The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed‐ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal‐bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): a short‐term cost‐effectiveness analysis in the UK setting

Aim: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal‐bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. Methods: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost‐utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1‐year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat‐to‐target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event‐related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non‐severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: IDegLira is a cost‐effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK

Long-term glycemic variability and risk of adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: Glycemic variability is emerging as a measure of glycemic control, which may be a reliable predictor of complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association between HbA1c variability and micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched (2004–2015) for studies describing associations between HbA1c variability and adverse outcomes in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed with stratification according to the measure of HbA1c variability, method of analysis, and diabetes type. RESULTS: Seven studies evaluated HbA1c variability among patients with type 1 diabetes and showed an association of HbA1c variability with renal disease (risk ratio 1.56 [95% CI 1.08–2.25], two studies), cardiovascular events (1.98 [1.39–2.82]), and retinopathy (2.11 [1.54–2.89]). Thirteen studies evaluated HbA1c variability among patients with type 2 diabetes. Higher HbA1c variability was associated with higher risk of renal disease (1.34 [1.15–1.57], two studies), macrovascular events (1.21 [1.06–1.38]), ulceration/gangrene (1.50 [1.06–2.12]), cardiovascular disease (1.27 [1.15–1.40]), and mortality (1.34 [1.18–1.53]). Most studies were retrospective with lack of adjustment for potential confounders, and inconsistency existed in the definition of HbA1c variability. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c variability was positively associated with micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality independently of the HbA1c level and might play a future role in clinical risk assessment

Clinical aspects on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease with deterioration of glycaemic control over time in association with loss of endogenous insulin secretion. As a consequence of this, sulphonylureas (SU), which exert their mode of action by stimulating the pancreatic β- cells, are expected to be less effective with longer duration of diabetes. Thus SU is often withdrawn when insulin is started and SU is less frequently added to insulin and metformin in patients not reaching glycaemic goals. The aim of the work presented in this thesis was to investigate different aspects on the use of SU in patients with diabetes exceeding more than 5-10 years. In Study I glycaemic control and β-cell function were monitored during a period of SU withdrawal in 25 patients, median diabetes duration 19 (8-29) years and on combined SU + insulin for > 5 years. In 80% glycaemic control deteriorated after SU withdrawal. Diabetes duration was positively correlated to the increase in fasting plasma glucose, i.e. in this group of patients a longer diabetes duration indicated more benefit of SU. In Study II changes in HbA1c and β-cell function, assessed as C-peptide/glucose ratio, were observed at two time points, ten years apart, in patients who had attended the Diabetes Day Care Centre in 1997/1998. Of 462 patients, 171 attended the follow-up visit ten years later. Possible relations between SU treatment and changes in β-cell function were studied. HbA1c and β-cell function decreased but long-term use of SU was not associated with a more pronounced decline in β-cell function. It was concluded that these observations did not support the concept that SU is harmful to the β-cell. Study III was performed to test whether SU still can be effective after > 10 years of diabetes. This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study included 43 patients, median diabetes duration 16 (10-30) years, with on-going metformin and insulin therapy. During two treatment periods of 12 weeks, separated by a washout period of six weeks, patients were given placebo/glimepiride in a randomized order as add-on therapy. No changes in baseline therapy were made except for insulin reduction if needed. HbA1c and changes in insulin requirement were primary outcomes. With glimepiride, HbA1c decreased from 7.0% to 6.4% (63-56 mmol/mol) while no change was observed during the placebo period. The insulin dose was reduced in 23 patients (median change 29%) with glimepiride addition. No severe hypoglycaemia occurred but 22 patients reported 124 minor hypoglycaemias, 74% of them occurring during the glimepiride period. Nocturnal glycaemia was monitored with CGMS at the end of each treatment period. In 15 patients on glimepiride episodes of glucose < 3.1 mmol/l were observed; and in six patients when placebo was added. It was concluded that addition of glimepiride to insulin + metformin therapy can lower HbA1c and reduce insulin requirement despite a long duration of diabetes. In Study IV the accuracy of nocturnal CGMS monitoring was assessed after 48 and 72 hours in 14 patients on combined oral and insulin therapy. The study was conducted in the early era of CGMS and the sensor was the first model on the market. Nocturnal reference P-glucose values were assessed seven times and compared to sensor readings. In a Clark Error Grid model 100% of values were within zones A+B after 48 hours while only 44 % were in zone A and 7% in the unacceptable zone D after 72 hours. With the sensor used in the study the accuracy of CGMS thus deteriorated over time. Conclusion: The decline in β-cell function over times varies considerably between patients. Sulphonylureas are effective when combined with insulin and metformin in many patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes; and long-term treatment with SU is not associated with are a pronounced decline in β-cell function

Comparative effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue as add-on therapies to sulphonylurea among diabetes patients in the Asia-Pacific region: a systematic review

