Improving the school experience of children with diabetes: Evaluation of the KiDS project.

BACKGROUND: The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) launched the Kids and Diabetes in School (KiDS) project in collaboration with the International Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) and Sanofi Diabetes to inform and teach school staff, children and parents on the management of diabetes in school. Brazil and India were chosen as pilot countries. METHODS: The evaluation was conducted using a qualitative methodology using semi-structured face to face in-depth interviews. Five out of fifteen schools were selected, where teachers and parents of children with and without diabetes were interviewed. Interviews took place one and three months after the implementation of KiDS. FINDINGS: Diabetes knowledge among the school staff and parents of children without diabetes was very limited prior to the KiDS Project in both countries. After introducing the KiDS information pack both groups mentioned increased knowledge on the management of diabetes. This was reflected through healthier food choices at school and the encouragement of physical activities. Increased awareness and understanding in the school staff were observed by parents of children with diabetes. INTERPRETATION: The KiDS project received positive feedback on the educational materials. The pack was deemed informative, interesting and engaging, creating increased awareness and understanding among school staff, parents and children. The project has created a demand for diabetes intervention in schools. The pack has been translated into fourteen languages and was downloaded over 17,000 times by November 2018.

Cost-effectiveness of once daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide compared to bolus insulin both in combination with basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Lixisenatide is a potent, selective and short-acting once daily prandial glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist which lowers glycohemoglobin and body weight by clinically significant amounts in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, with limited risk of hypoglycemia. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide versus bolus insulin, both in combination with basal insulin, in patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a non-product-specific and validated simulation model, was used to make clinical and cost projections. Transition probabilities, risk adjustments and the progression of complication risk factors were derived from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, supplemented with Norwegian data. Patients were assumed to receive combination treatment with basal insulin, lixisenatide or bolus insulin therapy for 3 years, followed by intensification of a basal-bolus insulin regimen for their remaining lifetime. Simulated healthcare costs, taken from the public payer perspective, were derived from microcosting and diagnosis related groups, discounted at 4% per annum and reported in Norwegian krone (NOK). Productivity costs were also captured based on extractions from the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Health state utilities were derived from a systematic literature review. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: Lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin was associated with increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and reduced lifetime healthcare costs compared to bolus insulin in combination with basal insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes, and can be considered dominant. The net monetary benefit of lixisenatide versus bolus insulin was NOK 39,369 per patient. Results were sensitive to discounting, the application of excess body weight associated disutility and uncertainty surrounding the changes in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide may be considered an economically efficient therapy in combination with basal insulin in the Norwegian setting, due to cost savings, weight loss and associated gains in health-related quality of life.

Indirect comparison of lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as add-on to metformin and sulphonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: There is currently a lack of evidence from direct comparisons of treatment outcomes with lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with suboptimal glycaemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Hence, the current analysis indirectly compared available evidence on the risk of hypoglycaemia and weight change between lixisenatide and NPH-insulin based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with exenatide, insulin glargine and placebo as common references. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical registries identified English- and German-language articles published from January 1980 to October 2012 reporting data from RCTs. Only publications of trials that reported outcomes from 24 to 30 weeks comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or basal insulin versus another antidiabetic agent or placebo were included. Hypoglycaemia, patients at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were treated as binary variables, with risk ratios and odds ratios (ORs) calculated. HbA1c and body weight were treated as continuous variables with difference in mean change from baseline (MD) calculated. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models and indirect comparisons were performed according to Bucher's method. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (n=3,301 patients) comparing the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide, exenatide, insulin glargine and NPH-insulin with different antidiabetic treatments in adult patients with T2DM were included in the final analysis. In the adjusted indirect comparison, there was a significant difference in symptomatic hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = [0.17, 0.85]) and in confirmed hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = [0.22, 0.96]) favouring lixisenatide over NPH-insulin and comparable changes in HbA1c from baseline (MD = 0.07%; 95% CI = [-0.26%, 0.41%]). In contrast to NPH-insulin, there was a significant reduction in body weight with lixisenatide (MD = -3.62 kg; 95% CI = [-5.86 kg, -1.38 kg]) at study completion. The number of discontinuations due to AEs numerically favoured NPH-insulin over lixisenatide (OR = 2.64; 95% CI = [0.25, 27.96]), with a broad confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and a greater weight loss compared with NPH-insulin. Glycaemic control with lixisenatide treatment was comparable with NPH-insulin. These data suggest that lixisenatide is a beneficial treatment option for T2DM patients with inadequate glycaemic control on OADs, and is associated with reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

Once-daily prandial lixisenatide versus once-daily rapid-acting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus insufficiently controlled with basal insulin: analysis of data from five randomized, controlled trials.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide (LIXI), a once-daily prandial glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as add-on to basal insulin (Basal+LIXI) versus once-daily rapid-acting insulin (Basal+RAI) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Data were extracted from five randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin+insulin glulisine (n=3) or basal insulin+LIXI (n=2). Patients in the Basal+LIXI cohort were matched to patients in the Basal+RAI cohort using propensity score matching. RESULTS: In the matched population, Basal+LIXI was twice as likely to reach composite outcomes of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7% and no symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with the Basal+RAI group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 3.55; P=0.0455), as well as HbA1c <7% and no severe hypoglycaemia (OR: 1.97; 95 CI: 1.06, 3.66; P=0.0311). Furthermore, Basal+LIXI was more than twice as likely to reach HbA1c <7%, no weight gain and no symptomatic hypoglycaemia (OR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.23, 5.40; P=0.0119). CONCLUSIONS: Both basal+LIXI and Basal+RAI improved glycaemic control in patients with T2DM with inadequate glycaemic control on basal insulin. Basal+LIXI offers an effective therapeutic option to advance basal insulin therapy, improving glucose control without weight gain and with less risk of hypoglycaemia than prandial insulin.