The consequences of delaying insulin initiation in UK type 2 diabetes patients failing oral hyperglycaemic agents: a modelling study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent data have shown that type 2 diabetes patients in the UK delay initiating insulin on average for over 11 years after first being prescribed an oral medication. Using a published computer simulation model of diabetes we used UK-specific data to estimate the clinical consequences of immediately initiating insulin versus delaying initiation for periods in line with published estimates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the base case scenario simulated patients, with characteristics based on published UK data, were modelled as either initiating insulin immediately or delaying for 8 years. Clinical outcomes in terms of both life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy and also diabetes-related complications (cumulative incidence and time to onset) were projected over a 35 year time horizon. Treatment effects associated with insulin use were taken from published studies and sensitivity analyses were performed around time to initiation of insulin, insulin efficacies and hypoglycaemia utilities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For patients immediately initiating insulin there were increases in (undiscounted) life expectancy of 0.61 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.34 quality-adjusted life years versus delaying initiation for 8 years. There were also substantial reductions in cumulative incidence and time to onset of all diabetes-related complications with immediate versus delayed insulin initiation. Sensitivity analyses showed that a reduced delay in insulin initiation or change in insulin efficacy still demonstrated clinical benefits for immediate versus delayed initiation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>UK type 2 diabetes patients are at increased risk of a large number of diabetes-related complications due to an unnecessary delay in insulin initiation. Despite clear guidelines recommending tight glycaemic control this failure to begin insulin therapy promptly is likely to result in needlessly reduced life expectancy and compromised quality of life.</p

Early Treatment with Basal Insulin Glargine in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Lessons from ORIGIN and Other Cardiovascular Trials

Dysglycemia results from a deficit in first-phase insulin secretion compounded by increased insulin insensitivity, exposing beta cells to chronic hyperglycemia and excessive glycemic variability. Initiation of intensive insulin therapy at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to achieve normoglycemia has been shown to reverse glucotoxicity, resulting in recovery of residual beta-cell function. The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 10-year post-trial follow-up reported reductions in cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in persons with T2DM who initially received intensive glucose control compared with standard therapy. In the cardiovascular outcome trial, outcome reduction with an initial glargine intervention (ORIGIN), a neutral effect on cardiovascular disease was observed in the population comprising prediabetes and T2DM. Worsening of glycemic control was prevented over the 6.7 year treatment period, with few serious hypoglycemic episodes and only moderate weight gain, with a lesser need for dual or triple oral treatment versus standard care. Several other studies have also highlighted the benefits of early insulin initiation as first-line or add-on therapy to metformin. The decision to introduce basal insulin to metformin must, however be individualized based on a risk-benefit analysis. The landmark ORIGIN trial provides many lessons relating to the concept and application of early insulin therapy for the prevention and safe and effective induction and maintenance of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

Metformin use and cardiovascular outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in patients with type 2 diabetes: a cohort study

Background: The use of metformin after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been associated with reduced mortality in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, it is not known if it is acutely cardioprotective in patients taking metformin at the time of AMI. We compared patient outcomes according to metformin status at the time of admission for fatal and non-fatal AMI in a large cohort of patients in England. Methods: This study used linked data from primary care, hospital admissions and death registry from 4.7 million inhabitants in England, as part of the CALIBER resource. The primary endpoint was a composite of acute myocardial infarction requiring hospitalisation, stroke and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoints were heart failure (HF) hospitalisation and all-cause mortality. Results: 4,030 patients with T2DM and incident AMI recorded between January 1998 and October 2010 were included. At AMI admission, 63.9% of patients were receiving metformin and 36.1% another oral hypoglycaemic drug. Median follow-up was 343 (IQR: 1–1436) days. Adjusted analyses showed an increased hazard of the composite endpoint in metformin users compared to non-users (HR 1.09 [1.01–1.19]), but not of the secondary endpoints. The higher risk of the composite endpoint in metformin users was only observed in people taking metformin at AMI admission, whereas metformin use post-AMI was associated with a reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (0.76 [0.62–0.93], P = 0.009). Conclusions: Our study suggests that metformin use at the time of first AMI is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death in patients with T2DM, while its use post-AMI might be beneficial. Further investigation in well-designed randomised controlled trials is indicated, especially in view of emerging evidence of cardioprotection from sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors

Is the ADA/EASD algorithm for the management of type 2 diabetes (January 2009) based on evidence or opinion? A critical analysis

The ADA and the EASD recently published a consensus statement for the medical management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The authors advocate initial treatment with metformin monotherapy and lifestyle modification, followed by addition of basal insulin or a sulfonylurea if glycaemic goals are not met (tier 1 recommendations). All other glucose-lowering therapies are relegated to a secondary (tier 2) status and only recommended for selected clinical settings. In our view, this algorithm does not offer physicians and patients the appropriate selection of options to individualise and optimise care with a view to sustained control of blood glucose and reduction both of diabetes complications and cardiovascular risk. This paper critically assesses the basis of the ADA/EASD algorithm and the resulting tiers of treatment options

Cancer Risk in Diabetic Patients Treated with Metformin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has suggested that metformin potentially reduces the risk of cancer. Our objective was to enhance the precision of estimates of the effect of metformin on the risk of any-site and site-specific cancers in patients with diabetes. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for pertinent articles published as of October 12, 2011, and included them in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for overall cancer mortality and cancer incidence. Of the 21,195 diabetic patients reported in 6 studies (4 cohort studies, 2 RCTs), 991 (4.5%) cases of death from cancer were reported. A total of 11,117 (5.3%) cases of incident cancer at any site were reported among 210,892 patients in 10 studies (2 RCTs, 6 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies). The risks of cancer among metformin users were significantly lower than those among non-metformin users: the pooled RRs (95% confidence interval) were 0.66 (0.49-0.88) for cancer mortality, 0.67 (0.53-0.85) for all-cancer incidence, 0.68 (0.53-0.88) for colorectal cancer (n = 6), 0.20 (0.07-0.59) for hepatocellular cancer (n = 4), 0.67 (0.45-0.99) for lung cancer (n = 3). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The use of metformin in diabetic patients was associated with significantly lower risks of cancer mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is mainly based on observational studies and our findings underscore the more need for long-term RCTs to confirm this potential benefit for individuals with diabetes