Insulinas análogas de ação prolongada comparadas à insulina NPH para tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 em adultos: revisão rápida / Long-acting basal insulin analogues compared to nph insulin for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: rapid review

Tecnologia: Insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH (protamina neutra de Hagedorn). Indicação: Tratamento de adultos com diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Pergunta: Há diferenças de efeito nos principais desfechos de eficácia e segurança entre insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH no tratamento de pacientes com DM2? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foi selecionada e incluída uma revisão sistemática. Conclusão: As insulinas análogas (glargina e detemir) não demonstraram superioridade nos desfechos de eficácia e segurança quando comparadas à insulina NPH, não demonstraram redução significativa em relação à mortalidade por todas as causas e complicações secundárias ao DM2. Quando comparadas à insulina NPH, foi observado redução na hipoglicemia confirmada e hipoglicemia noturna a favor das insulinas análogas e na hipoglicemia grave a favor da insulina detemir

Technology: Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin). Indication: Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Question: Are there effect differences in key efficacy and safety outcomes between long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin in the treatment of DM2 patients? Methods: Rapid review of evidence (overview) of systematic reviews, with a bibliographic survey carried out in the PUBMED database, using a structured search strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Results: A systematic review was selected and included. Conclusion: Analog insulins (glargine and detemir) did not demonstrate superiority in efficacy and safety outcomes when compared to NPH insulin, did not demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and complications secondary to DM2. When compared to NPH insulin, a reduction in confirmed hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia in favor of analogue insulins and in severe hypoglycemia in favor of insulin detemir was observed

Effectiveness of insulin analogs compared with human insulins in pregnant women with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis / Efetividade dos análogos da insulina comparados às insulinas humanas em gestantes com diabetes mellitus: Revisão sistemática com metanálise

Abstract Diabetes during pregnancy has been linked to unfavorable maternal-fetal outcomes. Human insulins are the first drug of choice because of the proven safety in their use. However, there are still questions about the use of insulin analogs during pregnancy. The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of insulin analogs compared withhuman insulin in the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes througha systematic review withmeta-analysis. The search comprised the period since the inception of each database until July 2017, and the following databases were used:MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISIWeb of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE andGoogle Scholar.We have selected 29 original articles: 11 were randomized clinical trials and 18 were observational studies.We have explored data from 6,382 participants. All of the articles were classified as having an intermediate to high risk of bias. The variable that showed favorable results for the use of insulin analogs was gestational age, with a mean difference of - 0.26 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity (Higgins test [I2] = 38%; chi-squared test [χ2] = 16.24; degree of freedom [DF] = 10; p = 0.09). This result, in the clinical practice, does not compromise the fetal well-being, since all babies were born at term. There was publication bias in the gestational age and neonatal weight variables. To date, the evidence analyzed has a moderate-to-high risk of bias and does not allow the conclusion that insulin analogs are more effective when compared with human insulin to treat diabetic pregnant women.

Resumo Diabetes durante a gestação tem sido relacionado a desfechos materno-fetais desfavoráveis. As insulinas humanas são a primeira escolha medicamentosa, devido à comprovada segurança no seu uso. Entretanto, ainda há questionamentos sobre o uso dos análogos da insulina na gestação. O objetivo do presente estudo foi determinar a efetividade dos análogos da insulina comparados às insulinas humanas no tratamento de gestantes com diabetes por meio de uma revisão sistemática com metanálise. A busca compreendeu desde o início de cada base de dados até julho de 2017, e foi realizada nos seguintes bancos de dados: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE e Google Scholar. Selecionamos 29 artigos originais, sendo 11 ensaios clínicos randomizados e 18 estudos observacionais. Exploramos dados de 6.382 participantes. Todos os artigos foram classificados como sendo de intermediário a alto risco de viés. A variável que demonstrou resultado favorável ao uso dos análogos da insulina foi idade gestacional, com uma diferençamédia de - 0.26 (95% índice de confiança [IC]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), porém com heterogeneidade significativa (teste de Higgins [I2] = 38%; teste do qui quadrado [χ2] =16.24; graus de liberdade [GL] =10; p = 0.09). Esse resultado, na prática clínica, não compromete o bem-estar fetal, uma vez que todos os bebês nasceram a termo. Houve viés de publicação nas variáveis idade gestacional e peso neonatal. Até o momento, as evidências analisadas possuem um risco de viés moderado a elevado e não permitem concluir que os análogos da insulina sejam mais efetivos em comparação às insulinas humanas para tratar gestantes diabéticas.

