Trends in HbA1c thresholds for initiation of hypoglycemic agents:Impact of changed recommendations for older and frail patients

Aims: Less strict glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) thresholds have been recommended in older and/or frail type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients than in younger and less frail patients for initiating hypoglycemic agents since 2011. We aimed to assess trends in HbA1c thresholds at initiation of a first hypoglycemic agent(s) in T2D patients and the influence of age and frailty on these trends. Materials and methods: The groningen initiative to analyze type 2 diabetes treatment (GIANTT) database was used, which includes primary care T2D patients from the north of the Netherlands. Patients initiating a first non-insulin hypoglycemic agent(s) between 2008 and 2014 with an HbA1c measurement within 120 days before initiation were included. The influence of calendar year, age, or frailty and the interaction between calendar year and age or frailty were assessed using multilevel regression analyses adjusted for confounders. Results: We included 4588 patients. The mean HbA1c threshold at treatment initiation was 7.4% up to 2010, decreasing to 7.1% in 2011 and increasing to 7.4% in 2014. This quadratic change over the years was significant (P 0.05). Conclusions: HbA1c thresholds at initiation of a first hypoglycemic agent(s) changed significantly over time, showing a decrease after 2010 and an increase after 2012. The HbA1c threshold at initiation was not influenced by age or frailty, which is in contrast with recommendations for more personalized treatment

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Detemir Compared to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Spain

Introduction: An Excel® (Microsoft Corporation) model was adapted to estimate the short-term (1-year) cost effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients initiating insulin treatment with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Spain. Methods: Clinical benefits included the non-severe hypoglycemia rate for T1DM and T2DM, and weight change for T2DM. Three scenarios were included with different hypoglycemia rates estimated on the basis of clinical trials and observational studies. Costs, estimated from perspective of the Spanish Public Healthcare System (Euros 2014), included insulin treatment and non-severe hypoglycemia management costs. Non-severe hypoglycemia, defined as a self-managed event, implied the use of extra glucose testing strips and a general practitioner visit during the week following the event for 25% of patients. An average disutility value was associated to non-severe hypoglycemia events and, for T2DM, to one body mass index unit gain to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: For the three scenarios a range of 0.025–0.076 QALYs for T1DM and 0.014–0.051 QALYs for T2DM were gained for IDet versus NPH due to non-severe hypoglycemia and weight gain avoidance, in return of an incremental cost of €145–192 for T1DM and €128–206 for T2DM. This resulted in the IDet versus NPH incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging between €1910/QALY and €7682/QALY for T1DM and €2522/QALY and €15,009/QALY for T2DM. Conclusion: IDet was a cost-effective alternative to NPH insulin in the first year of treatment of patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM in Spain, with ICERs under the threshold value commonly accepted in Spain (€30,000/QALY)

Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Results Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Conclusion Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG