article, and also owns stocks in Novo Nordisk. Stolpe has nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Kroes, Webb, and Wisniewski, with assistance from Stolpe. Webb took the lead in data collection, along with Kroes, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Kroes, Webb, and Wisniewski, with assistance from Stolpe, and revised by Kroes, Stolpe, Wisniewski, and Webb.

Translating U-500R Randomized Clinical Trial Evidence to the Practice Setting: A Diabetes Educator/Expert Prescriber Team Approach

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to provide recommendations to the diabetes educator/expert prescriber team for the use of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) in patients with severely insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes, including its initiation and titration, by utilizing dosing charts and teaching materials translated from a recent U-500R clinical trial.

Conclusions

Clinically relevant recommendations and teaching materials for the optimal use and management of U-500R in clinical practice are provided based on the efficacy and safety results of and lessons learned from the U-500R clinical trial by Hood et al, current standards of practice, and the authors’ clinical expertise. This trial was the first robustly powered, randomized, titration-to-target trial to compare twice-daily and three-times-daily U-500R dosing regimens. Modifications were made to the initiation and titration dosing algorithms used in this trial to simplify dosing strategies for the clinical setting and align with current glycemic targets recommended by the American Diabetes Association. Leveraging the expertise, resources, and patient interactions of the diabetes educator who can provide diabetes self-management education and support in collaboration with the multidisciplinary diabetes team is strongly recommended to ensure patients treated with U-500R receive the timely and comprehensive care required to safely and effectively use this highly concentrated insulin.

Patient-reported outcomes in transition from high-dose U-100 insulin to human regular U-500 insulin in severely insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Background

Initiation and titration of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) with a dosing algorithm of either thrice daily (TID) or twice daily (BID) improved glycemic control with fewer injections in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with high-dose, high-volume U-100 insulin. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-500R TID and BID treatment groups in this titration-to-target randomized, clinical trial.

Methods

In this 24-week, open-label, parallel trial, 325 patients were randomized to TID (n = 162) or BID (n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period (screening). The Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes (TRIM-D) and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were administered at screening, baseline/randomization, and endpoint (24 weeks). The Visual Analog Scale-Injection Site Pain (VAS-ISP) was assessed at baseline/randomization, 12 weeks, and endpoint.

Results

The TRIM-D showed statistically significant improvements in overall scores from baseline to endpoint for both BID and TID groups, most domains in the TID group, and all domains in the BID group. The BID group achieved better scores than the TID patients in overall and in treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains (p < .05). EQ-5D-5L index scores showed no statistically significant differences for TID and BID groups (and no differences between TID and BID groups) from baseline to endpoint. VAS-ISP scores improved for both treatment groups (−5.60 TID; −6.47 BID; p < .05 for both) from baseline to endpoint.

Conclusions

U500 can be successfully titrated for improved glycemic control using BID and TID regimens with diabetes-specific Patient-Reported Outcomes showing improvements in both arms; however, BID had better scores than TID in overall, treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains.

Trial registration

These secondary analyses are based on the study first received January 22, 2013 and reported in Clinical Trial Registry No.: NCT01774968.

Concentrated insulins: the new basal insulins

INTRODUCTION

Insulin therapy plays a critical role in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, there is still a need to find basal insulins with 24-hour coverage and reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Additionally, with increasing obesity and insulin resistance, the ability to provide clinically necessary high doses of insulin at low volume is also needed.

AREAS COVERED

This review highlights the published reports of the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic properties of concentrated insulins: Humulin-R U500, insulin degludec U200, and insulin glargine U300, describes the clinical efficacy, risk of hypoglycemic, and metabolic changes observed, and finally, discusses observations about the complexity of introducing a new generation of concentrated insulins to the therapeutic market.

CONCLUSION

Humulin-R U500 has a similar onset but longer duration of action compared with U100 regular insulin. Insulin glargine U300 has differential PK/pharmacodynamic effects when compared with insulin glargine U100. In noninferiority studies, glycemic control with degludec U200 and glargine U300 is similar to insulin glargine U100 and nocturnal hypoglycemia is reduced. Concentrated formulations appear to behave as separate molecular entities when compared with earlier U100 insulin analog compounds. In the review of available published data, newer concentrated basal insulins may offer an advantage in terms of reduced intraindividual variability as well as reducing the injection burden in individuals requiring high-dose and large volume insulin therapy. Understanding the PK and pharmacodynamic properties of this new generation of insulins is critical to safe dosing, dispensing, and administration.

