The Value of Insulin Degludec in Frail Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin represents a mainstay of glucose-lowering therapy for many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin treatments prescribed as standard care for the majority of people with T2DM, such as basal human insulin, may not be optimal in the treatment of frail older adults because of the increased demand on health care staff to administer multiple daily injections and monitor the patient. When choosing an insulin regimen for a frail older person with T2DM, predictability of glucose lowering effect, risk of hypoglycaemia, ease of administration, and simplicity and flexibility of dosing are major determining factors. Multiple daily injections may be too complex for older frail adults, whilst providing an unnecessary degree of tight glycaemic control and low doses of once-daily basal insulin analogues such as insulin degludec may be a reasonable option as cognitive decline or functional disability increases. Although insulin degludec has a substantially higher acquisition cost than routinely used basal human insulin, it has a longer, more predictable pharmacological profile and is more amenable to once-daily administration, translating into a reduced burden of care and potential cost savings for insulin-treated frail older adults. Insulin acquisition cost represents only a small proportion of the total cost of treatment, and it is important to consider the value perspective of insulin therapy in frail older adults from all stakeholders in the health care system.

Comparative effects of insulin glulisine and lispro on postprandial plasma glucose and lipid profile in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objective

The control of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) excursions is critical in the prevention of diabetic complications. Controversy remains on the differences in postprandial actions of insulin glulisine and lispro. The aim of this study was to define the differences in the efficacy of these two insulin analogues on PPG.

Methods

The study subjects were 20 in-hospital patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Plasma glucose (PG) was tightly controlled with basal insulin and insulin glulisine or lispro, and then glulisine or lispro were switched to the other insulin analog every other day for 6 study days. PG was measured before breakfast and 0.5-, 1-, and 2 h-postprandial during the study. Postprandial plasma C-peptide and lipids were analyzed in the first 2 days of the study. Postprandial increments in each parameter were compared between glulisine and lispro.

Results

Whereas the median value of 0.5 h-Δ-PPG was comparable in glulisine and lispro, the 1 h-Δ-PPG was significantly lower with lispro than with glulisine (41 vs 53 mg/dl, respectively, p = 0.03). Similarly, the 2 h-Δ-PPG with lispro was 10 mg/dl lower than that with glulisine (35 vs 45 mg/dl, respectively, p = 0.05). In parallel with PPG, Δ-C-peptide at 1- and 2 h-postprandial were significantly lower with lispro than glulisine (0.50 vs 0.75 ng/ml, respectively, and 0.55 vs 0.75 ng/ml, respectively). The increment in LDL-C and HDL-C was significantly lower with lispro than with glulisine at 0.5 h-postprandial.

Conclusion

Insulin lispro seems superior to glulisine in the control of PPG in Japanese patients with T2DM.

One Hundred Years of Insulin: Value Beyond Price in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a chronic, progressive disease that frequently necessitates treatment with basal insulin to maintain adequate glycaemic control. In considering the value of different basal insulin therapies, although acquisition costs are of increasing importance to budget-constrained healthcare systems, value beyond simple price considerations should be taken into account. Whilst human basal insulins are of lower acquisition cost compared to long-acting insulin analogues, this difference in price has the potential to be offset in terms of total healthcare system value through the ultra-long duration of action and low variability in glucose-lowering activity which have been translated into real clinical benefits, in particular a reduced risk of hypoglycaemic events. The maintenance of glycaemic targets and avoidance of hypoglycaemia that have been associated with insulin analogues represent a significant value consideration, beyond price, for the use of basal insulin analogues to manage type 2 diabetes mellitus from the perspective of all stakeholders within the healthcare system, including payers, healthcare professionals, patients and society.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec 200 units/mL (degludec) versus insulin glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) from a Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

A previously published model estimated costs [2018 euros (EUR)] and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec compared with glargine U300 over a 1-year time horizon. The model captured hypoglycaemia rates and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by CONCLUDE (NCT03078478), a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec was associated with mean annual cost savings (EUR 24.71 per patient) relative to glargine U300, driven by a lower basal insulin dose and lower severe hypoglycaemia rate with degludec compared with glargine U300. Lower rates of non-severe nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+ 0.0045 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U300. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This short-term analysis, informed by the latest clinical trial evidence, demonstrated that degludec was a cost-effective treatment option relative to glargine U300. As such, our modelling analysis suggests that degludec would represent an efficient use of Dutch public healthcare resources in this patient population.

Insulin Therapy in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review

Here, we review insulin management options and strategies in nonpregnant adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Most patients with T1DM should follow a regimen of multiple daily injections of basal/bolus insulin, but those not meeting individual glycemic targets or those with frequent or severe hypoglycemia or pronounced dawn phenomenon should consider continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. The latter treatment modality could also be an alternative based on patient preferences and availability of reimbursement. Continuous glucose monitoring may improve glycemic control irrespective of treatment regimen. A glycemic target of glycated hemoglobin < 7% (53 mmol/mol) is appropriate for most nonpregnant adults. Basal insulin analogues with a reduced peak profile and an extended duration of action with lower intraindividual variability relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin are preferred. The clinical advantages of basal analogues compared with older basal insulins include reduced injection burden, better efficacy, lower risk of hypoglycemic episodes (especially nocturnal), and reduced weight gain. For prandial glycemic control, any rapid-acting prandial analogue (aspart, glulisine, lispro) is preferred over regular human insulin. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a relatively new option with the advantage of better postprandial glucose coverage. Frequent blood glucose measurements along with patient education on insulin dosing based on carbohydrate counting, premeal blood glucose, and anticipated physical activity is paramount, as is education on the management of blood glucose under different circumstances.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary is available for this article.

