Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of insulin glargine (glargine) and NPH insulin (NPH) on long-term outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients using the Diabetes Mellitus Model (DMM).
Methods: The DMM predicts short- and long-term complications over ten years using data in studies published previously. The main effect on outcome is the influence of the treatment on the HbA1c level which is simulated over time. The simulation was based on a cohort size of 10,000 type 2 diabetes patients taking either glargine or NPH. The best scenario, baseline scenario and worst case scenario were simulated based on differences of 0.13%, 0.44% and 0.85%, respectively, in HbA1c values and corresponding to potentially attainable improvements with comparable or lower hypoglycemia rates in glargine-treated patients and NPH-treated patients. Assumptions for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were based on a regression analysis of clinical trial data (pooled data clinical trials comparing glargine and NPH) in which the effect of glargine on the HbA1c/hypoglycemia incidence ratio was superior to that of NPH.
Results: The relative risks (RR, glargine/NPH) obtained for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were 0.97, 0.89 and 0.81, respectively, for long-term microvascular complications and 0.99, 0.95 and 0.91, respectively, for long-term macrovascular complications. RR reductions ranged from 1% in the less optimistic scenario to > 20% in the "best case" scenario. Sensitivity analyses showed that variations in the mean baseline HbA1c values and duration of the diabetes were without effect on these outcomes.
Conclusions: Although there is a need to corroborate the results of these simulations with real, long-term clinical data, they have demonstrated that, assuming comparable or lower rates of hypoglycemia, a better glycemic control (HbA1c reduction) can be expected with glargine when compared to NPH together with a reduction in long-term complications, mortality and associated costs.