Enhancing Choices Regarding the Administration of Insulin Among Patients With Diabetes Requiring Insulin Across Countries and Implications for Future Care

Abstract

There are a number of ongoing developments to improve the care of patients with diabetes across countries given its growing burden. Recent developments include new oral medicines to reduce cardiovascular events and death. They also include new modes to improve insulin administration to enhance adherence and subsequent patient management thereby reducing hypoglycaemia and improving long-term outcomes. In the case of insulins, this includes long-acting insulin analogues as well as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems, combined with sensor-augmented pump therapy and potentially hybrid closed-loops. The benefits of such systems have been endorsed by endocrine societies and governments in patients with Type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c levels are not currently being optimised. However, there are concerns with the low use of such systems across higher-income countries, exacerbated by their higher costs, despite studies suggesting their cost-effectiveness ratios are within accepted limits. This is inconsistent in higher-income countries when compared with reimbursement and funding decisions for new high-priced medicines for cancer and orphan diseases, with often limited benefits, given the burden of multiple daily insulin injections coupled with the need for constant monitoring. This situation is different among patients and governments in low- and low-middle income countries struggling to fund standard insulins and the routine monitoring of HbA1c levels. The first priority in these countries is to address these priority issues before funding more expensive forms of insulin and associated devices. Greater patient involvement in treatment decisions, transparency in decision making, and evidence-based investment decisions should help to address such concerns in the future.

Introduction

The global burden of diabetes is substantial and growing (Godman et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021b). There was an estimated 463 million people with diabetes mellitus worldwide in 2019 (Chan et al., 2021), with prevalence rates expected to grow to 578 million by 2030 (International Diabetes Federation, 2019), enhanced by rising incidence rates (Liu et al., 2020). This is a concern as diabetes is associated with appreciable morbidity, including health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL), mortality and costs, with the costs of treating patients with diabetes enhanced by the cost of associated complications (Smith-Palmer et al., 2016; Almeida et al., 2018; Bommer et al., 2018; Rwegerera et al., 2018; International Diabetes Federation, 2019; Li et al., 2019; Stedman et al., 2020; Chan et al., 2021). Complications associated with diabetes include non-traumatic lower-extremity amputations, blindness, and cardiovascular disease (CVD), with patients with diabetes also at a greater risk of end-stage renal disease (Einarson et al., 2018; International Diabetes Federation, 2019; Godman et al., 2021a; Chan et al., 2021). Poor management of patients with diabetes can increase their risk of CVD by up to 3-fold, with up to 30% of patients with diabetes dying from CVD (Benjamin et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2021). The combined direct and indirect costs of treating patients with diabetes and their complications globally in 2015 was estimated at US$1.3 trillion, with the combined costs projected to reach US$2.1–US$2.5 trillion by 2030, equating to 2.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Bommer et al., 2018; Roze et al., 2021).

Whilst most people with diabetes have Type 2 diabetes (T2DM), an appreciable number of patients have Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) (Godman et al., 2020a; Godman et al., 2021c). In addition, some patients with T2DM, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), will require insulin to control their diabetes (Baruah et al., 2017; Venkataraman et al., 2020; Godman et al., 2021c). Overall, it was estimated in 2019 that over 1.1 million adolescents worldwide had T1DM, including over 600,000 children under 15 years of age (Patterson et al., 2019), with an average increase in incidence rates of 3–4% per year (Tuomilehto et al., 2020). This is particularly important across countries including Africa, with rising numbers of patients with diabetes including those requiring insulin, as well as among European countries including the United Kingdom, which has one of the largest numbers of new cases of T1DM annually among European countries in children aged 14 years and younger (Godman et al., 2020b; Roze et al., 2021). This is because there are concerns with late diagnosis and treatment of T1DM among children especially in among African countries as well as other LMICs, which results in avoidable high mortality rates from diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, infection and eventually microvascular complications (Godman et al., 2020b; Godman et al., 2021b) adding to the global burden of diabetes. Such concerns are enhanced among LMICs where there can be high co-payments for medicines including those to treat patients with diabetes (Haque et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021b; Haque et al., 2021b; Godman et al., 2021c) alongside high costs for monitoring HbA1c levels negatively impacting on care (Godman et al., 2020b). As a result, access programmes and support from donor organisations are often needed among LMICs, especially African countries, to enhance the affordability of even basic insulins, as well as monitoring of HbA1c levels, among patients, and their families along with measures to enhance earlier diagnosis (Shannon et al., 2019; Godman et al., 2020b; Godman et al., 2021b; Haque et al., 2021b). This includes donor schemes in Kenya to reduce the price of insulin Mixtard^® 1000IU by two-thirds to enhance usage (Shannon et al., 2019; Godman et al., 2021b).

There is improved diagnosis and management of T1DM in higher income countries, with mortality rates from T1DM appreciably decreasing in recent years (Tuomilehto et al., 2020). Similarly, we have seen glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists when added to metformin-based therapy in patients with T2DM appreciable reduce HbA1c levels (Tsapas et al., 2020). There have also been reductions in mortality when patients with T2DM at increased CV risk have been prescribed newer therapies including dapagliflozin, liraglutide, and semaglutide alongside metformin. Newer medicines including liraglutide and semaglutide have also reduced CV deaths in patients with T2DM, with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors shown to reduce hospitalization due to heart failure and end-stage renal disease (Tsapas et al., 2020). However, such medicines are typically unaffordable in a number of LMICs including African countries (Godman et al., 2020a). Key aspects of care in patients with T2DM in these countries are focused on prevention alongside making sure key medicines, including oral metformin, are readily accessible (Godman et al., 2020a). We have seen in South Africa that there is limited funding for dialysis in patients with T2DM in the public system with the authorities preferring to support preventative measures within limited funds (Makhele et al., 2019). We are also aware that children with T1DM are still at higher risk of death compared with the non-diabetic population even in high-income countries, especially those with diabetic nephropathy (Tuomilehto et al., 2020), and diabetes can also have a negative impact on patients’ quality of life (Currie et al., 2006; Almeida et al., 2021; Roze et al., 2021).

Consequently, patients with diabetes, including children, especially if they require insulin, should be increasingly carefully managed and monitored. This should include enhancing potential choices of available insulins, and their administration, to improve patient convenience, and subsequent adherence to prescribed treatments, cognisant of issues of affordability, especially if there are concerns with multiple injections with standard insulins such as NPH insulins as well as cultural issues. Greater choice and involvement of patients in decision making, especially with respect to issues surrounding injection frequency, should help to reduce the extent of hypoglycaemia and associated complications as well as improve long-term outcomes (Inzucchi et al., 2012; Pfützner, 2017; Fifer et al., 2018; Muñoz-Velandia et al., 2019). However, only funded when standard insulins such as NPH insulins, and accompanying monitoring equipment, are readily available and accessible within public healthcare systems without appreciable co-payment issues (Godman et al., 2020b; Haque et al., 2021b). Improved glycaemic control has been shown to reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes as well as associated costs (Nathan, 2014; Mortality in Type 1 Diabe, 2016; Chan et al., 2021), with fear of hypoglycaemia negatively impacting on patients’ quality of life (McCoy et al., 2013; Roze et al., 2021).

Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia, especially nocturnal hypoglycaemia, producing greater patient convenience through reducing the number of injections (Pedersen-Bjergaard et al., 2014; Rys et al., 2015; Godman et al., 2021a; Chan et al., 2021; Tricco et al., 2021). Whilst there have been concerns over their additional costs versus standard insulins such as NPH insulins, and whether this represents value (Caires de Souza et al., 2014; Almeida et al., 2018; Ewen et al., 2019; Hemmingsen et al., 2021), recent published studies, including systematic reviews, have shown that their higher acquisition costs can be offset by savings from averted costs associated with hypoglycaemia and other complications (Jendle et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2020; Shafie and Ng, 2020; Tricco et al., 2021) generating medium to long-term savings. As a result, long-acting insulin analogues are now the most widely prescribed insulins among high-income and high middle-income countries, with sales growing in other countries including Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries as well as Bangladesh and India (Silver et al., 2018; Ewen et al., 2019; Godman et al., 2021a; Haque et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021c; Godman et al., 2021d). This is welcomed as there have been concerns in CEE countries regarding the availability and funding of biological medicines to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease (Putrik et al., 2014; Kostic et al., 2017; Baumgart et al., 2019). Among CEE countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, and Estonia, there has been high use of long-acting insulin analogues versus other forms of insulin, with high expenditure on long-acting insulin analogues also seen in Romania in recent years (Godman et al., 2021d; Tubic et al., 2021), with this trend continuing.

Building on the situation observed in other disease areas, the increasing availability of biosimilars of long-acting insulin analogues should help to reduce their costs and increase their use, (Haque et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021e; Godman et al., 2021f). However, this is not always the case with insulin glargine, with the originator company dropping its price to compete, as well as limited price reductions in practice for biosimilar insulin glargine in a number of countries including CEE countries (Godman et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021d). In addition, three companies currently dominate the insulin market worldwide in terms of both usage and expenditure, making competition difficult (Beran et al., 2018; Godman et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021b). This is starting to change.

The continued higher prices for long-acting insulin analogues, including biosimilars, versus standard insulins such as NPH insulins, has limited their use in practice among a number of countries (Godman et al., 2021b; Haque et al., 2021b). This includes many African and South American countries (Godman et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021b). However, increased local production of insulins, building on examples in other LMICs as well as concerns with supplies of medicines during the current COVID-19 pandemic, are potential ways forward to enhance the availability and use of insulins including long-acting insulin analogues as seen in Brazil and Malaysia (Fiotec, 2015; Ogunleye et al., 2020; Godman et al., 2021b; Godman et al., 2021c). In addition, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently launched a pre-qualification scheme for insulins to increase competition and help lower prices (WHO, 2019). This is welcomed as prices for long-acting insulins among the public healthcare systems in Africa and South America need to be close to standard insulins such as NPH insulins to enhance future funding and use (Godman et al., 2021a; Godman et al., 2021b).

The WHO, World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have advocated five foundational elements critical for delivering quality health services in the goal of achieving universal healthcare for all by 2030. This is underpinned by governments, policymakers, health system leaders, patients and clinicians all working together (WHO, 2018). Key areas include the provision of safe and most effective use of medicines as well as ensuring a high quality healthcare workforce (WHO, 2018). Within this, it is important that healthcare professionals discuss treatment options available to patients with diabetes requiring insulin when reviewing different management approaches accessible and available within their healthcare systems. This includes the different types of insulin and their administration, and the importance of adherence to prescribed treatments. As part of effective management strategies, it is also imperative that healthcare professionals fully engage with children and adolescents, as well as parents and guardians in the case of young children, when discussing available insulins and their associated dosing regimens including skin hygiene. This is especially important among children and adolescents who have a fear of hypoglycaemia, or poor baseline glycaemic control, aiming to improve their care when self-administering insulins. The ultimate goal of treatment being to try and mimic the production of insulin as closely as possible, with the minimum number of injections and monitoring (Shah et al., 2016; Roze et al., 2021), especially considering studies showing high rates of hypoglycaemia in patients with diabetes requiring insulin (Heller et al., 2020; Pinés Corrales et al., 2021). However, any additional activities and costs associated with educational programmes for different insulin regimens must be factored into their overall costs when making funding decisions within public healthcare systems (Christie et al., 2016). This includes the cost for any associated educational and other activities including appropriate tools among patients with diabetes and any caregivers to enhance adherence to prescribed medicines (Christie et al., 2016; Iqbal et al., 2017; Kyokunzire et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2021).

Developments in Insulin Administration and the Implications

There have been developments in the administration of insulin over the years, attempting to reduce the burden of multiple daily administration of insulin and concomitant constant monitoring (Shah et al., 2016). Advances include the potential for oral insulin (Wong et al., 2018) as well as potentially buccal or transdermal insulin (Shah et al., 2016). In addition, the development of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems to provide information about blood glucose levels and glycaemic trends in real time to patients, given concerns with the levels of unawareness regarding hypoglycaemia among some patients (Smith et al., 2009; Rodbard, 2017; Ajjan et al., 2019). However, there can still be episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (Lin et al., 2019) and concerns with the level of health gain with CGM systems versus the costs involved; though, this is not universal (Health Quality Ontario, 2018; Wan et al., 2018).

