Costa Pinel B, Belmonte Serrano M, Páez Vives F, Sabaté Obiol A, Estopá Sánchez A, Borrás Borrás J
Unidad de Diabetes, Hospital Móra d'Ebre, Tarragona.
Rev Clin Esp. 2001 Aug;201(8):448-54. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2565(01)70877-6.
In order to analyze the initial cost-effectiveness of transfer to two treatments with insulin lispro in type 1 diabetes, a pharmaco-economic study was conducted for nine months. After an educational reinforcement, a group of 30 C-peptide-negative patients (31.8 +/- 11.5 years [mean +/- SD], time since diagnosis of diabetes of 9.2 +/- 7.1 years, and on intensive therapy for 5.3 +/- 3.1 years) initiated a 3-month basal period with their usual therapy (preprandial rapid insulin and nocturnal NPH). Patients were then randomly assigned to one of the two groups, changing rapid insulin to either lispro (L1) or lispro combined with 15% to 20% NPH insulin (L2). Cross-over was made 3 months after the first treatment. Efficacy and safety were established by the assessment of HbA1c, self-monitoring blood glucose and hypoglycemia rates. Therapy cost was measured by systematic examination of the injection devices and wastage of insulin. The mean prescribed and actually consumed doses for R, L1, L2 groups were 52.9, 57.1, 55.2 U and 60.3, 64.1, 63 U per day, respectively (p < 0.001). The average of postprandial peak glucose (9.7, 8.4, 8.3 mM; p < 0.001) and HbA1c (7.6%, 7.2%, 7.1%; p < 0.01) were significantly lower after L1 or L2 lispro therapy. Although no statistical differences in overall hypoglycemia rates were observed, fewer nocturnal episodes were detected (0.72, 0.37, 0.41 events/month). The mean daily cost for regular insulin treatment was lower (186.8, 241.8; 215.7 pts and 53.7 pts per day. Efficacy and safety for two MIT regimens containing lispro were similar in the short run. Nevertheless, the preprandial use of the fast-acting insulin analog lispro in combination with a 15%-20% intermediate-acting NPH seemed to be more cost-effective than the premeal lispro therapy alone.
为分析1型糖尿病患者转换为两种赖脯胰岛素治疗方案的初始成本效益,开展了一项为期9个月的药物经济学研究。在强化教育后,一组30例C肽阴性患者(年龄31.8±11.5岁[均值±标准差],糖尿病诊断后病程9.2±7.1年,接受强化治疗5.3±3.1年)开始了为期3个月的基础期,采用其常规治疗方案(餐前三短胰岛素和夜间中效胰岛素)。然后将患者随机分为两组,将速效胰岛素分别换为赖脯胰岛素(L1组)或赖脯胰岛素联合15%至20%的中效胰岛素(L2组)。在首次治疗3个月后进行交叉。通过评估糖化血红蛋白、自我血糖监测和低血糖发生率来确定疗效和安全性。通过系统检查注射装置和胰岛素浪费情况来衡量治疗成本。R组、L1组、L2组的平均处方剂量和实际消耗量分别为每日52.9、57.1、55.2单位和60.3、64.1、63单位(p<0.001)。L1或L2赖脯胰岛素治疗后餐后血糖峰值平均值(9.7、8.4、8.3毫摩尔;p<0.001)和糖化血红蛋白(7.6%、7.2%、7.1%;p<0.01)显著降低。虽然总体低血糖发生率未观察到统计学差异,但夜间低血糖发作次数较少(每月0.72、0.37、0.41次)。常规胰岛素治疗的日均成本较低(分别为每日186.8、241.8;215.7分和53.7分)。短期内,两种含赖脯胰岛素的MIT方案的疗效和安全性相似。然而,餐前提速效胰岛素类似物赖脯胰岛素联合15%至20%的中效胰岛素似乎比单纯餐时赖脯胰岛素治疗更具成本效益。