[The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes: results of a Chinese cohort from a multinational randomized controlled trial]

Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Versus Insulin Degludec for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A systematic search of English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IGlar with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM was performed, followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IGlar versus IDeg. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness of IGlar versus IDeg. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the underlying parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The IGlar group showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) from baseline compared to the IDeg group (mean difference [MD] 0.08%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.14%, P = 0.02). Body mass index (BMI) control was numerically better in the IGlar group than in the IDeg group (MD 0.07 kg/m², 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.14 kg/m², P  = 0.08). In terms of hypoglycemia, the incidence of non-severe overall hypoglycemia was comparable between the IDeg and IGlar patient groups (P  > 0.05), while the incidence of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (relative risk [RR 0.79], 95% CI 0.70-0.90, P < 0.01) and the event rates of non-severe overall (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) were lower in the IDeg group. The incidences and event rates of both severe overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar for the two groups (P  > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that IGlar is the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg, with a lifetime savings of 1004 Chinese yuan in direct medical costs and a net gain of 0.015 QALYs per patient. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

IGlar is a cost-saving option with incremental effectiveness compared with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM in China.

FUNDING

Sanofi China.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in China: Associations of Hypoglycemia with Health Care Resource Utilization and Associated Costs

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to examine the associations of hypoglycemia with health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted with 23,680 T2DM patients >18 years old who visited the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015. Univariate descriptive statistics were used to relate the HCRU and associated costs to patient characteristics, and regression analysis was used to examine the association between hypoglycemia and HCRU, controlling for other confounding factors.

RESULTS

In the T2DM patients with or without insulin treatment, when compared with nonhypoglycemic patients, hypoglycemia was associated with more medical visits (all T2DM patients 19.48 vs. 10.46, insulin users 23.45 vs. 14.12) and higher diabetes-related medical costs (all T2DM patients ¥5187.54 vs. ¥3525.00, insulin users ¥6948.84 vs. ¥3401.15) and medication costs (T2DM patients ¥1349.40 vs. ¥641.92, insulin users: ¥1363.87 vs. ¥853.96). Controlling for age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score, hypoglycemia and insulin intake were associated with greater health care resource utilization. As compared to nonhypoglycemic patients, hypoglycemic T2DM patients and those on insulin therapy performed more outpatient visits (proportions of hypoglycemic vs nonhypoglycemic T2DM patients performing 3+ visits: 72.69% vs. 65.49%; proportions of hypoglycemic vs nonhypoglycemic patients on insulin therapy performing 3+ visits: 78.26% vs. 71.73%) and were hospitalized more often (proportions of hypoglycemic vs nonhypoglycemic T2DM patients with 3+ admissions 75.90% vs. 50.24%; proportions of hypoglycemic vs nonhypoglycemic patients on insulin therapy with 3+ admissions: 83.19% vs. 58.51%).

CONCLUSION

Hypoglycemia in diabetes patients was associated with increased healthcare resource utilization and health-related expenditure, especially for patients on insulin treatment. Insulin treatment regimens should be more individualized and account for hypoglycemia risk.