Dataset Information

A pragmatic study of mid-mixture insulin and basal insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic medications: A lesson from real-world experience.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chinese guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommend basal or premixed insulins as insulin starters after failed oral antihyperglycaemic medication (OAM). This pragmatic study compared effectiveness and safety of add-on basal insulin analog (BI) and mid-mixture insulin analog (MMI; 50:50 premixed insulin) as starter insulin regimens in Chinese patients with T2D in a real-world setting.

Materials and methods

This was a multicentre, open-label, randomized, parallel, pragmatic trial. Patients receiving OAMs were randomized 1:1 to BI (n = 410) or MMI (n = 404) for 24 weeks. Insulin titration and OAM adjustment were determined by investigators following usual standard-of-care. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline.

Results

Least-squares mean changes in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 were -2.00% and -2.15% for BI and MMI groups, respectively (P = .13). The MMI group demonstrated a greater reduction in concomitant OAM therapies used than BI group (53.8% vs. 35.3%, respectively; P < .001). Very limited daily insulin dose increments were observed from baseline to week 24 in both BI and MMI groups (2.5 U/day and 1.8 U/day, respectively). Although both insulin analogs were well-tolerated without severe hypoglycaemia, small weight gains were seen with both treatments. Higher total hypoglycaemia rates were noticed with the MMI group, while nocturnal hypoglycaemia events were comparable.

Conclusions

In real-world settings, BI and MMI provided similar improvement in glucose control without conceding hypoglycaemia. The BI group received a greater number of OAMs in real-world settings. Limited insulin dose titration was observed, while more adjustments occurred with OAM usage.

SUBMITTER: Zhang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7384022 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pragmatic study of mid-mixture insulin and basal insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic medications: A lesson from real-world experience.

Zhang Xiaomei X Ma Yujin Y Chen Hong H Lou Ying Y Ji Linong L Chen Lulu L

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20200511 8

<h4>Background</h4>Chinese guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommend basal or premixed insulins as insulin starters after failed oral antihyperglycaemic medication (OAM). This pragmatic study compared effectiveness and safety of add-on basal insulin analog (BI) and mid-mixture insulin analog (MMI; 50:50 premixed insulin) as starter insulin regimens in Chinese patients with T2D in a real-world setting.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This was a multicentre, open-label, randomiz ...[more]

PMID: 32267071

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAccording to Chinese guidelines, basal insulin (BI) or premixed insulins are recommended insulin starters following the failure of oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This pragmatic study investigated the long-term effectiveness, safety, and cost of add-on BI and mid-mixture insulin analog (MMI) regimens in Chinese patients with T2D.MethodsThis multicenter, open-label, pragmatic study randomized patients 1:1 to receive either BI or MMI with OAMs adjusted according to current standards of care. We evaluated the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline, safety parameters, and antidiabetic medication costs.ResultsChange in HbA1c from baseline showed a statistically greater decrease at week 48 in the MMI group (MMI: - 2.03% [0.06] vs. BI: - 1.82% [0.06]; P < 0.05). Both groups showed decreases in fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 2.53 [0.14] vs. BI: - 3.19 [0.14]; P < 0.01) and postprandial glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 4.35 [0.22] vs. BI: - 4.33 [0.23]). More patients in the BI group showed increases in OAM use, while OAM use decreased in the MMI group. Both groups showed stable glycemic control with a very limited insulin dose change from week 24 to week 48. The incidence of total hypoglycemia was higher in the MMI group (MMI: 124% [30.7] vs. BI: 76% [18.5], P < 0.0001), but no incidence of severe hypoglycemia was reported in either group. Treatment costs, in terms of average daily cost and cost of glycemic control, were higher in the BI group.ConclusionIn long-term real-world use, the MMI and BI groups demonstrated improved glycemic control, with the MMI group showing more significant improvement than the BI group. Hypoglycemia incidence was higher in the MMI group, with no major safety issues through week 48. MMI is likely to provide better price value than BI for the treatment of T2D in Chinese patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03018938.

