Comparison of Efficacy and Economic Value of Prandilin 25 and Humalog Mix 25 in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes by a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System

INTRODUCTION: To determine the clinical efficacy and economic value of insulin lispro 25-Prandilin 25 vs. insulin lispro 25-Humalog mix 25 in treatment of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, case-crossover clinical trial. Participants were randomly allocated to two groups and underwent two kinds of insulin lispro 25 treatment separated by a 1-day washout period. In total, 81 patients with newly diagnosed T2DM with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) above 9% were hospitalized and randomly divided to receive Prandilin 25/Humalog mix 25 or Humalog mix 25/Prandilin 25 treatment. All participants were subjected to metformin therapy simultaneously. Glycemic control was reached after 7–8 days Prandilin 25 or Humalog mix 25 treatment; each patient received continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 5 consecutive days (from day 1 to day 5). On day 3 of CGM performance, Prandilin 25 treatment was switched to Humalog mix 25 treatment at the same dosage or vice versa. Parameters representing glycemic variability (GV) and postprandial glucose excursions, including 24-h mean blood glucose (24hMBG), 24-h standard deviation of blood glucose (24hSDBG), 24-h mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (24hMAGE), large amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE), incremental area under the curve (AUC) for different glucose levels, and postmeal relative areas under the CGM curve (AUCpp) for 1–4 h of each meal, were calculated for each patient. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the 24hMAGE, 24hMBG, 24hSDBG, LAGE, mean 1-h preprandial blood glucose and the incidence of hypoglycemia between the Prandilin 25 treatment group and Humalog mix 25 treatment group. Similarly, there were no between-treatment differences for AUC and time when blood glucose was below 3.9 mmol/l, between 3.9 mmol/l and 10.0 mmol/l, or above 10.0 mmol/l. Further analysis showed the AUCpp for 1–4 h of each meal for two kinds of treatments were similar. However, the mean estimated cost of Prandilin 25 was only 85% of Humalog mix 25 in one treatment course. CONCLUSION: Prandilin 25 is non-inferior in clinical efficacy compared with Humalog mix 25. In view of the significant difference in the cost of the two kinds of insulin lispro 25, Prandilin 25 is a much more cost-effective anti-diabetes drug for management of T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Register identifier, ChiCTR1800015829.