Dosing of U-100 insulin and associated outcomes among Medicare enrollees with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

Objective

To examine costs, resource utilization, adherence, and hypoglycemic events among various doses of U-100 insulin regimens among elderly patients (age ≥65 years) diagnosed with diabetes.

Methods

Truven Health Analytics Medicare databases from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011 were utilized. General linear models with a gamma distribution and log link were used to examine costs, while logistic and negative binomial regressions were used to examine resource utilization and hypoglycemic events. Analyses controlled for patient characteristics, pre-period comorbidities, general health, and use of antidiabetic medications as well as index dose of insulin.

Results

All-cause inpatient, emergency room, and outpatients costs, as well as diabetes-related inpatient costs, were highest among individuals who were treated with an index dose of 10–100 units/day followed by >300 units/day, while drug costs and total costs generally increased as index dosage increased. Resource utilization generally followed the same pattern as costs, with number of office visits increasing as the dose increased and the highest hospital length of stay, number of hospitalizations, number of emergency room visits, and number of diabetes-related hospitalizations were generally highest among those in the lowest and highest index dose cohorts. Compared to patients who initiated with an index dose of 10–100 units/day, all other patients were significantly less likely to achieve an adherence threshold of 80% based upon index dose range, and while those with an index dose of >100–150 units/day were significantly more likely to experience a hypoglycemic event.

Conclusion

These results suggest that, for elderly individuals with diabetes, there is a higher patient burden among those who receive the lowest and highest insulin doses.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To review the oral and injectable pharmacologic treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted using PubMed electronic database for studies published in English between 1993 and September 2014. Search terms included diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes, and the individual name for each antidiabetic medication reviewed. In addition, manual searches were performed for cross-references from publications. Package inserts, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site, Institute for Safe Medication Practices Web site, American Diabetes Association Web site and scientific session poster presentations, and individual drug company Web pages were also reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: This review focused on information elucidated over the past 10 years to assist prescribers in choosing optimal therapy based on individual patient characteristics. Studies leading to the approval of or raising safety concerns for the antidiabetic medications reviewed in this article were included. Data Synthesis: In the past 10 years, there have been 4 novel oral antidiabetic medication classes and 10 new injectable agents and insulin products approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as well as new information regarding the safety and use of several older antidiabetic medication classes. The distinctions were reviewed for each individual agent, and a comparison was completed if there was more than one agent in a particular therapeutic class. Using current information available, select investigational agents in phase III trials or with a pending new drug application were highlighted. Conclusion: There are now 9 distinct oral pharmacologic classes and a variety of insulin and noninsulin injectable medications available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Metformin remains the first-line treatment option for most patients. When considering options for alternative or additional treatment, prescribers must weigh the benefits and risks using individual patient characteristics.

Initiation of human regular U-500 insulin use is associated with improved glycemic control: a real-world US cohort study

AIM

Describe the characteristics of patients initiating human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) and their subsequent glycemic control in a real-world setting.

METHODS

US Humedica electronic health record system data (July 2007-September 2011) were used to identify patients with diabetes aged ≥18 years with ≥1 records for U-500R prescriptions, 6 months of preindex data, 12 months following first use of U-500R, and at least one glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value in both preindex and postindex periods. Paired t tests were used to measure the change in HbA1c from preindex to postindex periods (last or most recent values) and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Among patients initiating U-500R (N=445), 96.9% had type 2 diabetes with mean age 57 years and mean body mass index 40.4 kg/m(2). Postindex prescriptions were written for U-500R alone (47.0%, group A) and concomitant U-500R/U-100 insulins (53.0%, group B). Concomitant oral antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) and non-insulin injectable AHAs were used by 43.4% and 14.6% of patients, respectively. Following initiation of U-500R, mean HbA1c improved 0.68% in all patients (p<0.0001 compared with baseline), but the decrease in HbA1c did not differ significantly between groups (A: 0.78%; B: 0.60%). Overall, hypoglycemic events, largely captured in the outpatient setting, increased in incidence from 6.7% to 11.9% (p≤0.0001) and from 0.23 to 0.39 events/patient/year, an increase of 0.16 (p=0.003), from preindex to postindex.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world outcomes analysis demonstrates that U-500R initiation is associated with a clinically meaningful improvement in glycemic control over the subsequent 12-month period with modest increase in incidence and rate of hypoglycemia.