Real-world persistence, adherence, health care resource utilization, and costs in people with type 2 diabetes switching from a first-generation basal insulin to a second-generation (insulin glargine 300 U/mL) vs an alternative first-generation basal insulin

Healthcare utilization and costs in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with first or second-generation basal insulins in England

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin (BI) is rising to improve glucose control and minimize complications. However, limited evidence exists regarding the economic impact of second-generation BI analogs compared with first-generation BI in the United Kingdom.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this comparative retrospective, observational study, adults with T2D who initiated treatment with a first-generation BI (eg, glargine 100 U/mL, detemir) and switched to another first-generation or a second-generation BI (glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) or degludec) (index date) between 1 July 2014 and 31 March 2021 were analyzed using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. Subjects were followed from the index date until the end of observation period, deregistration in CPRD or death. Propensity score weighting balanced baseline characteristics and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared using standardized differences and zero-inflated regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 13 975 people with T2D (mean (SD) age: 62.45 (13.59) years) treated with a first-generation BI who switched to another first-generation BI (n=5654), Gla-300 (n=4737) or degludec (n=3584) were included. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 4.98 (4.27), 1.96 (1.62) and 2.05 (1.92) years for the first-generation BI, Gla-300 and degludec groups, respectively. Overall, people who switched to Gla-300 had significantly lower HCRU. Fewer people in the Gla-300 group received hypoglycemia-related healthcare compared with those in the first-generation BI group (9.1% vs 16.4%, incident rate ratio (IRR)=0.41, p<0.001) and the degludec group (9.2% vs 11.7%, IRR=0.51, p<0.001). During follow-up, diabetes-related and diabetic ketoacidosis-related total direct costs were lower for the Gla-300 group compared with the first-generation BI group by 17% and the degludec group by 60%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that Gla-300 may offer clinical and economic benefits by reducing hypoglycemia incidents and lowering healthcare costs compared with first-generation BI.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Related to Falls and Fractures Among People With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Basal Insulin: The FRAGILE Study

Background: The association between falls or fall-related fractures and hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes is well established. Insulin treatment is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia, which is compounded in people of older age, but the risk is lower with longer-acting vs intermediate- or long-acting basal insulin analogs. Objective: To examine healthcare resource utilization and costs related to falls/fractures in people with type 2 diabetes treated with the longer-acting basal insulin Gla-300 (insulin glargine 300 U/mL) vs long-acting basal insulins (insulin glargine 100 U/mL or insulin detemir)/neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH). Methods: This retrospective study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database compared data for people aged 50 years or older with at least 1 prescription claim for basal insulin (excluding insulin degludec) between April 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, who initiated Gla-300 insulin (basal insulin-naive) or transitioned to Gla-300 from a different basal insulin (basal insulin-switch). Cohorts were propensity score-matched. The primary outcome was fall/fracture-related hospitalization and emergency department visit events (per 100 person-years of follow-up [P100PYFU]). The association between fall/fracture events and hypoglycemia and costs were secondary outcomes. Outcomes were compared using 95% confidence intervals of rate and other ratios; no statistical inference was performed. Results: Fall/fracture-related hospitalization (2.88 vs 3.33 P100PYFU) and emergency department visit events (5.28 vs 5.95 P100PYFU) were numerically lower in people who initiated basal insulin with Gla-300 vs long-acting basal insulins/NPH, and in those who switched to Gla-300 vs long-acting basal insulins/NPH (2.54 vs 3.38 and 4.48 vs 5.21 P100PYFU, respectively). People with vs without hypoglycemia experienced more falls/fractures, regardless of whether initiating basal insulin or switching basal insulin treatment. Costs tended to be lower for people who switched to Gla-300; however, low event rates caused variability. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that there is a positive correlation between fall/fracture events and hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and also, that fall/fracture-related healthcare resource utilization was numerically lower in people who initiated basal insulin with Gla-300 vs long-acting basal insulins/NPH, and in those who switched to Gla-300 vs long-acting basal insulins/NPH.