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus is rising globally, and it induces a substantial public health burden to the healthcare systems. Its optimal control is one of the most significant challenges faced by physicians and policy-makers. Whereas some of the established oral hypoglycaemic drug classes like biguanide, sulphonylureas, thiazolidinediones have been extensively used, the newer agents like dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues have recently emerged as suitable options due to their similar efficacy and favorable side effect profiles. These agents are widely recognized alternatives to the traditional oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin, especially in conditions where they are contraindicated or unacceptable to patients. Many studies which evaluated their clinical effects, either alone or as add-on agents, were conducted in Western countries. There exist few reviews on their effectiveness in the Asia-Pacific region. The purpose of this systematic review is to address the comparative effectiveness of these new classes of medications as add-on therapies to sulphonylurea drugs among diabetic patients in the Asia-Pacific countries. We conducted a thorough literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE from the inception of these databases to August 2013, supplemented by an additional manual search using reference lists from research studies, meta-analyses and review articles as retrieved by the electronic databases. A total of nine randomized controlled trials were identified and described in this article. It was found that DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues were in general effective as add-on therapies to existing sulphonylurea therapies, achieving HbA1c reductions by a magnitude of 0.59–0.90% and 0.77–1.62%, respectively. Few adverse events including hypoglycaemic attacks were reported. Therefore, these two new drug classes represent novel therapies with great potential to be major therapeutic options. Future larger-scale research should be conducted among other Asia-Pacific region to evaluate their efficacy in other ethnic groups

Liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes : a single technology appraisal

This paper presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucoselowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost

Evidence review : liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucose-lowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials, but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using the Center for Outcomes Research model. The health benefit was reported as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The manufacturer estimated the cost-effectiveness to be £15,130 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with glargine, £10,054 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide, £10,465 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with sitagliptin, and £9851 per QALY for liraglutide 1.2 mg compared with sitagliptin. The ERG conducted additional sensitivity analyses and concluded that the factors that carried most weight were: in the comparison with glargine, the direct utility effects of body mass index (BMI) changes and SBP, with some additional contribution from HbA1c in the comparison with exenatide, HbA1c, with some additional effects from cholesterol and triglycerides in the comparison with sitagliptin, HbA1c and direct utility effects of BMI changes. The European Medicines Agency has approved liraglutide in dual therapy with other oral glucose-lowering agents. NICE guidance recommends the use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in triple therapy when glycaemic control remains or becomes inadequate with a combination of two oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in a dual therapy is indicated only in patients who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, three oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.8 mg was not approved by NICE. The ERG recommends research into the (currently unlicensed) use of liraglutide in combination with long-acting insulin

Glargine as a Basal Insulin Supplement in Recovering Critically Ill Patients - An In Silico Study

Tight glycaemic control is now benefiting medical and surgical intensive care patients by reducing complications associated with hyperglycaemia. Once patients leave this intensive care environment, less acute wards do not continue to provide the same level of glycaemic control. Main reason is that these less acute wards do not have the high levels of nursing resources to provide the same level of glycaemic control. Therefore developments in protocols that are less labour intensive are necessary. This study examines the use of insulin glargine for basal supplement in recovering critically ill patients. These patients represent a group who may benefit from such basal support therapy. In silico study results showed the potential in reducing nursing effort with the use of glargine. However, a protocol using only glargine for glucose control did not show to be effective in the simulated patients. This may be an indication that a protocol using only glargine is more suitable after discharge from critical care

Estimation of individual beneficial and adverse effects of intensive glucose control for patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Intensive glucose control reduces the risk of vascular complications while increasing the risk of severe hypoglycaemia at a group level. We sought to estimate individual beneficial and adverse effects of intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial, a randomised controlled trial evaluating standard vs intensive glucose control (HbA1c target ≤6.5% [48 mmol/mol]). In 11,140 participants, we estimated the individual 5 year absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the composite outcome of major micro- and macrovascular events and absolute risk increase (ARI) for severe hypoglycaemia for intensive vs standard glucose control. Predictions were based on competing risks models including clinical characteristics and randomised treatment. RESULTS: Based on these models, 76% of patients had a substantial estimated 5 year ARR for major vascular events (>1%, 5 year number-needed-to-benefit [NNTB5] 200). Similarly, 36% of patients had a substantial estimated ARI for severe hypoglycaemia (5 year number-needed-to-harm [NNTH5] 200). When assigning similar or half the weight to severe hypoglycaemia compared with a major vascular event, net benefit was positive in 85% or 99% of patients, respectively. Limiting intensive treatment to the 85% patient subgroup had no significant effect on the overall incidence of major vascular events and severe hypoglycaemia compared with treating all patients. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Taking account of the effects of intensive glucose control on major micro- and macrovascular events and severe hypoglycaemia for individual patients, the estimated net benefit was positive in the majority of the participants in the ADVANCE trial. The estimated individual effects can inform treatment decisions once individual weights assigned to positive and adverse effects have been specified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00145925