Alongside this, the development of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSII) systems combined with sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) and potentially hybrid closed-loops (HCL) systems to respond to changes in HbA1c levels thereby further reducing episodes of hypoglycaemia (Garg et al., 2017; Karges et al., 2017; Steineck et al., 2017; Burckhardt et al., 2018; Gómez et al., 2018; Korkmaz et al., 2018; Stone et al., 2018; Grunberger et al., 2021; Moreno-Ferández et al., 2021; Roze et al., 2021). There can though be concerns with the extent of patient benefits with CSII systems over multiple daily injections; however, again this is not universal (Mueller-Godeffroy et al., 2018; Blair et al., 2019). In view of the various published studies, the Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2018 recommended CSII systems use over multiple daily insulin injections in patients with T1DM who are not achieving their glycaemic targets, alternatively achieving their targets but continuing to experience severe hypoglycaemia, require increased flexibility with their insulin administration due to a variety of factors, or seek improved treatment satisfaction (Peters et al., 2018). However, this must be accompanied by comprehensive training on pump management (Grunberger et al., 2021), with the associated costs factored into any funding decision making. It is recognised though that these developments associated with higher costs are difficult to justify within healthcare systems struggling to fund even NPH and similar insulins, along with accompanying monitoring equipment, on a regular basis (Godman et al., 2020b).

Having said this, recent studies have suggested there are both clinical and economic benefits with HCL systems including the MiniMed^™ 670G HCL system versus CSII systems among both adolescents and adults (Rodbard, 2017). Roze et al. (2021) in their study projected that there would be an additional 1.73 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the MiniMed^™ HCL system versus CSII systems at 14.09 vs. 12.36 QALYs respectively (Roze et al., 2021). This increase in QALYs was aided by a reduced fear of hypoglycaemia with the MiniMed^™ HCL system, with improved blood glucose control enhancing user satisfaction (Roze et al., 2021). However, the authors calculated that the lifetime costs for the MiniMed^™ HCL system would be GB£35,425 (US$48,200) higher than CSII systems, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £20,421 per QALY gained (US$27,850) (Roze et al., 2021). A higher cost per QALY was seen in Sweden at SEK500,000 (US$57,260) (Jendle et al., 2021).

This increased cost is a concern as CSII systems are appreciably more expensive than multiple daily administration of insulin without adding in HCL systems and any associated patient education (Heinemann and DeVries, 2016). However, the improvement in patient outcomes seen with the newer devices resulted in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stating that patients with T1DM, whose HbA1c levels are not being optimised, should be offered insulin pumps (Roze et al., 2021). However, there can still be concerns with their value despite improvements in treatment satisfaction (Muñoz-Velandia et al., 2019). Despite this recommendation though, there is a concern that the use of insulin pumps in practice in the United Kingdom is low compared to other Western European countries. This alongside concerns with funding CSII systems, as well as CSII and HCL systems, in CEE countries given existing issues with the routine funding of biological therapies in these countries (Baumgart et al., 2019; Roze et al., 2021). Having said this, there is increased funding for long-acting insulin analogues among CEE countries in recent years to improve patient care (Godman et al., 2021d).

It is imperative across all countries that patients with diabetes requiring insulin, especially children and adolescents, are well managed given the burden of the disease and its potential complications, as well as the additional burden during their education. Issues of funding and choices for developments such as CGM and CSII systems with or without HCLs need to be placed in context given current inconsistencies in funding decisions across disease areas and countries especially among higher income countries, and the increasing burden of diabetes as well as its complications worldwide. This recognises that such discussions are more difficult in some LMICs where patients are struggling to fund even standard insulins within public healthcare systems, with these discussions continuing exacerbated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Ogunleye et al., 2020). However, this is not universal as seen with growing use of long-acting insulin analogues, including biosimilars, in a number of Asian and CEE countries (Godman et al., 2021c; Godman et al., 2021d; Tubic et al., 2021).

Considerations in Choices for Funding Treatments Including Insulins and Devices

We are aware that global expenditure on medicines has risen appreciably in recent years, and is estimated to reach US$1.5 trillion by 2023, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3–6% (IQVIA, 2019). This growth rate is driven by many factors including increasing expenditure on new premium-priced medicines especially for cancer and orphan diseases as both are emotive disease areas (Haycox, 2016; Luzzatto et al., 2018; Morgan et al., 2020; Godman et al., 2021e; Godman et al., 2021g). The costs of new cancer medicines have risen two-fold in recent years, with the reimbursed price per life year gained rising four fold in the past 20 years after adjusting for inflation (Godman et al., 2021g). This is despite limited health gain with most new high-priced cancer medicines, with high prices being granted even with limited clinical information (Cohen, 2017; Pontes et al., 2020; Godman et al., 2021g). In high-income countries, we are also seeing new treatments for patients with orphan diseases being funded at ever increasing costs (Luzzatto et al., 2018). This includes patients with cystic fibrosis with a cost per QALY for lumacaftor–ivacaftor (Orkambi^®) of Ca$3.6 million (Hollis, 2019). Previously, new medicines for enzyme replacement therapy and Pompe’s disease have been reimbursed up to Euro15 million per QALY (Simoens et al., 2013; Godman et al., 2018). More recently, there have been active discussions across countries including the United Kingdom regarding the funding of new treatments for infants with spinal muscular atrophy at a cost of GB£1.75million (US$2.38million) per dose (NHS, 2021). Prior to this, the United Kingdom Government established a separate fund covering the cost of new high priced cancer medicines that NICE found of limited value (Author Anonymous, 2010). This separate budget was taken out of existing funds prompting the Lancet to suggest such decisions were “intellectually bankrupt” within a universal healthcare system as funds are transferred from other disease areas without robust justification (Author Anonymous, 2010).

We do not see this in other disease areas where for instance in Scotland, expenditure on medicines for coronary vascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis and mental health, have fallen in recent years despite growing use through the availability of low cost multiple sourced medicines and biosimilars (Bennie et al., 2013; Leporowski et al., 2018; Godman et al., 2019; Godman et al., 2021e).

