Effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine versus detemir analysis in patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) is an autoimmune disease characterized by metabolic destruction of pancreatic cells responsible for insulin production, with treatment based on replacing insulin. Long-acting insulin analogs are indicated for patients with DM1 who exhibit important oscillations of their daily glycemia, despite its higher cost. Our study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two long-acting insulins, insulin glargine and detemir, in treating patients with DM1. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and registry) available in the databases and the gray literature, and a complementary search in the Diabetes Care journal. Outcomes assessed were: glycated hemoglobin concentration; fasting plasma or capillary glucose; occurrence of episodes of severe hypoglycemia and occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia. The assessment of methodological quality was performed using the Newcastle score. The meta-analyses were performed on software Review Manager® 5.2. RESULTS: Out of 705 publications, 8 cohort studies were included. The quality of these studies was classified as high. In the meta-analysis, results regarding episodes of severe hypoglycemia (p = 0.02) and fasting glucose (p = 0.01) were in favor of detemir. The glycated hemoglobin (p = 0.49; I2 = 89) showed high heterogeneity and no statistically significant difference between the two. The meta-analysis of total insulin dose favored glargine (p = 0.006; I2 = 75). The rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia (NH) were evaluated only for one study and showed a significant reduction of NH after therapy with detemir, (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Although some outcomes were favorable to detemir insulin analog, it has not been possible to identify important differences of effectiveness and safety between the two analogs. These results can help in the current debate on the inclusion of long-acting analogs on the list of reimbursed medicines in Brazil, especially with the recent introduction of an insulin glargine biosimilar at a considerably lower price.

Quality of Life of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Using Insulin Analog Glargine Compared with NPH Insulin: A Systematic Review and Policy Implications.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin analog glargine (GLA) has been available as one of the therapeutic options for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus to enhance glycemic control. Studies have shown that a decrease in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes improves the quality of life (QoL) of diabetic patients. However, there are appreciable acquisition cost differences between different insulins. Consequently, there is a need to assess their impact on QoL to provide future guidance to health authorities. METHOD: A systematic review of multiple databases including Medline, LILACS, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases with several combinations of agreed terms involving randomized controlled trials and cohorts, as well as manual searches and gray literature, was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was a change in QoL. The quality of the studies and the risk of bias was also assessed. RESULTS: Eight studies were eventually included in the systematic review out of 634 publications. Eight different QoL instruments were used (two generic, two mixed, and four specific), in which the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was the most used. The systematic review did not consistently show any significant difference overall in QoL scores, whether as part of subsets or combined into a single score, with the use of GLA versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Only in patient satisfaction measured by DTSQ was a better result consistently seen with GLA versus NPH insulin, but not using the Well-being Inquiry for Diabetics (WED) scale. However, none of the cohort studies scored a maximum on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality, and they generally were of moderate quality with bias in the studies. CONCLUSION: There was no consistent difference in QoL or patient-reported outcomes when the findings from the eight studies were collated. In view of this, we believe the current price differential between GLA and NPH insulin in Brazil cannot be justified by these findings.

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Analog Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The use of insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is widespread; however, the therapeutic benefits still require further evaluation given their higher costs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of analog insulin glargine compared to recombinant DNA (rDNA) insulin in patients with T1DM in observational studies, building on previous reviews of randomized controlled trials comparing neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin and insulin glargine. METHODS: A systematic review with a meta-analysis was performed. The review included cohort studies and registries available on PubMed, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as manual and gray literature searches. The meta-analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.3 software. The primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (Hb1Ac), weight gain, and hypoglycemia. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Out of 796 publications, 11 studies were finally included. The meta-analysis favored insulin glargine in HbA1c outcomes (adult patients) and hypoglycemic episodes (P < 0.05), but without reaching glycemic control (Hb1Ac to approximately 7%). The methodological quality of the studies was moderate, noting that 45% of studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. CONCLUSION: Given the high heterogeneity of the studies, the discrete value presented by the estimated effect on effectiveness and safety, potential conflicts of interest of the studies, and the appreciable higher cost of insulin glargine, there is still no support for recommending first-line therapy with analogs. The role of analogs in the treatment of T1DM could be better determined by further observational studies of good methodological quality to assess their long-term effectiveness and safety, as well as their cost-effectiveness.