MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centered, prospective observational study was conducted among 46 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant chronic kidney disease stage 2 and 3 who were on three different types of basal insulin (Glargine U-100, Levemir, and Insulatard), fasted in Ramadan 2022. All variables were listed as median (IQR). Hypoglycaemia events and glycemic variability obtained from Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring were compared between insulin groups. Changes in glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, renal profile, body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference pre and post-Ramadan were evaluated.
RESULTS: The glycaemic variability was found highest in Insulatard with a median (IQR) of 37.2(33)% versus Levemir 34.4(32.4)% versus Glargine U-100 36.8(30.6)%, p = NS. Levemir had reported the lowest median time of below range of 2.5(13)% followed by Glargine 4(25)% and Insulatard 5(8)%; p = NS. The findings of this study indicated that glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, renal profile, body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference did not alter statistically between the three groups post-Ramadan. Individually, Insulatard showed a significant reduction in weight and waist circumference (0.9kg, p = 0.026; 0.44 cm, p = 0.008) while Levemir showed a reduction in waist circumference (0.75cm, p = 0.019).
CONCLUSION: This study revealed that Insulatard, Levemir, and Glargine demonstrated similar levels of safety and efficacy among those with diabetic kidney disease who observed fasting during Ramadan.
RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups.
CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.
METHODS: A validated computer simulation model (the IMS CORE Diabetes Model) was used to estimate the long-term projection of costs and clinical outcomes. The model was populated with published characteristics of Thai patients with type 2 diabetes. Baseline risk factors were obtained from Thai cohort studies, while relative risk reduction was derived from a meta-analysis study conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Only direct costs were taken into account. Costs of diabetes management and complications were obtained from hospital databases in Thailand. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3 % per annum and presented in US dollars in terms of 2014 dollar value. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: IGlar is associated with a slight gain in quality-adjusted life years (0.488 QALYs), an additional life expectancy (0.677 life years), and an incremental cost of THB119,543 (US$3522.19) compared with NPH insulin. The ICERs were THB244,915/QALY (US$7216.12/QALY) and THB176,525/life-year gained (LYG) (US$5201.09/LYG). The ICER was sensitive to discount rates and IGlar cost. At the acceptable willingness to pay of THB160,000/QALY (US$4714.20/QALY), the probability that IGlar was cost effective was less than 20 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to treatment with NPH insulin, treatment with IGlar in type 2 diabetes patients who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic drugs did not represent good value for money at the acceptable threshold in Thailand.
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.