Such activities and growth rates in prices and expenditures for new medicines for oncology and orphan diseases are difficult to sustain under opportunity cost considerations within universal healthcare systems (Barrett et al., 2006; Godman et al., 2021g), necessitating a closer look at the most effective use of current resources. This is imperative with publications advocating greater spending on new medicines for cancer and orphan diseases in CEE countries despite limited health gain for most new cancer medicines (Cohen, 2017; Tomić et al., 2018; Cufer et al., 2020; Malinowski et al., 2020). The situation is different among LMICs, including sub-Saharan Africa, where in the case of patients with diabetes, key initial considerations include early diagnosis as well as availability and access to standard insulins (Godman et al., 2021b).

More consistent decision making in higher income countries, as well as potentially a number of CEE countries, this could involve reviewing increased funding for new cost-effective treatments and devices for patients in other disease areas apart from oncology and orphan diseases. This could incorporate patients with diabetes to improve their care and subsequent quality-of-life. As a result, improve consistency in decision making. This could include CGM and CSII systems, including potential HCL additions, where there are concerns with their funding and use in recommended situations in higher-income countries.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The current COVID-19 pandemic appears to be increasing prevalence rates for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and their associated costs (Kluge et al., 2020). While there is always uncertainty regarding long-term projections on outcomes and expenditure based on short-term data, especially if new medicines are launched with limited data, we need to consult more with patients, the public and other key stakeholders to debate, and prioritise funding decisions within finite resources. This should help avoid inconsistent and emotive decision making and maximise health outcomes for patients within available resources. This is particularly important in patients with diabetes given the growing burden in terms of both morbidity and mortality as well as costs (Fifer et al., 2018; Muñoz-Velandia et al., 2019; González-González et al., 2021), and should be part of general moves towards a quality health service as part of universal healthcare (WHO, 2018). Prioritising investment in one disease area where there are concerns with costs and value will necessarily have a detrimental impact on other disease areas.

This goes hand-in-hand with encouraging transferable learning between countries, advocacy and compliance with key areas, as well as greater evidence-based approaches to decision making (Godman et al., 2021e). This is imperative following the considerable unintended consequences associated with COVID-19 including a rise in NCDs and an associated increase in morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, ongoing debates especially across Europe regarding pricing and funding approaches, as well as greater pricing transparency for new cancer medicines and those for orphan diseases (Godman et al., 2018; Kluge et al., 2020; Godman et al., 2021e; Godman et al., 2021g). This is essential given ongoing debates about the future sustainability of healthcare systems (Godman et al., 2021g). We will continue to monitor these situations, and report on them, to stimulate debates in important disease areas including diabetes where there are inconsistencies in decision making. This especially with all countries being encouraged to instigate universal healthcare by 2030 embraced by all European countries with necessary transparency and consistency in decision making (WHO, 2018; Cerf, 2019).

References

• 1

  AjjanR.SlatteryD.WrightE. (2019). Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Brief Review for Primary Care Practitioners. Adv. Ther.36 (3), 579–596. 10.1007/s12325-019-0870-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AlmeidaP. H. R. F.SilvaT. B. C.de Assis AcurcioF.Guerra JúniorA. A.AraújoV. E.DinizL. M.et al (2018). Quality of Life of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Using Insulin Analog Glargine Compared with NPH Insulin: A Systematic Review and Policy Implications. Patient11 (4), 377–389. 10.1007/s40271-017-0291-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AlmeidaP. H. R. F.GodmanB.de LemosL. L. P.SilvaT. B. C.De Assis AcúrcioF.Guerra-JuniorA. A.et al (2021). A Cross-Sectional Study of the Quality of Life of Patients Living with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Insulin Glargine and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin and the Implications. J. Pharm. Health Serv. Res.12 (3), 332–342. 10.1093/jphsr/rmab021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  Author Anonymous (2010). New 50 Million Pound Cancer Fund Already Intellectually Bankrupt. Lancet376 (9739), 389. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61202-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BarrettA.RoquesT.SmallM.SmithR. D. (2006). How Much Will Herceptin Really Cost?BMJ333 (7578), 1118–1120. 10.1136/bmj.39008.624051.BE

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BaruahM. P.KalraS.BoseS.DekaJ. (2017). An Audit of Insulin Usage and Insulin Injection Practices in a Large Indian Cohort. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab.21 (3), 443–452. 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_548_16

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BaumgartD. C.MiseryL.NaeyaertS.TaylorP. C. (2019). Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?Front. Pharmacol.10, 279. 10.3389/fphar.2019.00279

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BenjaminE. J.MuntnerP.AlonsoA.BittencourtM. S.CallawayC. W.CarsonA. P.et al (2019). Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report from the American Heart Association. Circulation139 (10), e56–e528. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000659

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BennieM.BishopI.GodmanB.CampbellS.MirandaJ.FinlaysonA. E.et al (2013). Are Prescribing Initiatives Readily Transferable across Classes: the Case of Generic Losartan in Scotland?Qual. Prim. Care21 (1), 7–15.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BeranD.EwenM.LipskaK.HirschI. B.YudkinJ. S. (2018). Availability and Affordability of Essential Medicines: Implications for Global Diabetes Treatment. Curr. Diab Rep.18 (8), 48. 10.1007/s11892-018-1019-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BlairJ. C.McKayA.RidyardC.ThornboroughK.BedsonE.PeakM.et al (2019). Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion versus Multiple Daily Injection Regimens in Children and Young People at Diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes: Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation. BMJ365, l1226. 10.1136/bmj.l1226

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BommerC.SagalovaV.HeesemannE.Manne-GoehlerJ.AtunR.BärnighausenT.et al (2018). Global Economic Burden of Diabetes in Adults: Projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care41 (5), 963–970. 10.2337/dc17-1962

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  BurckhardtM. A.SmithG. J.CooperM. N.JonesT. W.DavisE. A. (2018). Real-world Outcomes of Insulin Pump Compared to Injection Therapy in a Population-Based Sample of Children with Type 1 Diabetes. Pediatr. Diabetes19 (8), 1459–1466. 10.1111/pedi.12754

