title: Real-world outcomes of US employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin: a comparative retrospective database study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare real-world outcomes of initiating insulin glargine (GLA) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had both employer-sponsored health insurance and short-tem-disability coverages.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective cohort study.
  
  
  METHODS
  MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters/Health and Productivity Management Databases 2003-2009.
  
  
  METHODS
  Adult employees with T2DM who were previously treated with oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists and initiated GLA or NPH were included if they were continuously enrolled in healthcare and short-term-disability coverages for 3 months before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) initiation. Treatment selection bias was addressed by 2:1 propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different matching ratios.
  
  
  METHODS
  Outcomes during 1-year follow-up were measured and compared: insulin treatment persistence and adherence; hypoglycaemia rates and daily average consumption of insulin; total and diabetes-specific healthcare resource utilisation and costs and loss in productivity, as measured by short-term disability, and the associated costs.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 534 patients were matched and analysed (GLA: 356; NPH 178) with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. GLA patients were more persistent and adherent (both p<0.05), had lower rates of hospitalisation (23% vs 31.4%; p=0.036) and endocrinologist visits (19.1% vs 26.9%; p=0.038), similar hypoglycaemia rates (both 4.4%; p=1.0), higher diabetes drug costs ($2031 vs $1522; p<0.001), but similar total healthcare costs ($14 550 vs $16 093; p=0.448) and total diabetes-related healthcare costs ($4686 vs $5604; p=0.416). Short-term disability days and costs were numerically lower in the GLA cohort (16.0 vs 24.5 days; p=0.086 and $2824 vs $4363; p=0.081, respectively). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Insulin GLA results in better persistence and adherence, compared with NPH insulin, with no overall cost disadvantages. Better persistence and adherence may lead to long-term health benefits for employees with T2DM.
authors: STATinMED Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
authors: Li
authors: L
authors: Wang
authors: Wenhui
authors: W
authors: Wei
authors: Raymond
authors: R
authors: Miao
authors: Lin
authors: L
authors: Xie
authors: Onur
authors: O
authors: Baser
references: Diabetes Care. 2002 Aug;25(8):1479-80
references: 12145255
references: J Occup Environ Med. 2008 Jul;50(7):804-8
references: 18617836
references: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Apr;45(4):203-20
references: 17474539
references: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Mar;49(3):217-30
references: 21329624
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):253-66
references: 17335310
references: Clin Ther. 2007 Aug;29(8):1607-19
references: 17919543
references: J Occup Environ Med. 2004 Apr;46(4):398-412
references: 15076658
references: Endocr Pract. 2011 Nov-Dec;17(6):845-52
references: 21550952
references: Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2012 Nov;12(11):1541-50
references: 23043233
references: Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Sep;12(9):772-9
references: 20649629
references: J Pain. 2006 Dec;7(12):892-900
references: 17157775
references: Diabetes Care. 2008 Mar;31(3):596-615
references: 18308683
references: J Diabetes Complications. 2006 May-Jun;20(3):163-9
references: 16632236
references: Diabetes Care. 2007 May;30(5):1281-2
references: 17290038
references: Am J Health Promot. 2006 May-Jun;20(5):353-63
references: 16706007
references: Med Care. 2005 Jun;43(6):521-30
references: 15908846
references: Am J Med. 2005 May;118 Suppl 5A:14S-20S
references: 15850549
references: Adv Ther. 2011 Nov;28(11):1000-11
references: 22038703
references: Clin Ther. 2011 Jan;33(1):74-109
references: 21397776
references: Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008 Sep;16(9):2155-62
references: 19186336
references: Core Evid. 2007 Nov 30;2(2):89-110
references: 21221178
references: Adv Ther. 2010 Feb;27(2):94-104
references: 20352392
references: Health Serv Res. 2011 Aug;46(4):1180-99
references: 21413981
references: Value Health. 2007 Nov-Dec;10(6):443-50
references: 17970926
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Nov;81(2):161-8
references: 20167450
references: J Med Econ. 2008;11(4):695-712
references: 19450076
references: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Mar;15(3):230-6
references: 23336845
references: Diabetes Care. 2005 Apr;28(4):950-5
references: 15793205
references: Diabetes Care. 2012 May;35(5):1126-32
references: 22432106
references: PLoS One. 2011 Feb 24;6(2):e16837
references: 21383981
references: Diabetes Care. 2012 Jun;35(6):1364-79
references: 22517736
references: Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010 Jan;87(1):108-16
references: 19896233
references: J Occup Environ Med. 2008 May;50(5):542-9
references: 18469623
references: Am J Manag Care. 2010 Aug;16(8):589-600
references: 20712392
references: Diabetes Care. 2012 Dec;35(12):2698-705
references: 23173139
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Jan;26(1):231-8
references: 19921965
references: Clin Med Res. 2008 Sep;6(2):54-67
references: 18801953
references: Health Econ. 1996 May-Jun;5(3):249-65
references: 8817299
references: J Occup Environ Med. 2009 Dec;51(12):1460-5
references: 19952787
references: Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011 Aug;13(8):711-7
references: 21410859
references: Diabetologia. 2008 Mar;51(3):408-16
references: 18204830
references: J Occup Environ Med. 2007 Apr;49(4):368-74
references: 17426520
references: Drugs. 2010 Dec 3;70(17):2229-45
references: 21080740