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.
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.