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  Caires de SouzaA. L.de Assis AcurcioF.Guerra JúniorA. A.Rezende Macedo do NascimentoR. C.GodmanB.DinizL. M. (2014). Insulin Glargine in a Brazilian State: Should the Government Disinvest? an Assessment Based on a Systematic Review. Appl. Health Econ. Health Pol.12 (1), 19–32. 10.1007/s40258-013-0073-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  CerfM. E. (2019). Sustainable Development Goal Integration, Interdependence, and Implementation: the Environment-Economic-Health Nexus and Universal Health Coverage. Glob. Chall3 (9), 1900021. 10.1002/gch2.201900021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  ChanJ. C. N.LimL. L.WarehamN. J.ShawJ. E.OrchardT. J.ZhangP.et al (2021). The Lancet Commission on Diabetes: Using Data to Transform Diabetes Care and Patient Lives. Lancet396 (10267), 2019–2082. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32374-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  ChristieD.ThompsonR.SawtellM.AllenE.CairnsJ.SmithF.et al (2016). Effectiveness of a Structured Educational Intervention Using Psychological Delivery Methods in Children and Adolescents with Poorly Controlled Type 1 Diabetes: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of the CASCADE Intervention. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care4 (1), e000165. 10.1136/bmjdrc-2015-000165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  CohenD. (2017). Cancer Drugs: High price, Uncertain Value. BMJ359, j4543. 10.1136/bmj.j4543

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  CuferT.CiuleanuT. E.BerzinecP.GalffyG.JakopovicM.JassemJ.et al (2020). Access to Novel Drugs for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Central and Southeastern Europe: A Central European Cooperative Oncology Group Analysis. Oncologist25 (3), e598–e601. 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0523

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  CurrieC. J.MorganC. L.PooleC. D.SharplinP.LammertM.McEwanP. (2006). Multivariate Models of Health-Related Utility and the Fear of Hypoglycaemia in People with Diabetes. Curr. Med. Res. Opin.22 (8), 1523–1534. 10.1185/030079906X115757

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  EinarsonT. R.AcsA.LudwigC.PantonU. H. (2018). Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes: a Systematic Literature Review of Scientific Evidence from across the World in 2007-2017. Cardiovasc. Diabetol.17 (1), 83. 10.1186/s12933-018-0728-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  EwenM.JoosseH. J.BeranD.LaingR. (2019). Insulin Prices, Availability and Affordability in 13 Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries. BMJ Glob. Health4 (3), e001410. 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001410

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  FiferS.RoseJ.HamrosiK. K.SwainD. (2018). Valuing Injection Frequency and Other Attributes of Type 2 Diabetes Treatments in Australia: a Discrete Choice experiment. BMC Health Serv. Res.18 (1), 675. 10.1186/s12913-018-3484-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  Fiotec (2015). Technology Transfer by Ukrainian Company for Recombinant Human Insulin Production in Farmanguinhos. Available at URL: https://www.fiotec.fiocruz.br/en/news/2791-technology-transfer-by-ukrainian-company-for-recombinant-human-insulin-production-in-farmanguinhos.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  GargS. K.WeinzimerS. A.TamborlaneW. V.BuckinghamB. A.BodeB. W.BaileyT. S.et al (2017). Glucose Outcomes with the in-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther.19 (3), 155–163. 10.1089/dia.2016.0421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  GodmanB.BasuD.PillayY.MwitaJ. C.RwegereraG. M.Anand ParamadhasB. D.et al (2020a). Review of Ongoing Activities and Challenges to Improve the Care of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes across Africa and the Implications for the Future. Front. Pharmacol.11 (108), 108. 10.3389/fphar.2020.00108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  GodmanB.BasuD.PillayY.AlmeidaP. H. R. F.MwitaJ. C.RwegereraG. M.et al (2020b). Ongoing and Planned Activities to Improve the Management of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes across Africa; Implications for the Future. Hosp. Pract.48 (2), 51–67. 10.1080/21548331.2020.1745509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  GodmanB.BucsicsA.Vella BonannoP.OortwijnW.RotheC. C.FerrarioA.et al (2018). Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets. Front. Public Health6, 328. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GodmanB.KurdiA.McCabeH.JohnsonC. F.BarbuiC.MacBride-StewartS.et al (2019). Ongoing Initiatives within the Scottish National Health Service to Affect the Prescribing of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Their Influence. J. Comp. Eff. Res.8 (7), 535–547. 10.2217/cer-2018-0132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  GodmanB.HaqueM.LeongT.AllocatiE.KumarS.IslamS.et al (2021a). The Current Situation Regarding Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among African, Asian, European, and South American Countries; Findings and Implications for the Future. Front. Public Health9 (636), 671961. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.671961

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  GodmanB.LeongT.AbubakarA. R.KurdiA.KalemeeraF.RwegereraG. M.et al (2021b). Availability and Use of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Their Biosimilars across Africa: Findings and Implications. Intern. Med.11, 343.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  GodmanB.HaqueM.KumarS.IslamS.CharanJ.AkterF.et al (2021c). Current Utilization Patterns for Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among Selected Asian Countries and the Implications for the Future. Curr. Med. Res. Opin.37 (9), 1529–1545. 10.1080/03007995.2021.1946024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  GodmanB.WladysiukM.McTaggartS.KurdiA.AllocatiE.JakovljevicM.et al (2021d). Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications. Biomed. Res. Int.2021, 9996193. 10.1155/2021/9996193

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  GodmanB.FadareJ.KwonH. Y.DiasC. Z.KurdiA.Dias GodóiI. P.et al (2021e). Evidence-based Public Policy Making for Medicines across Countries: Findings and Implications for the Future. J. Comp. Eff. Res.10 (12), 1019–1052. 10.2217/cer-2020-0273

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  GodmanB.MasseleA.FadareJ.KwonH-Y.KurdiA.KalemeeraF.et al (2021f). Generic Drugs – Essential for the Sustainability of Healthcare Systems with Numerous Strategies to Enhance Their Use. Pharm. Sci. Biomed. Anal. J.4 (1), 126.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  GodmanB.HillA.SimoensS.SelkeG.Selke KrulichováI.Zampirolli DiasC.et al (2021g). Potential Approaches for the Pricing of Cancer Medicines across Europe to Enhance the Sustainability of Healthcare Systems and the Implications. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.21 (4), 527–540. 10.1080/14737167.2021.1884546