Insulina degludec en pacientes diabéticos tipo 1: observación a 18 meses / Degludec insulin in type 1 diabetic patients: 18 months of observation

Antecedentes: En el tratamiento de la diabetes se buscan insulinas de acción más prolongada y con menores tasas de hipoglicemias. Objetivo. Uso del análogo de insulina de acción ultralenta degludec en diabéticos tipo 1 (DM1) tratados previamente con glargina. Pacientes y método: Se observaron 230 DM1 durante 18 meses, promedio de edad 34 años y de diagnóstico 14 años, registrándose parámetros clínicos, bioquímicos, hipoglicemias y requerimientos de insulina (U/kg/peso), en régimen basal/bolo, con degludec y ultra-rápida precomidas. Degludec se ajustó quincenalmente. Resultados: A los 3 meses, la glicemia de ayunas disminuyó de 253mg/dl (243-270) a 180 mg/dl (172- 240), (p< 0,05); a los 6 meses a 156 mg/dl (137-180) (p< 0,05), a los 12 meses a 151 mg/dl (50-328) (p< 0,001) y a los 18 meses 150 (50-321) (p<0,001). La HbA1c, inicialmente de 10,6% (10,3-12,2) bajó a los 3 meses a 8,7% (8,2-11,1) (p< 0,05), a 6 meses a 8,3% (8,0-9,6) (p<0,05), a los 12 meses subió 9,0% (5,9-14,5) (p<0,001) y a los 18 meses 9,0% (5,9-14,6) (p<0,001). La dosis de degludec fue 0,5 U/kg/peso a los 18 meses. Hubo reducción de hipoglicemias: a los 3 meses 14 leves, 4 moderados 1 grave; a los 6 meses 8 leves, 2 moderados y ninguna grave; a los 12 meses 1 leve, y a los 18 meses 2 leves, 1 moderado y ninguna grave. Un 7,8% no presentó hipoglicemias. Conclusión: Degludec en DM1 mostró reducir las glicemias de ayunas y HbA1c, y menor número de hipoglicemias.

Background: In the treatment of diabetes, longer-acting insulins with lower rates of hypoglycaemia are sought. Objective. Use of ultralow-acting insulin analog degludec in type 1 diabetic patients (T1D) previously treated with glargine. Patients and method: 230 T1D patients were observed during 18 months, average of age 34 years and of diagnosis 14 years, registering clinical, biochemical, hypoglycemia and insulin requirements (U / kg / weight), in basal / bolus regimen, with degludec and ultra-fast pre-meals. Degludec adjusted himself fortnightly. Results: At 3 months, the fasting glycemia decreased from 253 mg / dl (243-270) to 180 mg / dl (172 - 240), (p <0.05); at 6 months at 156 mg / dl (137-180) (p <0.05), at 12 months at 151 mg / dl (50-328) (p <0.001) and at 18 months 150 (50-321) ;(p <0.001). HbA1c, initially of 10.6% (10.3-12.2), decreased after 3 months to 8.7% (8.2 - 11.1) (p <0.05), to 6 months to 8 months, 3% (8.0-9.6) (p <0.05), at 12 months it rose 9.0% (5.9-14.5) (p <0.001) and at 18 months 9.0 % (5.9-14.6) (p <0.001). The dose of degludec was 0.5 U / kg / weight at 18 months. There was reduction of hypoglycemia: at 3 months, 14 mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe; at 6 months 8 mild, 2 moderate and none serious; at 12 months 1 mild, and at 18 months 2 mild, 1 moderate and none serious. 7.8% did not present hypoglycemia. Conclusion: Degludec in T1D patients showed to reduce fasting glycemia and HbA1c, and lower number of hypoglycemia.

