Andrea C Tricco1,2, Huda M Ashoor3, Jesmin Antony3, Zachary Bouck4, Myanca Rodrigues3, Ba' Pham3, Paul A Khan3, Vera Nincic3, Nazia Darvesh3, Fatemeh Yazdi5, Marco Ghassemi3, John D Ivory3, Areti Angeliki Veroniki3,6,7, Catherine H Yu3, Lorenzo Moja8, Sharon E Straus3,9. 1. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Andrea.Tricco@unityhealth.to. 2. Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Andrea.Tricco@unityhealth.to. 3. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Centre for Drug Policy and Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece. 7. Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK. 8. Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 9. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051.
BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051.
Authors: Stefan Korsatko; Sigrid Deller; Gerd Koehler; Julia K Mader; Katharina Neubauer; Charlotte L Adrian; Henrik Thomsen; Hanne Haahr; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Huda M Ashoor; Jesmin Antony; Joseph Beyene; Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Alana Harrington; Charlotte Wilson; Sophia Tsouros; Charlene Soobiah; Catherine H Yu; Brian Hutton; Jeffrey S Hoch; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; David Moher; Sumit R Majumdar; Sharon E Straus Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-10-01
Authors: B W Bode; J B Buse; M Fisher; S K Garg; M Marre; L Merker; E Renard; D L Russell-Jones; C T Hansen; A Rana; S R Heller Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Paulo H R F Almeida; Brian Godman; Vania Dos Santos Nunes-Nogueira; Lívia L P de Lemos; Francisco de Assis Acúrcio; Augusto A Guerra-Junior; Vânia E de Araújo; Alessandra M Almeida; Juliana Alvares-Teodoro Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2022
Authors: Ileana Mardare; Stephen M Campbell; Johanna C Meyer; Israel Abebrese Sefah; Amos Massele; Brian Godman Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Brian Godman; Magdalene Wladysiuk; Stuart McTaggart; Amanj Kurdi; Eleonora Allocati; Mihajlo Jakovljevic; Francis Kalemeera; Iris Hoxha; Anna Nachtnebel; Robert Sauermann; Manfred Hinteregger; Vanda Marković-Peković; Biljana Tubic; Guenka Petrova; Konstantin Tachkov; Juraj Slabý; Radka Nejezchlebova; Iva Selke Krulichová; Ott Laius; Gisbert Selke; Irene Langner; András Harsanyi; András Inotai; Arianit Jakupi; Svens Henkuzens; Kristina Garuolienė; Jolanta Gulbinovič; Patricia Vella Bonanno; Jakub Rutkowski; Skule Ingeberg; Øyvind Melien; Ileana Mardare; Jurij Fürst; Sean MacBride-Stewart; Carol Holmes; Caridad Pontes; Corinne Zara; Marta Turu Pedrola; Mikael Hoffmann; Vasileios Kourafalos; Alice Pisana; Rita Banzi; Stephen Campbell; Bjorn Wettermark Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 3.411