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  GómezA. M.HenaoD. C.ImitolaA.MuñozO. M.SepúlvedaM. A. R.KattahL.et al (2018). Efficacy and Safety of Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy (SAPT) with Predictive Low-Glucose Management in Patients Diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Previously Treated with SAPT and Low Glucose Suspend. Endocrinologia, diabetes y nutricion.65 (8), 451–457.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  González-GonzálezJ. G.Díaz González-ColmeneroA.Millán-AlanísJ. M.LytvynL.SolisR. C.MustafaR. A.et al (2021). Values, Preferences and burden of Treatment for the Initiation of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Adult Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: a Systematic Review. BMJ open11 (7), e049130. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  GrunbergerG.SherrJ.AllendeM.BlevinsT.BodeB.HandelsmanY.et al (2021). American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons with Diabetes Mellitus. Endocr. Pract.27 (6), 505–537. 10.1016/j.eprac.2021.04.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  HaqueM.IslamS.KamalZ. M.AkterF.JahanI.RahimM. S. A.et al (2021a). Ongoing Efforts to Improve the Management of Patients with Diabetes in Bangladesh and the Implications. Hosp. Pract.49 (4), 266–272. 10.1080/21548331.2021.1906083

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  HaqueM.IslamS.AbubakarA. R.SaniI. H.OpangaS.KamalZ. M.et al (2021b). Utilization and Expenditure on Long-Acting Insulin Analogs Among Selected Middle-Income Countries with High Patient Co-payment Levels: Findings and Implications for the Future. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci.11 (07), 172–182.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  HaycoxA. (2016). Why Cancer?PharmacoEconomics34 (7), 625–627. 10.1007/s40273-016-0413-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  Health Quality Ontario (2018). Continuous Monitoring of Glucose for Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol. Assess. Ser.18 (2), 1–160.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  HeinemannL.DeVriesJ. H. (2016). Reimbursement for Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Technol. Ther.18 Suppl 2 (Suppl. 2Suppl 2), S248–S252. 10.1089/dia.2015.0296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  HellerS. R.PeyrotM.OatesS. K.TaylorA. D. (2020). Hypoglycemia in Patient with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Insulin: it Can Happen. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care8 (1), e001194. 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001194

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  HemmingsenB.MetzendorfM. I.RichterB. (2021). (Ultra-)long-acting Insulin Analogues for People with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.3, Cd013498. 10.1002/14651858.CD013498.pub2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  HollisA. (2019). Orphan Drug Pricing and Costs: A Case Study of Kalydeco and Orkambi. Healthc. Pol.15 (1), 70–80. 10.12927/hcpol.2019.25937

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  International Diabetes Federation (2019). IDF Atlas Ninth Edition (Full). Available at URL: https://diabetesatlas.org/upload/resources/material/20200302_133351_IDFATLAS9e-final-web.pdf.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  InzucchiS. E.BergenstalR. M.BuseJ. B.DiamantM.FerranniniE.NauckM.et al (2012). Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: a Patient-Centered Approach: Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care35 (6), 1364–1379. 10.2337/dc12-0413

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  IqbalQ.BashirS.IqbalJ.IftikharS.GodmanB. (2017). Assessment of Medication Adherence Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients in Quetta City, Pakistan. Postgrad. Med.129 (6), 637–643. 10.1080/00325481.2017.1328251

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  IQVIA (2019). The Global Use of Medicine in 2019 and Outlook to 2023 - Forecasts and Areas to Watch. Available at URL: https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/the-global-use-of-medicine-in-2019-and-outlook-to-2023.pdf.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  JendleJ.BuompensiereM. I.HolmA. L.de PortuS.MalkinS. J. P.CohenO. (2021). The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in People with Type 1 Diabetes: a Health Economic Analysis in Sweden. Diabetes Ther.12 (11), 2977–2991. 10.1007/s13300-021-01157-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  JendleJ.EricssonÅ.EkmanB.SjöbergS.GundgaardJ.da Rocha FernandesJ.et al (2020). Real-world Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus from a Swedish 1-year and Long-Term Perspective. J. Med. Econ.23 (11), 1311–1320. 10.1080/13696998.2020.1805454

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  KargesB.SchwandtA.HeidtmannB.KordonouriO.BinderE.SchierlohU.et al (2017). Association of Insulin Pump Therapy vs Insulin Injection Therapy with Severe Hypoglycemia, Ketoacidosis, and Glycemic Control Among Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Jama318 (14), 1358–1366. 10.1001/jama.2017.13994

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  KlugeH. H. P.WickramasingheK.RippinH. L.MendesR.PetersD. H.KontsevayaA.et al (2020). Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases in the COVID-19 Response. Lancet395 (10238), 1678–1680. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31067-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  KorkmazÖ.DemirG.ÇetinH.Mecidovİ.Atik AltınokY.ÖzenS.et al (2018). Effectiveness of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Pump Therapy during Five Years of Treatment on Metabolic Control in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. J. Clin. Res. Pediatr. Endocrinol.10 (2), 147–152. 10.4274/jcrpe.5117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  KosticM.DjakovicL.SujicR.GodmanB.JankovicS. M. (2017). Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (Crohn S Disease and Ulcerative Colitis): Cost of Treatment in Serbia and the Implications. Appl. Health Econ. Health Pol.15 (1), 85–93.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  KyokunzireC.MatovuN.MayegaR. W. (2018). Factors Associated with Adherence to Diabetes Care Recommendations Among Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: a Facility-Based Study in Two Urban Diabetes Clinics in Uganda. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes.11, 93–104. 10.2147/DMSO.S156858

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  LeeT. Y.KuoS.YangC. Y.OuH. T. (2020). Cost-effectiveness of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues vs Intermediate/long-Acting Human Insulin for Type 1 Diabetes: A Population-Based Cohort Followed over 10 Years. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.86 (5), 852–860. 10.1111/bcp.14188

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  LeporowskiA.GodmanB.KurdiA.MacBride-StewartS.RyanM.HurdingS.et al (2018). Ongoing Activities to Optimize the Quality and Efficiency of Lipid-Lowering Agents in the Scottish National Health Service: Influence and Implications. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res.18 (6), 655–666. 10.1080/14737167.2018.1501558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  LiS.WangJ.ZhangB.LiX.LiuY. (2019). Diabetes Mellitus and Cause-specific Mortality: A Population-Based Study. Diabetes Metab. J.43 (3), 319–341. 10.4093/dmj.2018.0060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  LinY. K.HungM.SharmaA.ChanO.VarnerM. W.StaskusG.et al (2019). Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia Continues to be a Risk Factor for Severe Hypoglycemia Despite The Use of CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING SYSTEM IN TYPE 1 DIABETES. Endocr. Pract.25 (6), 517–525. 10.4158/EP-2018-0527