Clinical Use of Degludec in Children and Adolescents with T1D: A Narrative Review with Fictionalized Case Reports

The use of insulin in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a challenge because of the heterogeneity of these patients and their lifestyles, with consequent unpredictability in blood glucose levels. A new ultra-long-acting basal insulin, insulin degludec (degludec), has the potential to mitigate some of these challenges, notably variability in the glucose-lowering action of the basal insulin component of an insulin regimen, and consequent risks of hypo- and hyperglycemia. However, the protracted half-life and steady state pharmacokinetics of degludec potentially bring some new challenges. In particular, the adjustment of therapy in response to commonly encountered clinical situations might require a different approach when degludec is used in place of other currently used basal insulins in this challenging patient population. The purpose of this article is to guide clinicians through a series of case histories in the use of this insulin. These include, but are not limited to, how to initiate, titrate, switch from other basal insulin or pump therapy; how to alleviate difficulties arising as a result of unpredictable lifestyle/habits; and how to maintain treatment following diabetic ketoacidosis. The guidance presented in this review illustrates that degludec is a good option for a diverse range of children and adolescents with T1D, providing much needed flexibility in the treatment of this challenging patient population.Funding Novo Nordisk.

Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and new-to-market basal insulin analogues in patients with diabetes in order to aid decision-making in a complex basal insulin market.

METHODS

A simple, short-term model was used to evaluate the costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar U100 over a 12-month period in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. New-to-market basal insulin analogues were evaluated in scenario analyses.

RESULTS

IDeg is dominant (more effective and less costly) versus IGlar U100 in patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM on a basal-only therapy regimen (T2DM_BOT), and is cost-effective versus IGlar U100 in patients with T2DM on a basal-bolus regimen (T2DM_B/B). In T1DM, lower costs are primarily driven by lower insulin costs, as a result of a lower daily dose of IDeg. In T2DM_BOT, lower overall costs with IDeg are driven by lower costs of severe hypoglycaemic events due to the significant reduction in number of events with IDeg versus IGlar U100. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are a result of the reduced incidence of hypoglycaemic events. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the results are robust. Scenario analyses versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues indicate that in patients with T1DM and T2DM_BOT, IDeg is likely to be highly cost-effective versus IGlar biosimilar Abasaglar^® and dominant versus IGlar U300 (Toujeo^®). In T2DM_B/B, IDeg is likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the accepted threshold.

CONCLUSION

IDeg is a cost-effective alternative to IGlar U100 for patients with diabetes in the UK, and it also likely to be cost-effective versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues.

Insulin degludec: a long-acting modern insulin analogue with a predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile

Insulin degludec is, like insulin detemir, a product of coupling of Des-B30 threonine insulin to fatty acid side chains. After injection, degludec self associates, precipitating in subcutaneous tissue. There is a continuous and highly predictable slow dissociation of insulin monomers from this depot; insulin levels rise immediately reaching tmax at 10-12 hours, followed by a slow decline with a t½ of 17-21 hours, roughly double the duration of action of insulin glargine. An important property of degludec not shared by glargine is miscibility with rapid-acting insulin. Although the effect of coadministered insulin aspart is somewhat blunted by coformulation with degludec, a preparation of 70% degludec and 30% aspart has predictable pharmacodynamics. Daily administration of degludec has glucose-lowering benefits not different from those of glargine, with purportedly less hypoglycemia. Although degludec is approved and marketed in Europe under the brand name Tresiba®, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in a surprising development, challenged the assertion of lower tendency to hypoglycemia with degludec, and, more importantly, raised concerns that degludec may have a higher cardiovascular risk than glargine. Only a long-term study in a large patient population can resolve these questions. However, release of degludec for marketing to appropriate patients should proceed while awaiting the results of such a study.

The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus can be reduced with unchanged HbA1c levels and pregnancy outcomes in a routine care setting

AIMS

To investigate whether the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes can be reduced without deteriorating HbA1c levels or pregnancy outcomes in a routine care setting.

METHODS

Two cohorts (2004-2006; n=108 and 2009-2011; n=104) were compared. In between the cohorts a focused intervention including education of caregivers and patients in preventing hypoglycaemia was implemented. Women were included at median 8 (range 5-13) weeks. Severe hypoglycaemia (requiring assistance from others) was prospectively reported in structured interviews.

RESULTS

In the first vs. second cohort, severe hypoglycaemia during pregnancy occurred in 45% vs. 23%, p=0.0006, corresponding to incidences of 2.5 vs. 1.6 events/patient-year, p=0.04. Unconsciousness and/or convulsions occurred at 24% vs. 8% of events. Glucagon and/or glucose injections were given at 15% vs. 5% of events. At inclusion HbA1c was comparable between the cohorts while in the second cohort fewer women reported impaired hypoglycaemia awareness (56% vs. 36%, p=0.0006), insulin dose in women on multiple daily injections was lower (0.77 IU/kg (0.4-1.7) vs. 0.65 (0.2-1.4), p=0.0006) and more women were on insulin analogues (rapid-acting 44% vs. 97%, p<0.0001; long-acting 6% vs. 76%, p<0.0001) and insulin pumps (5% vs. 23%, p<0.0001). Pregnancy outcomes were similar in the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

A 36% reduction in the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in pregnancy with unchanged HbA1c levels and pregnancy outcomes was observed after implementation of focused intervention against severe hypoglycaemia in a routine care setting. Improved insulin treatment, increased health professional education and fewer women with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness may contribute.