METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, treat-to-target trial, patients with T2DM who intended to fast and were on basal, pre- or self-mixed insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs for ≥90 days were randomised (1:1) to IDegAsp twice daily (BID) or BIAsp 30 BID. Treatment period included pre-Ramadan treatment initiation (with insulin titration for 8-20 weeks), Ramadan (4 weeks) and post-Ramadan (4 weeks). Insulin doses were reduced by 30-50% for the pre-dawn meal (suhur) on the first day of Ramadan, and readjusted to the pre-Ramadan levels at the end of Ramadan. Hypoglycaemia was analysed as overall (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]), nocturnal (00:01-05:59) or severe (requiring assistance of another person).
RESULTS: During the treatment period, IDegAsp (n = 131) had significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates with similar glycaemic efficacy, versus BIAsp 30 (n = 132). During Ramadan, despite achieving significantly lower pre-iftar (meal at sunset) self-measured plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference: -0.54 mmol/L [-1.02; -0.07]95% CI, p = .0247; post hoc) with similar overall glycaemic efficacy, IDegAsp showed significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates versus BIAsp 30.
CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp is a suitable therapeutic agent for patients who need insulin for sustained glucose control before, during and after Ramadan fasting, with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia, versus BIAsp 30, an existing premixed insulin analogue.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of sulfonylurea therapy in Chinese NDM patients during infancy before genetic testing results were available.
METHODS: The medical records of NDM patients with their follow-up details were reviewed and molecular genetic analysis was performed. Sulfonylurea transfer regimens were applied in patients diagnosed after May 2010, and glycemic status and side effects were evaluated in each patient.
RESULTS: There were 23 NDM patients from 22 unrelated families, 10 had KCNJ11 mutations, 3 harbored ABCC8 mutations, 1 had INS mutations, 4 had chromosome 6q24 abnormalities, 1 had a deletion at chromosome 1p36.23p36.12, and 4 had no genetic abnormality identified. Sixteen NDM infants were treated with glyburide at an average age of 49 days (range 14-120 days) before genetic confirmation. A total of 11 of 16 (69%) were able to successfully switch to glyburide with a more stable glucose profile. The responsive glyburide dose was 0.51 ± 0.16 mg/kg/d (0.3-0.8 mg/kg/d), while the maintenance dose was 0.30 ± 0.07 mg/kg/d (0.2-0.4 mg/kg/d). No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Molecular genetic diagnosis is recommended in all patients with NDM. However, if genetic testing results are delayed, sulfonylurea therapy should be considered before such results are received, even in infants with newly diagnosed NDM.
METHODS: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.