Cziraky Mark J, Abbott Scott, Nguyen Matt, Larholt Kay, Apgar Elizabeth, Wasser Thomas, Strange Poul, Shi Leon, Harrison H Courtenay, Everitt Beverly, Nowak Lynn
HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE.
Valeritas, Inc., Bridgewater, NJ.
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2019 Mar 27;6(2):70-83. doi: 10.36469/9731. eCollection 2019.
Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not have adequate glycemic control, leading to poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs.
This prospective pragmatic clinical trial evaluated V-Go, a wearable insulin delivery device, compared with standard treatment optimization (STO) among insulin-treated patients with T2DM in a real-world, community-based practice setting.
Study sites, rather than individual patients, were randomized to V-Go or STO via cluster randomization. Patients were treated according to routine clinical practice and followed up to 4 months. T2DM medications and supplies were purchased utilizing usual insurance and co-pay systems. The primary analysis was an unadjusted treatment group comparison of glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to end of study (EOS). A cost of therapy analysis was completed on patients who had received comparable baseline T2DM treatment with multiple daily basal-bolus insulin injections (MDI).
Analysis included 415 patients (169 V-Go, 246 STO) enrolled from 52 US sites. Mean baseline HbA1c (9.6%) was higher in V-Go (9.9%, range 8.0% - 14.2%) than STO (9.3%, range 7.9% - 13.9%, p <.001). HbA1c decreased from baseline to EOS in both V-Go (-1.0%, p<.001) and STO (-0.5%, p<.001); V-Go had significantly larger decrease (p=.002). V-Go had a significant reduction (p<.001) in mean insulin total daily dose (TDD; 0.76 U/kg baseline, 0.57 U/kg EOS), not seen in STO (0.72 U/kg baseline and EOS). The MDI group included 95 (56.2%) V-Go and 113 STO (45.9%) patients. Mean baseline HbA1c was significantly higher in V-Go (9.9%) than STO (9.4%). V-Go also experienced larger decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-1.0%) than STO (-0.36%) (p=.006) with a decrease in TDD, while STO TDD remained unchanged. EOS mean per patient per day cost of diabetes treatment was lower for V-Go ($30.59) vs STO ($32.20) (p=.006). V-Go was more cost effective than STO ($24.02 per 1% drop in HbA1c vs $58.86, respectively).
This pragmatic clinical trial demonstrated improved HbA1c levels, lower cost, and decreased insulin dose in patients with T2DM initiating V-Go vs STO in a real-world community-based practice setting. Observed baseline HbAlc indicated use of V-Go in more difficult to manage diabetes patients.
许多2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血糖控制不佳,导致患者预后不良且医疗成本高昂。
这项前瞻性实用临床试验在基于社区的真实临床实践环境中,评估了可穿戴胰岛素输送装置V-Go与胰岛素治疗的T2DM患者的标准治疗优化(STO)相比的效果。
研究地点而非个体患者通过整群随机化被随机分配至V-Go组或STO组。患者按照常规临床实践进行治疗,并随访4个月。T2DM药物和用品通过常规保险和自付费用系统购买。主要分析是对糖化血红蛋白A1c(HbA1c)从基线到研究结束(EOS)的变化进行未调整的治疗组比较。对接受过多次每日基础-餐时胰岛素注射(MDI)的可比基线T2DM治疗的患者进行了治疗成本分析。
分析纳入了来自美国52个地点的415例患者(169例V-Go组,246例STO组)。V-Go组的平均基线HbA1c(9.6%)高于STO组(9.3%)(9.9%,范围8.0% - 14.2%;9.3%,范围7.9% - 13.9%,p <.001)。V-Go组(-1.0%,p<.001)和STO组(-0.5%,p<.001)的HbA1c从基线到EOS均有所下降;V-Go组下降幅度显著更大(p=.002)。V-Go组的平均每日胰岛素总剂量(TDD)显著降低(p<.001)(基线0.76 U/kg,EOS 0.57 U/kg),而STO组未出现这种情况(基线和EOS均为0.72 U/kg)。MDI组包括95例(56.2%)V-Go组患者和113例(45.9%)STO组患者。V-Go组的平均基线HbA1c(9.9%)显著高于STO组(9.4%)。V-Go组的HbA1c从基线下降幅度(-1.0%)也大于STO组(-0.36%)(p=.006),且TDD降低,而STO组的TDD保持不变。V-Go组的EOS平均每日每位患者糖尿病治疗成本(30.59美元)低于STO组(32.20美元)(p=.006)。V-Go组比STO组更具成本效益(HbA1c每降低1%分别为24.02美元和58.86美元)。
这项实用临床试验表明,在基于社区的真实临床实践环境中,启动V-Go治疗的T2DM患者与启动STO治疗的患者相比,HbA1c水平得到改善、成本降低且胰岛素剂量减少。观察到的基线HbAlc表明V-Go用于治疗更难管理的糖尿病患者。