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 63

  LiuB.HuangF.WuX.XieY.XuR.HuangJ.et al (2021). Poor Guideline Adherence in Type 1 Diabetes Education in Real-World Clinical Practice: Evidence from a Multicentre, National Survey. Patient Educ. Couns.104 (11), 2740–2747. 10.1016/j.pec.2021.04.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 64

  LiuJ.RenZ. H.QiangH.WuJ.ShenM.ZhangL.et al (2020). Trends in the Incidence of Diabetes Mellitus: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 and Implications for Diabetes Mellitus Prevention. BMC public health20 (1), 1415. 10.1186/s12889-020-09502-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 65

  LuzzattoL.HyryH. I.SchieppatiA.CostaE.SimoensS.SchaeferF.et al (2018). Outrageous Prices of Orphan Drugs: a Call for Collaboration. Lancet392 (10149), 791–794. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31069-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 66

  MakheleL.MatlalaM.SibandaM.MartinA. P.GodmanB. (2019). A Cost Analysis of Haemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis for the Management of End-Stage Renal Failure at an Academic Hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. Pharmacoecon Open3 (4), 631–641. 10.1007/s41669-019-0124-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 67

  MalinowskiK. P.KawalecP.TrąbkaW.SowadaC.PetrovaG.ManovaM.et al (2020). Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Policy for Oncology Orphan Drugs in Central and Eastern Europe. Orphanet J. Rare Dis.15 (1), 277. 10.1186/s13023-020-01556-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 68

  McCoyR. G.Van HoutenH. K.ZiegenfussJ. Y.ShahN. D.WermersR. A.SmithS. A. (2013). Self-report of Hypoglycemia and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes. Endocr. Pract.19 (5), 792–799. 10.4158/EP12382.OR

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 69

  Moreno-FerándezJ.García-SecoJ. A.Herrera-MoraledaM.SecoA. M.Muñoz-RodríguezJ. R. (2021). Real-world Outcomes of Insulin Pump Compared to Multiple Daily Injection Therapy in Adult Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in a Mediterranean Scenario. Int. J. Diabetes developing countries41 (2), 259–265.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 70

  MorganS. G.BathulaH. S.MoonS. (2020). Pricing of Pharmaceuticals Is Becoming a Major challenge for Health Systems. BMJ368, l4627–l. 10.1136/bmj.l4627

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 71

  Mortality in Type 1 Diabetes in the DCCT/EDIC versus the General Population. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(8):1378–1383. 10.2337/dc15-2399

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 72

  Mueller-GodeffroyE.VontheinR.Ludwig-SeiboldC.HeidtmannB.BoettcherC.KramerM.et al (2018). Psychosocial Benefits of Insulin Pump Therapy in Children with Diabetes Type 1 and Their Families: The Pumpkin Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatr. Diabetes19 (8), 1471–1480. 10.1111/pedi.12777

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 73

  Muñoz-VelandiaO.GuyattG.DevjiT.ZhangY.LiS. A.AlexanderP. E.et al (2019). Patient Values and Preferences Regarding Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion and Artificial Pancreas in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Data. Diabetes Technol. Ther.21 (4), 183–200. 10.1089/dia.2018.0346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 74

  NathanD. M. (2014). The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study at 30 years: Overview. Diabetes Care37 (1), 9–16. 10.2337/dc13-2112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 75

  NHS (2021). Treats First Patient with the ‘world’s Most Expensive Drug. Available at URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/06/nhs-treats-first-patient-with-the-worlds-most-expensive-drug/.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 76

  OgunleyeO. O.BasuD.MuellerD.SneddonJ.SeatonR. A.Yinka-OgunleyeA. F.et al (2020). Response to the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) Pandemic across Africa: Successes, Challenges, and Implications for the Future. Front. Pharmacol.11 (1205), 1205. 10.3389/fphar.2020.01205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 77

  PattersonC. C.KarurangaS.SalpeaP.SaeediP.DahlquistG.SolteszG.et al (2019). Worldwide Estimates of Incidence, Prevalence and Mortality of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th Edition. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.157, 107842. 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107842

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 78

  Pedersen-BjergaardU.KristensenP. L.Beck-NielsenH.NørgaardK.PerrildH.ChristiansenJ. S.et al (2014). Effect of Insulin Analogues on Risk of Severe Hypoglycaemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Recurrent Severe Hypoglycaemia (HypoAna Trial): a Prospective, Randomised, Open-Label, Blinded-Endpoint Crossover Trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.2 (7), 553–561. 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70073-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 79

  PetersA. L.AhmannA. J.HirschI. B.RaymondJ. K. (2018). Advances in Glucose Monitoring and Automated Insulin Delivery: Supplement to Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Endocr. Soc.2 (11), 1214–1225. 10.1210/js.2018-00262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 80

  PfütznerA. (2017). Patients' Preferences for Insulin Injection Devices. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol.11 (2), 270–271.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 81

  Pinés CorralesP. J.Arias LozanoC.Jiménez MartínezC.López JiménezL. M.Sirvent SegoviaA. E.García BlascoL.et al (2021). Prevalence of Severe Hypoglycemia in a Cohort of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes. Endocrinologia, diabetes y nutricion.68 (1), 47–52.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 82

  PontesC.ZaraC.Torrent-FarnellJ.ObachM.NadalC.Vella-BonannoP.et al (2020). Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab. Appl. Health Econ. Health Pol.18 (1), 5–16. 10.1007/s40258-019-00527-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 83

  PutrikP.RamiroS.KvienT. K.SokkaT.PavlovaM.UhligT.et al (2014). Inequities in Access to Biologic and Synthetic DMARDs across 46 European Countries. Ann. Rheum. Dis.73 (1), 198–206. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 84

  RodbardD. (2017). Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Recent Studies Demonstrating Improved Glycemic Outcomes. Diabetes Technol. Ther.19 (S3), S25–s37. 10.1089/dia.2017.0035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 85

  RozeS.BuompensiereM. I.OzdemirZ.de PortuS.CohenO. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of a Novel Hybrid Closed-Loop System Compared with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in People with Type 1 Diabetes in the UK. J. Med. Econ.24 (1), 883–890. 10.1080/13696998.2021.1939706

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 86

  RwegereraG. M.MoshomoT.GaenamongM.OyewoT. A.GollakotaS.RiveraY. P.et al (2018). Health-related Quality of Life and Associated Factors Among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus in Botswana. Alexandria J. Med.54 (2), 111–118. 10.1016/j.ajme.2017.05.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 87

  RysP.WojciechowskiP.Rogoz-SitekA.NiesyczyńskiG.LisJ.SytaA.et al (2015). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Insulin Glargine with NPH Insulin, Premixed Insulin Preparations or with Insulin Detemir in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Acta Diabetol.52 (4), 649–662. 10.1007/s00592-014-0698-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 88

  ShafieA. A.NgC. H. (2020). Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Glargine and Insulin Detemir in the Basal Regimen for Naïve Insulin Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in Malaysia. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res.12, 333–343. 10.2147/CEOR.S244884

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 89

  ShahR. B.PatelM.MaahsD. M.ShahV. N. (2016). Insulin Delivery Methods: Past, Present and Future. Int. J. Pharm. Investig.6 (1), 1–9. 10.4103/2230-973X.176456

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 90

  ShannonG. D.Haghparast-BidgoliH.ChelagatW.KibachioJ.Skordis-WorrallJ. (2019). Innovating to Increase Access to Diabetes Care in Kenya: an Evaluation of Novo Nordisk's Base of the Pyramid Project. Glob. Health Action.12 (1), 1605704. 10.1080/16549716.2019.1605704

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 91

  SilverB.RamaiyaK.AndrewS. B.FredrickO.BajajS.KalraS.et al (2018). EADSG Guidelines: Insulin Therapy in Diabetes. Diabetes Ther.9 (2), 449–492. 10.1007/s13300-018-0384-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 92

  SimoensS.PicavetE.DoomsM.CassimanD.MorelT. (2013). Cost-effectiveness Assessment of Orphan Drugs: a Scientific and Political Conundrum. Appl. Health Econ. Health Pol.11 (1), 1–3. 10.1007/s40258-012-0004-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 93

  SmithC. B.ChoudharyP.PernetA.HopkinsD.AmielS. A. (2009). Hypoglycemia Unawareness Is Associated with Reduced Adherence to Therapeutic Decisions in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Evidence from a Clinical Audit. Diabetes Care32 (7), 1196–1198. 10.2337/dc08-2259

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 94

  Smith-PalmerJ.BaeJ. P.BoyeK. S.NorrbackaK.HuntB.ValentineW. J. (2016). Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life in Type 1 Diabetes: a Systematic Literature Review of Utilities for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res.8, 559–571. 10.2147/CEOR.S114699

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 95

  StedmanM.LuntM.DaviesM.LivingstonM.DuffC.FryerA.et al (2020). Cost of Hospital Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes (T1DM) and Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) Compared to the Non-diabetes Population: a Detailed Economic Evaluation. BMJ open10 (5), e033231. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 96

  SteineckI.RanjanA.NørgaardK.SchmidtS. (2017). Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pumps and Hypoglycemia Prevention in Type 1 Diabetes. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol.11 (1), 50–58. 10.1177/1932296816672689

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 97

  StoneM. P.AgrawalP.ChenX.LiuM.ShinJ.CorderoT. L.et al (2018). Retrospective Analysis of 3-Month Real-World Glucose Data after the MiniMed 670G System Commercial Launch. Diabetes Technol. Ther.20 (10), 689–692. 10.1089/dia.2018.0202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 98

  TomićZ.TomasA.BenšovaZ.TomićL.HorvatO.VargaI.et al (2018). Challenges of Providing Access to Cutting-Edge Cancer Medicines in the Countries of Eastern Europe. Front. Public Health6 (193), 193. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00193

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 99

  TriccoA. C.AshoorH. M.AntonyJ.BouckZ.RodriguesM.PhamB.et al (2021). Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-long-acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J. Gen. Intern. Med.36 (8), 2414–2426. 10.1007/s11606-021-06642-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 100

  TsapasA.AvgerinosI.KaragiannisT.MalandrisK.ManolopoulosA.AndreadisP.et al (2020). Comparative Effectiveness of Glucose-Lowering Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Ann. Intern. Med.173 (4), 278–286. 10.7326/M20-0864

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 101

  TubicB.Marković-PekovićV.JungićS.AllocatiE.GodmanB. (2021). Availability and Accessibility of Monoclonal Antibodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Findings and Implications. Med. Access @ Point Care5, 23992026211027692. 10.1177/23992026211027692

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 102

  TuomilehtoJ.OgleG. D.Lund-BlixN. A.SteneL. C. (2020). Update on Worldwide Trends in Occurrence of Childhood Type 1 Diabetes in 2020. Pediatr. Endocrinol. Rev.17 (Suppl. 1), 198–209. 10.17458/per.vol17.2020.tol.epidemiologychildtype1diabetes

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 103

  VenkataramanA. P.LaxminarayanaK.SamhitaS. (2020). Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Insulin Use of Diabetic Patients in India. Pharmacol. Clin. Pharm. Res.5 (1), 23–32.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 104

  WanW.SkandariM. R.MincA.NathanA. G.WinnA.ZareiP.et al (2018). Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Compared with Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial. Diabetes Care41 (6), 1227–1234. 10.2337/dc17-1821

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 105

  WHO (2019). WHO Launches First-Ever Insulin Prequalification Programme to Expand Access to Life-Saving Treatment for Diabetes. Available at URL: https://www.who.int/news/item/13-11-2019-who-launches-first-ever-insulin-prequalification-programme-to-expand-access-to-life-saving-treatment-for-diabetes.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 106

  WHO (2018). World Bank, OECD. Delivering Quality Health Services - A Global Imperative for Universal Health Coverage. Available at URL: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/482771530290792652/pdf/127816-REVISED-quality-joint-publication-July2018-Complete-vignettes-ebook-L.pdf.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 107

  WongC. Y.Al-SalamiH.DassC. R. (2018). Recent Advancements in Oral Administration of Insulin-Loaded Liposomal Drug Delivery Systems for Diabetes Mellitus. Int. J. Pharm.549 (1-2), 201–217. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.07.041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article