You may delay, but time will not. Beta cells lost are never found again: a case for timely initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Since its first use just over a century ago, insulin treatment has evolved dramatically, such that the molecules are physiologic in nature, and treatment can now closely resemble the natural hormone response over 24 hours. Newer, longer-acting basal insulin analogs have provided insulin therapies with improved characteristics and, therefore, ease of use, and can readily be incorporated as part of routine treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence suggests that insulin remains underused in people with T2D. We review the barriers to initiation of basal insulin and the education needed to address these barriers, and we provide practical pointers, supported by evidence, for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers to facilitate timely initiation of basal insulin in the people with T2D who will benefit from such treatment.

The economic value of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people ≥18 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a value-based economic model from a U.S. payer perspective

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the value and affordability of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in a budget impact model from a United States (U.S.) payer perspective by leveraging recent real-world evidence (RWE) studies and incorporating the recent insulin price caps where applicable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An economic model for a hypothetical one million U.S. health-plan population was developed to assess the budgetary impact of therapeutic interchanges in either direction between the two long- and longer-acting basal insulins (BIs) for patients with type 2 diabetes over a three-year model horizon. The utilization of long-acting BIs, longer-acting BIs, biosimilar BIs, and insulin degludec (IDeg-100) were informed by IQVIA data and internal forecasting at Sanofi. The DELIVER-2 and DELIVER-naïve studies provided healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) parameters. In the model base case, 24% of patients switched from long-acting BIs to insulin glargine biosimilars, IDeg-100, and other longer-acting BIs (Gla-300) by projected year 3.

RESULTS

The base case total costs were $10,145 per patient per year (PPPY) in year 3 for the cumulative population. When all patients switched to Gla-300, the total costs in year 3 were $8,799, reflecting a net savings of -$660 PPPY compared to the budget increase of $686 PPPY in the base case. However, the longer-acting to long-acting BIs reversal scenario demonstrated a budgetary decrease of $676 PPPY over the model horizon. The reduction in incremental PPPY cost of $93 was observed using net drug costs rather than wholesale acquisition costs (WAC).

LIMITATIONS

The market shares for years 1-3 were based on expectations supported by the clinicians' expert opinions and were not obtained from real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic value of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by the reduction in HCRU, costs and market shares assumptions. Budgetary reductions were achieved by switching patients from long-acting BIs to Gla-300.

Predictors of success and failure in achieving glycemic control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin: review of the real-world evidence studies

Basal insulin (BI) is the main therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who have not reached glycemic targets on oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The results of epidemiological studies indicate that the majority of patients with T2D do not achieve the targeted parameters of glycemic control on BI in the real-world settings. In this review the results of real-world evidence studies assessing predictors of success or failure of BI therapy in patients with T2D are we summarized. A number of studies have demonstrated that delayed initiation of insulin therapy with a high level of glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at the start of the treatment reduces achieving glycemic control targets on BI. Hypoglycemia in the first weeks or months of BI treatment may reduce the adherence and persistence to treatment and likelihood of achieving treatment targets. In real-world evidence studies, glargine 300 U/mL and degludec, the long-acting second-generation insulin analogues, have shown greater potential in reduction of HbA1c levels with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared to other BIs. In the DUNE, ATOS, and some others studies, a lack of insulin dose titration in newly initiated BI users and those who needed treatment intensification was demonstrated. Poor treatment adherence and persistence (missed injections, incorrect dose selection, and temporary or permanent discontinuation of insulin therapy), deviations in insulin injection technique, and formation of lipohypertrophy at the injection sites are also common problems that prevent good glycemic control in these patients. Therefore, patient education with a focus on injection technique, dose titration and prevention of hypoglycemia, as well as the use of the second-generation BI analogs, increases the chances for achieving glycemic control targets in patients with T2D who initiate or need to intensify BI therapy.