AimsInsulin is normally added to oral glucose-lowering drugs in people with type 2 diabetes when glycaemic control becomes suboptimal. We evaluated outcomes in people starting insulin therapy with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), detemir, glargine or premixed insulins.MethodsInsulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes (n = 8009), ≥ 35 years old, HbA1c ≥ 6.5% and begun on NPH (n = 1463), detemir (n = 357), glargine (n = 2197) or premix (n = 3992), were identified from a UK database of primary care records (The Health Improvement Network). Unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted analyses were conducted, with persistence of insulin therapy assessed by survival analysis.ResultsIn the study population (n = 4337), baseline HbA1c was 9.5 ± 1.6%, falling to 8.4 ± 1.5% over 12 months (change −1.1 ± 1.8%, p < 0.001). Compared with NPH, people taking detemir, glargine and premix had an adjusted reduction in HbA1c from baseline, of 0.00% (p = 0.99), 0.19% (p < 0.001) and 0.03% (p = 0.51). Body weight increased by 2.8 kg overall (p < 0.001), and by 2.3, 1.7, 1.9, and 3.3 kg on NPH, detemir, glargine and premix (p < 0.001 for all groups); insulin dose at 12 months was 0.70 (overall), 0.64, 0.61, 0.56 and 0.76 U/kg/day. After 36 months, 57% of people on NPH, 67% on glargine and 83% on premix remained on their initially prescribed insulin.Discussion and ConclusionIn routine clinical practice, people with type 2 diabetes commenced on NPH experienced a modest disadvantage in glycaemic control after 12 months compared with other insulins. When comparing the insulins, glargine achieved best HbA1c reduction, while premix showed greatest weight gain and the highest dose requirement, but had the best persistence of therapy.

The analysis shows that pregabalin is a cost-effective alternative to usual care in patients with refractory NeP, with an ICER well below the threshold typically adopted by UK health technology assessment groups, such as NICE.

Background: Insulin glargine (glargine) and insulin NPH (NPH) are two basal insulin treatments. This study investigated the effect on glycaemic control of switching from a NPH-based regimen to a glargine-based regimen in 701 patients with type 1 (n= 304) or type 2 (n= 397) diabetes, using unselected primary care data.

Objective: Exenatide belongs to a new therapeutic class in the treatment of diabetes (incretin mimetics), allowing glucose-dependent glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetes. Randomised controlled trial data suggest that exenatide is as effective as insulin glargine at reducing HbA 1c in combination therapy with metformin and sulphonylureas; with reduced weight but higher incidence of adverse gastrointestinal events. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of exenatide versus insulin glargine using RCT data and a previously published model of Type 2 diabetes disease progression that is based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study; the perspective of the health-payer of the United Kingdom National Health Service. Methods:The study used a discrete event simulation model designed to forecast the costs and health outcome of a cohort of 1,000 subjects aged over 40 years with sub-optimally-controlled Type 2 diabetes, following initiation of either exenatide, or insulin glargine, in addition to oral hypoglycaemic agents. Sensitivity analysis for a higher treatment discontinuation rate in exenatide patients was applied to the cohort in three different scenarios; (1) either ignored or (2) exenatide-failures excluded or (3) exenatide-failures switched to insulin glargine. Analyses were undertaken to evaluate the price sensitivity of exenatide in terms of relative cost effectiveness. Baseline cohort profiles and effectiveness data were taken from a published randomised controlled trial. Results:The relative cost-effectiveness of exenatide and insulin glargine was tested under a variety of conditions, in which insulin glargine was dominant in all cases. Using the most conservative of assumptions, the costeffectiveness ratio of exenatide vs. insulin glargine at the current UK NHS price was -£29,149/QALY (insulin glargine dominant) and thus exenatide is not cost-effective when compared with insulin glargine, at the current UK NHS price. Conclusion:This study evaluated the relative cost effectiveness of insulin glargine versus exenatide in the management of Type 2 diabetes using a published model. Given no significant difference in glycaemic control and applying the additional effectiveness of exenatide over insulin glargine, with respect to weight loss, and using the current UK NHS prices, insulin glargine was found to be dominant over exenatide in all modelled scenarios. With current clinical evidence, exenatide does not appear to represent a cost-effective treatment option for patients with Type 2 diabetes when compared to insulin glargine.

Background: Insulin glargine (glargine) and premixed insulins (premix) are alternative insulin treatments. This analysis evaluated glycaemic control in 528 patients with type 1 (n = 183) or type 2 (n = 345) diabetes, after switching from premix to a glargine-based regimen, using unselected general practice (GP) data.