Análisis comparativo de insulina glargina frente a la insulina detemir: un modelo de minimización de costos aplicable en Colombia / Comparative analysis of insulin glargine vs. insulin detemir: A cost-minimization study applicable to Colombia

Introducción. Más del 90 % de los individuos diagnosticados con diabetes mellitus presentan el tipo 2, cuya resistencia periférica a la acción de la insulina es conocida. Objetivo. Desarrollar un modelo de minimización de costos del tratamiento con insulina glargina una vez al día o con insulina detemir, una o dos veces al día, en pacientes con diabetes mellitus de tipo 2 que requieren insulina, desde la perspectiva del tercer pagador en Colombia. Materiales y métodos. Se hizo una búsqueda sistemática de estudios clínicos comparativos de la administración de insulina glargina e insulina detemir en pacientes con diabetes mellitus de tipo 2 que requieren insulina, con el fin de extraer los datos sobre su uso y efectividad, y sobre la frecuencia de eventos secundarios. La meta establecida de control glucémico fue de HbA1c=7 %. Los costos de la insulina se tomaron del Sistema Integrado de Precios de Medicamentos, 2012, del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social, y los precios por tableta se basaron en el promedio móvil de doce meses en diciembre de 2012 según el IMS Consulting Group. Los análisis de sensibilidad se hicieron con simulaciones de Montecarlo para las dosis y los costos de la insulina. Resultados. Cinco publicaciones cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. El rango de la diferencia entre dosis de insulina fue de 3,2 a 33 UI. El porcentaje de pacientes que requirieron dos dosis de insulina detemir estuvo entre 12,6 y 100 %. No hubo diferencias significativas en los eventos hipoglucémicos. Tanto para el canal de compra al por menor como para el de compras institucionales, la diferencia de costos entre la insulin glargina y la detemir favoreció a la primera en cuatro y cinco estudios, respectivamente. Solo un estudio mostró lo contrario en lo concerniente a la venta al por menor. Conclusiones. La diferencia en cuanto a la dosis promedio entre la insulina ganglir y la detemir, genera costos anuales que favorecen el uso de la insulina ganglir, lo que la convierte en una alternativa costo-efectiva frente a la determir.

Introduction: More than 90% of subjects diagnosed with diabetes mellitus present with type 2, which is recognized for peripheral insulin resistance. Objective: To determine the costs of achieving glycemic target with the use of basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine (IG) once a day vs. insulin detemir (ID) once or twice a day, with a cost minimization model built from a third-party payer perspective in Colombia. Materials and methods: A systematic review of comparative clinical trials between IG and ID in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes was performed to determine data of use, effectiveness and frequency of and adverse events. The goal of glycemic control (effectiveness measure) was defined as HbA1c=7%. The costs of insulin were extracted from the Integrated System of Medication Prices 2012 (Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social de Colombia) and the IMS Consulting Group mobile average cost for the past year as of December, 2012. Sensitivity analyses were performed via Montecarlo simulations for dose and medication costs (insulin). Results: Five publications met inclusion criteria. The range of the difference between insulin doses was 3.2 IU to 33 IU. The percentage of patients requiring two ID doses was 12.6-100%. There were no significant differences in hypoglycemic events. For both retail and institutional channels, there was a higher differential cost between IG vs. ID favoring IG in 4 and 5 studies, respectively. For the retail channel only one study showed the opposite results. Conclusions: As only medication costs are considered, differences in insulin units between IG and ID result in a differential cost in favor of IG that makes it a cost/effective alternative.