-
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. (Review)
Review
Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion.
PURPOSE
To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English.
STUDY SELECTION
Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION
Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established.
CONCLUSION
Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hypoglycemic Agents; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; United States; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 38639547
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1492 -
BMJ Open Jun 2019What is the most effective pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control in known type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) without prior insulin treatment and newly started on...
OBJECTIVES
What is the most effective pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control in known type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) without prior insulin treatment and newly started on systemic glucocorticoid therapy?
DESIGN
We conducted a systematic literature review.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and Google for articles from 2002 to July 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We combined search terms relating to DM (patients, >16 years of age), systemic glucocorticoids, glycaemic control, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We screened and evaluated articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.
RESULTS
Eight of 2365 articles met full eligibility criteria. Basal-bolus insulin (BBI) strategy for patients under systemic glucocorticoid therapy was comparatively effective but provided insufficient glucose control, depending on time of day. BBI strategy with long-acting insulin and neutral protamin Hagedorn as basal insulin provided similar overall glycaemic control. Addition of various insulin strategies to standard BBI delivered mixed results. Intermediate-acting insulin (IMI) as additional insulin conferred no clear benefits, and glycaemic control with sliding scale insulin was inferior to BBI or IMI. No studies addressed whether anticipatory or compensatory insulin adjustments are better for glycaemic control.
CONCLUSION
The lack of suitably designed RCTs and observational studies, heterogeneity of interventions, target glucose levels and glucose monitoring, poor control of DM subgroups and low to moderate quality of evidence render identification of optimal pharmacological interventions for glycaemic control and insulin management difficult. Even findings on the widely recommended BBI regimen as intensive insulin therapy for patients with DM on glucocorticoids are inconclusive. High-quality evidence from studies with well-defined DM phenotypes, settings and treatment approaches is needed to determine optimal pharmacological intervention for glycaemic control.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015024739.
Topics: Aged; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin, Long-Acting; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31154314
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028914 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.
Topics: Bias; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Detemir; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Isophane; Insulin, Long-Acting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33166419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005613.pub4 -
The Patient Aug 2018Insulin analog glargine (GLA) has been available as one of the therapeutic options for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to enhance glycemic control. Studies have...
INTRODUCTION
Insulin analog glargine (GLA) has been available as one of the therapeutic options for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to enhance glycemic control. Studies have shown that a decrease in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes improves the quality of life (QoL) of diabetic patients. However, there are appreciable acquisition cost differences between different insulins. Consequently, there is a need to assess their impact on QoL to provide future guidance to health authorities.
METHOD
A systematic review of multiple databases including Medline, LILACS, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases with several combinations of agreed terms involving randomized controlled trials and cohorts, as well as manual searches and gray literature, was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was a change in QoL. The quality of the studies and the risk of bias was also assessed.
RESULTS
Eight studies were eventually included in the systematic review out of 634 publications. Eight different QoL instruments were used (two generic, two mixed, and four specific), in which the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was the most used. The systematic review did not consistently show any significant difference overall in QoL scores, whether as part of subsets or combined into a single score, with the use of GLA versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Only in patient satisfaction measured by DTSQ was a better result consistently seen with GLA versus NPH insulin, but not using the Well-being Inquiry for Diabetics (WED) scale. However, none of the cohort studies scored a maximum on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality, and they generally were of moderate quality with bias in the studies.
CONCLUSION
There was no consistent difference in QoL or patient-reported outcomes when the findings from the eight studies were collated. In view of this, we believe the current price differential between GLA and NPH insulin in Brazil cannot be justified by these findings.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Brazil; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Isophane; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 29322308
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0291-3 -
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular... Oct 2019Administering intravenous IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is the recommended standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), although it is not recommended to...
INTRODUCTION
Administering intravenous IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is the recommended standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), although it is not recommended to administer intravenous thrombolysis with tPA following heparin reversal with protamine sulfate in patients with AIS.
METHODS
We describe a case series of three patients and the most comprehensive literature review published to date in this specific subset of AIS patients undergoing thrombolysis following heparin reversal with protamine sulfate. The literature review was based on a scoping review methodology performed on four databases; PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. All sources were searched from the inauguration of the database until February 2019. A total of six articles involving eight patients were identified.
RESULTS
The primary safety outcome of no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) was met in all eleven patients, although only seven cases had a good functional outcome at 3 months.
CONCLUSIONS
In appropriately selected AIS patients, coagulopathy correction appears to be safe from an sICH standpoint and may be beneficial. However, given the potential for bias with observational databases, case reports and case series, extreme caution is warranted in applying these results to routine clinical practice.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Brain Ischemia; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Heparin; Heparin Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Protamines; Stroke; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31324409
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.06.041