Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Basal Insulin and Basal-Bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Attainment of Clinically Relevant Treatment Targets.

BACKGROUND: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer. RESULTS: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% (P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% (P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets (P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Divergence in perceptions of diabetes control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin and health care professionals: results from the US Perceptions of Control (POC-US) study.

Background: Approximately 60% of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on basal insulin have an HbA1c ≥7%. This analysis of the US Perceptions of Control (POC-US) study aimed to understand US patient and health care professional (HCP) views of diabetes "control," which may play a role in whether patients reduce their HbA1c or achieve HbA1c <7%. Methods: A cross-sectional, Web-based survey of 500 US HCPs (primary care physicians, endocrinologists, nurse practitioners/physician assistants) and 618 US adults with T2DM using basal insulin was conducted to assess perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors associated with T2DM management. The survey was developed from previous research examples and qualitative exploratory research and was pretested. Patients self-reported their most recent HbA1c level and confirmed this value with their HCP, if necessary. Results: Patients and HCPs differed on some definitions of "in control." HbA1c value was used most often by both populations, but more frequently by HCPs (91% vs 69%). Patients also often used behavioral criteria (eg, adherence to lifestyle changes and/or treatment regimens), and HCPs often used clinical criteria (eg, hypoglycemia). Most HCPs focused on the last 3 months to define control (67% vs 34% patients; P<0.05), whereas patients more frequently reported focusing on "the current moment" or "the past week." Patients were more likely to agree that controlling their condition is "completely the patients' responsibility" (patients, 67%; HCPs, 34%; P<0.05); HCPs were more likely to agree that they have "a responsibility to actively contribute to the control of their patients' T2DM" (90% vs 60%; P<0.05). Conclusion: US patients with T2DM have differing views from HCPs on key aspects of diabetes control and management and are less likely to consider HbA1c value as a criterion for determining control. Recognizing and addressing these differences may improve patient-HCP communication and may potentially improve patient outcomes.

Immunofluorescent detection of two thymidine analogues (CldU and IdU) in primary tissue.

Accurate measurement of cell division is a fundamental challenge in experimental biology that becomes increasingly complex when slowly dividing cells are analyzed. Established methods to detect cell division include direct visualization by continuous microscopy in cell culture, dilution of vital dyes such as carboxyfluorescein di-aetate succinimidyl ester (CFSE), immuno-detection of mitogenic antigens such as ki67 or PCNA, and thymidine analogues. Thymidine analogues can be detected by a variety of methods including radio-detection for tritiated thymidine, immuno-detection for bromo-deoxyuridine (BrdU), chloro-deoxyuridine (CldU) and iodo-deoxyuridine (IdU), and chemical detection for ethinyl-deoxyuridine (EdU). We have derived a strategy to detect sequential incorporation of different thymidine analogues (CldU and IdU) into tissues of adult mice. Our method allows investigators to accurately quantify two successive rounds of cell division. By optimizing immunostaining protocols our approach can detect very low dose thymidine analogues administered via the drinking water, safe to administer to mice for prolonged periods of time. Consequently, our technique can be used to detect cell turnover in very long-lived tissues. Optimal immunofluoresent staining results can be achieved in multiple tissue types, including pancreas, skin, gut, liver, adrenal, testis, ovary, thyroid, lymph node, and brain. We have also applied this technique to identify oncogenic transformation within tissues. We have further applied this technique to determine if transit-amplifying cells contribute to growth or renewal of tissues. In this sense, sequential administration of thymidine analogues represents a novel approach for studying the origins and survival of cells involved in tissue homeostasis.

Extremes of clinical and enzymatic phenotypes in children with hyperinsulinism caused by glucokinase activating mutations.

OBJECTIVE: Heterozygous activating mutations of glucokinase have been reported to cause hypoglycemia attributable to hyperinsulinism in a limited number of families. We report three children with de novo glucokinase hyperinsulinism mutations who displayed a spectrum of clinical phenotypes corresponding to marked differences in enzyme kinetics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Mutations were directly sequenced, and mutants were expressed as glutathionyl S-transferase-glucokinase fusion proteins. Kinetic analysis of the enzymes included determinations of stability, activity index, the response to glucokinase activator drug, and the effect of glucokinase regulatory protein. RESULTS: Child 1 had an ins454A mutation, child 2 a W99L mutation, and child 3 an M197I mutation. Diazoxide treatment was effective in child 3 but ineffective in child 1 and only partially effective in child 2. Expression of the mutant glucokinase ins454A, W99L, and M197I enzymes revealed a continuum of high relative activity indexes in the three children (26, 8.9, and 3.1, respectively; wild type = 1.0). Allosteric responses to inhibition by glucokinase regulatory protein and activation by the drug RO0281675 were impaired by the ins454A but unaffected by the M197I mutation. Estimated thresholds for glucose-stimulated insulin release were more severely reduced by the ins454A than the M197I mutation and intermediate in the W99L mutation (1.1, 3.5, and 2.2 mmol/l, respectively; wild type = 5.0 mmol/l). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the potency of glucokinase as the pancreatic beta-cell glucose sensor, and they demonstrate that responsiveness to diazoxide varies with genotype in glucokinase hyperinsulinism resulting in hypoglycemia, which can be more difficult to control than previously believed.