Project description:IntroductionBasal insulin's position in the type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment paradigm has undergone significant revisions since the advent of diabetes medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), which offer cardiorenal protection for people with T2D (PwT2D). This study aimed to characterize the demographic, clinical, and diabetes medication utilization patterns of PwT2D initiating basal insulin between 2014 and 2020 over the time period when these revisions were occurring.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted using the IBM® MarketScan® databases and included adults with T2D who initiated basal insulin therapy (basal insulin initiators) in 2015, 2017, or 2019. Patient characteristics, medication utilization patterns, and time to add an additional diabetes drug class were compared across years. Characteristics of users of basal insulin-GLP-1RA combination therapy (GLP-1RA-basal insulin dual users) were also compared across years.ResultsBetween 2015 and 2019, initiation of basal insulin therapy remained steady, with 1.6-1.9% of PwT2D starting basal insulin in each year. GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i use increased pre- and post-basal insulin initiation (pre-basal: GLP-1RA, from 14.8% to 25.2%, p < 0.0001; SGLT-2i, from 11.4% to 20.5%, p < 0.0001; post-basal: GLP-1RA, from 16.7% to 30.5%, p < 0.0001; SGLT-2i, from 13.4% to 23.3%, p < 0.0001]). The proportion of PwT2D with underlying cardiovascular and renal diseases did not increase during this period. Among basal insulin initiators without prior GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i, or bolus insulin use, time to adding on these agents decreased, with 14.0-15.6% starting bolus insulin within the first year. Among GLP-1RA-basal insulin dual initiators, the proportion of those with underlying cardiovascular disease was not higher among GLP-1RA first users.ConclusionsIn this real-world study, insulin remained key in the T2D treatment paradigm. A growing proportion of PwT2D utilized GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is before and after initiation of basal insulin therapy. At the same time, there was no increase in the proportion of those initiating basal insulin who had cardiorenal comorbidity profiles for which treatment guidelines have recommended the use of GLP-1RAs or SGLT-2is.

Project description:AimsTo assess whether people with type 2 diabetes transferring from higher basal insulin doses (> 20 units) to a starting dose of 16 units of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) benefit from IDegLira with/without transient loss of glycaemic control.MethodsPost hoc analysis of DUAL V and VII assessed fasting self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) over weeks 1-8, changes in HbA1c, body weight and mean insulin dose over 26 weeks, and percentage of participants achieving HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) by end of trial in participants with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with basal insulin. IDegLira was compared with continued up-titration of insulin glargine (IGlar U100) in DUAL V, or switching to basal-bolus therapy in DUAL VII (IGlar U100 and insulin aspart), across pre-trial insulin dose groups (20-29, 30-39 and 40-50 units/day).ResultsIn all subgroups, participants treated with IDegLira experienced significant improvements in HbA1c by end of trial, which were greater than with IGlar U100 up-titration (estimated treatment difference -5.86, -6.59 and -6.91 mmol/mol for pre-trial insulin doses of 20-29, 30-39 and 40-50 units/day, respectively) and similar to basal-bolus therapy (estimated treatment difference -0.16, -1.0 and -0.01 mmol/mol for pre-trial insulin doses of 20-29, 30-39 and 40-50 units/day, respectively). Compared with IGlar U100 and basal-bolus therapy, IDegLira participants experienced weight loss vs. weight gain, lower rates of hypoglycaemia and a lower mean end of trial total daily insulin dose. In both trials, mean fasting SMBG decreased from weeks 1 to 8 across all subgroups, despite a temporary increase in mean fasting SMBG in the 40-50 units pre-trial insulin dose group during week 1 [mean increase (sd) +1.1 (2.0) mmol/l for DUAL V and +1.1 (2.1) mmol/l for DUAL VII], which reverted to baseline by week 4.ConclusionsRegardless of pre-trial insulin dose, IDegLira resulted in improved clinical outcomes, even in participants transferring from 40-50 units of basal insulin, despite a transient (< 4 weeks), clinically non-relevant, elevation in pre-breakfast SMBG. (Clinical Trial Registry Number NCT01952145 and NCT02420262).

Project description:IntroductionFew patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieve recommended glycemic control targets in the Czech Republic. Novel therapies, such as fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, may contribute to better glycemic control. In the analysis presented here, the present analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of two fixed-ratio combinations, IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) and iGlarLixi (insulin glargine/lixisenatide), for the treatment of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with basal insulin from a healthcare payer perspective in the Czech Republic.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison as no head-to-head data for IDegLira versus iGlarLixi are currently available. IDegLira was compared with two iGlarLixi pens (100 U/mL insulin glargine + 33 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively). Direct medical costs associated with pharmaceutical interventions, screening and diabetes-related complications were captured. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIDegLira was associated with gains in life expectancy of 0.11 years and in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus iGlarLixi, due to a lower cumulative incidence and delayed onset of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was also associated with higher projected costs due to higher acquisition costs; however, these were partially offset by cost savings from avoided complications. IDegLira was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Czech Koruna (CZK) 695,998 and CZK 348,323 per QALY gained versus iGlarLixi pens containing 33 and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively. These ratios were below the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of CZK 1,200,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionThe present analysis indicated that IDegLira was associated with clinical benefits relative to iGlarLixi over patient lifetimes and was likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.FundingNovo Nordisk. Plain language summary is available for this article.

Dataset Information

A pragmatic study of mid-mixture insulin and basal insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic medications: A lesson from real-world experience.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A pragmatic study of mid-mixture insulin and basal insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic medications: A lesson from real-world experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets