Trends in insulin initiation and treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes

Use of Voice-Based Conversational Artificial Intelligence for Basal Insulin Prescription Management Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Optimizing insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes can be challenging given the need for frequent dose adjustments. Most patients receive suboptimal doses and do not achieve glycemic control.

Objective

To examine whether a voice-based conversational artificial intelligence (AI) application can help patients with type 2 diabetes titrate basal insulin at home to achieve rapid glycemic control.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 primary care clinics at an academic medical center from March 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, 32 adults with type 2 diabetes requiring initiation or adjustment of once-daily basal insulin were followed up for 8 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed from January to February 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive basal insulin management with a voice-based conversational AI application or standard of care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were time to optimal insulin dose (number of days needed to achieve glycemic control), insulin adherence, and change in composite survey scores measuring diabetes-related emotional distress and attitudes toward health technology and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were glycemic control and glycemic improvement. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.

Results

The study population included 32 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [12.7] years; 19 women [59.4%]). Participants in the voice-based conversational AI group more quickly achieved optimal insulin dosing compared with the standard of care group (median, 15 days [IQR, 6-27 days] vs >56 days [IQR, >29.5 to >56 days]; a significant difference in time-to-event curves; P = .006) and had better insulin adherence (mean [SD], 82.9% [20.6%] vs 50.2% [43.0%]; difference, 32.7% [95% CI, 8.0%-57.4%]; P = .01). Participants in the voice-based conversational AI group were also more likely than those in the standard of care group to achieve glycemic control (13 of 16 [81.3%; 95% CI, 53.7%-95.0%] vs 4 of 16 [25.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-52.6%]; difference, 56.3% [95% CI, 21.4%-91.1%]; P = .005) and glycemic improvement, as measured by change in mean (SD) fasting blood glucose level (-45.9 [45.9] mg/dL [95% CI, -70.4 to -21.5 mg/dL] vs 23.0 [54.7] mg/dL [95% CI, -8.6 to 54.6 mg/dL]; difference, -68.9 mg/dL [95% CI, -107.1 to -30.7 mg/dL]; P = .001). There was a significant difference between the voice-based conversational AI group and the standard of care group in change in composite survey scores measuring diabetes-related emotional distress (-1.9 points vs 1.7 points; difference, -3.6 points [95% CI, -6.8 to -0.4 points]; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of a voice-based conversational AI application that provided autonomous basal insulin management for adults with type 2 diabetes, participants in the AI group had significantly improved time to optimal insulin dose, insulin adherence, glycemic control, and diabetes-related emotional distress compared with those in the standard of care group. These findings suggest that voice-based digital health solutions can be useful for medication titration.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05081011.

Where to Initiate Basal Insulin Therapy: Inpatient or Outpatient Department? Real-World Observation in China

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of initiating insulin therapy in inpatient and outpatient settings during a 6-month follow-up period among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real-world settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was based on the ORBIT study, a real-world observational study which recruited patients with inadequate glycemic control by oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) and initiated basal insulin (BI). We compare difference in initiation and evolution of insulin therapy and glycemic control after six months were compared between patients initiating basal insulin in the inpatient department (inpatient initiators) and those starting in outpatient (outpatient initiators) among participants without rehospitalization during the six months follow-up.

RESULTS

Among all 18,995 participants in the ORBIT study, 56.0% were inpatient initiators and 44.0% outpatient. We conducted in-depth analysis among 14,860 patients without rehospitalization, 8129 inpatient initiators and 6731 outpatient initiators. (1) Inpatient initiators had lower insulin therapy persistence during six months (64.2%) than outpatient ones (78.6%) (p<0.001), which was mainly explained by more therapy switches from basal-bolus regimen to other therapies among inpatient initiators (50.1%) than that among outpatient initiators (37.5%) (p<0.001). (2) Inpatient initiation had a higher proportion of people achieving glucose targets (HbA1c <7%) than outpatient initiation. However, the benefit of inpatient initiation versus outpatient initiation was mainly observed among patients persisting with the initial insulin therapies (46.3% vs 39.5% p<0.001), rather than those nonpersistent (37.3% vs 36.2%, p=0.723). (3) Among patients with HbA1c <9%, taking only one OAD and without complications at baseline, inpatient insulin initiation did not show a higher proportion of people achieving glucose target than outpatient initiation (adjusted odds ratio=0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.21).

CONCLUSION

For patients with HbA1c ≥9%, who were taking more than one OAD and had complications at baseline, initiating insulin treatment during hospitalization has a higher proportion of people achieving glucose target than that in the outpatient department, but the premise is that the initial therapy is acceptable and can be maintained after discharge. Patient-centered approach with co-agreed decision-making to select a suitable insulin regimen should be strengthened.

Effect of Diabetes-Trained Nurse Practitioners on Glycemic Outcomes: Their Suggested Use in Busy Primary Care Practices

A Federally Qualified Health Center received ongoing external support for half-time salaries for two nurse practitioners to treat people with poorly controlled diabetes (A1C >9.0%) in the clinic's diabetes program using approved detailed treatment protocols. Patients were treated for 1 year and graduated from this program if their A1C fell to <7.5%. Ninety-one percent graduated, and treatment was deemed to have failed in 9% who did not achieve an A1C <7.5% by the end of the year of treatment. The suggestion is made to assign a specially trained diabetes nurse or physician assistant to serve many primary care providers at important clinical junctures to improve diabetes outcomes throughout busy primary care practices.

Use of biologic or targeted-synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and risk of diabetes treatment intensification in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

Given that RA treatment might affect the severity of diabetes mellitus (DM), we compared the risk of DM treatment intensification in patients with both RA and DM newly initiating a biologic DMARD or tofacitinib.

METHODS

Using claims data from the IBM MarketScan database (2005-2016), we identified patients aged ≥18 years with RA who initiated abatacept, a TNF inhibitor (TNFi), rituximab, tocilizumab or tofacitinib. Patients were required to have type 1 or type 2 DM and to use at least one antidiabetic drug at baseline. We assessed DM treatment intensification (i.e. addition of a new insulin or non-insulin antidiabetic medication). We also assessed non-insulin antidiabetic medication switching events.

RESULTS

We included 10 019 patients with RA and DM initiating a biologic DMARD or tofacitinib. Baseline insulin use was the highest in rituximab initiators (44%) and lowest in tofacitinib initiators (35%). The incidence rate per 1000 person-years for DM treatment intensification ranged from 148.2 (tofacitinib) to 198.0 (rituximab). The risk of DM treatment intensification was similar between abatacept and TNFi [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.15], rituximab (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.23) and tocilizumab (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.19), but lower for tofacitinib compared with abatacept (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.90). The risk of non-insulin DM treatment switching was not different between abatacept and other biologic DMARDs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with both RA and DM, we found no difference in the risk of DM treatment switching or intensification after initiating abatacept vs TNFi, rituximab and tocilizumab, whereas the risk appeared to be lower for tofacitinib.

Glycemic control and use of glucose-lowering medications in hospital-admitted type 2 diabetes patients over 80 years

Treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommend avoidance of hypoglycemia and less stringent glycemic control in older patients. We examined the relation of glycemic control to glucose-lowering medications use in a cohort of patients aged>80 years with a diagnosis of T2D and a hospital admission in the Capital Region of Denmark in 2012-2016. We extracted data on medication use, diagnoses, and biochemistry from the hospitals' records. We identified 5,172 T2D patients with high degree of co-morbidity and where 17% had an HbA_1c in the range recommended for frail, comorbid, older patients with type 2 diabetes (58-75 mmol/mol (7.5-9%)). Half of the patients (n = 2,575) had an HbA_1c <48 mmol/mol (<6.5%), and a majority of these (36% of all patients) did not meet the diagnostic criteria for T2D. Of patients treated with one or more glucose-lowering medications (n = 1,758), 20% had HbA_1c-values <42 mmol/mol (<6%), and 1% had critically low Hba_1c values <30 mmol/mol (<4.9%), In conclusion, among these hospitalized T2D patients, few had an HbA_1c within the generally recommended glycemic targets. One third of patients did not meet the diagnostic criteria for T2D, and of the patients who were treated with glucose-lowering medications, one-fifth had HbA_1c-values suggesting overtreatment.

Factors associated with the discontinuation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) after initiation of insulin

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a prevalent health problem. Oral agents, with the exception of metformin, are often discontinued with the initiation of insulin. The objective was to understand the proportion of patients discontinuing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and the reasons for the decision to discontinue.Methods: A retrospective study using a health claims database investigated discontinuation of DPP-4i in adult patients on a dual therapy of metformin and DPP-4i who initiated insulin (n = 3391). An online survey administered to 406 physicians in the US examined reasons for discontinuation. Physicians surveyed included endocrinologists (34.5%), general practitioners (32.5%), internal medicine specialists (30.5%), and diabetologists (2.5%), treating a monthly average of 154 patients.Results: Among patients treated with metformin and DPP-4is who were newly prescribed insulin, 33.3 and 57.3% discontinued DPP-4i therapy within 3 and 12 months, respectively. Patients who discontinued DPP-4i therapy had higher out-of-pocket costs and a greater proportion of renal and liver disease. Top 3 responses for discontinuation included adverse events/tolerability issues (58.9%), lack of efficacy/treatment goals not being met (55.4%) and additional cost of DPP-4i with insulin (48.5%). Top 3 responses for continuing DPP-4i included meeting treatment goals (70.7%), using a lower dose of insulin (65.3%) and good tolerability (48.0%). Physician characteristics, such as physician specialty, age, gender and location impacted to some extent the reasons for treatment decisions.Conclusions: A large proportion of patients discontinue DPP-4is in the real world when initiating insulin. The impact of physician characteristics in treatment decisions highlights the need for enhanced physician training and support as new clinical data emerges and therapy options are available.

Association of Potentially Modifiable Diabetes Care Factors With Glycemic Control in Patients With Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

IMPORTANCE

Numerous factors are associated with the ability of patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve optimal glycemic control. However, many of these factors are not modifiable by quality improvement interventions. In contrast, the structure of how diabetes care is delivered, such as whether patients visit an endocrinologist or how prescriptions are filled, is potentially modifiable, yet its associations with glycemic control have not been rigorously evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of diabetes care delivery with glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used baseline claims and laboratory insurer data within a large pragmatic trial to identify individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin with data for at least 1 hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test result from before trial randomization (July 1, 2014, to October 5, 2016) and for key nonmodifiable patient factors as well as diabetes care delivery and behavioral factors measured before the HbA1c test. Analyses were conducted from February 4, 2017, to November 13, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multivariable modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the independent associations of nonmodifiable patient factors and potentially modifiable diabetes care delivery and patient behavioral factors with achieving adequate diabetes control (ie, HbA1c level <8%). The extent of measured variation explained in glycemic control by these factors was also explored using pseudo R2 and C statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1423 patients included, 565 (39.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (9.0) years. In total, 690 (48.5%) had HbA1c levels less than 8%. Age (relative risk [RR] per 1-unit increase, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), persistent use of basal insulin (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43), more frequent filling of glucose self-testing supplies (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02), visiting an endocrinologist (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.19-1.67), and receipt of insulin prescriptions by mail order (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48) were all independently associated with adequate control. Measured potentially modifiable diabetes care factors explained more variation in adequate glycemic control than measured nonmodifiable patient factors (C statistic, 0.661 vs 0.598; pseudo R2 = 0.11 vs 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin, the way in which care is delivered may be more strongly associated with achieving adequate control of HbA1c levels than patient factors that cannot be altered are. Given the potential for intervention, these care delivery factors could be the focus of efforts to improve diabetes outcomes.

Effect of Remote Glucose Monitoring Utilizing Computerized Insulin Dose Adjustment Algorithms: A Pilot Project

INTRODUCTION

Primary care physicians are often challenged to adjust insulin doses. To facilitate this process, we evaluated in a safety net clinic the work flow and glycemic effects of remote glucose monitoring utilizing Federal Drug Administration (FDA) cleared, Conformité Européenne (CE) registered software that contained computerized algorithms for insulin dose adjustments to help clinicians make dosing decisions for insulin-requiring patients.

METHODS

Patients taking insulin for at least 6 months with HbA1_c levels of at least 8.0% measured glucose levels with a meter attached to their smartphones. Readings were automatically transmitted to a secure, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-approved server. Values were analyzed every 2-3 weeks and reports, including recommendations for insulin dose changes, were sent to a clinic nurse practitioner (NP) who modified or accepted the recommendations. A staff person contacted patients with the new doses determined by the NP.

RESULTS

Insulin regimens included basal alone (N = 11), basal/bolus (N = 14), and self-mixed/split (N = 3). Baseline HbA1 levels of 10.0% fell to 8.1% at 3 months (N = 28) and 7.6% at 6 months (N = 17) without any clinic visits for dose adjustments. There were 268 reports which allowed providers to see 268 other patients during these avoided clinic visits. The NP agreed with 82% of the recommendations. The total doses of insulin increased by 24%. No patient experienced severe hypoglycemia or visited an emergency department for hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Remote glucose monitoring utilizing computerized insulin dose adjustment algorithms saved time for both providers and patients while effectively improving glycemia.

FUNDING

The Leonard M. Lipman Charitable Trust and Mellitus Health.

Safety and Efficacy of Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide (IDegLira) and Insulin Glargine U100/Lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), Two Novel Co-Formulations of a Basal Insulin and a Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist, in Patients With Diabetes Not Adequately Controlled on Oral Antidiabetic Medications

IN BRIEF Novel co-formulations of basal insulin analogs and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have provided new options for patients with type 2 diabetes who are not reaching recommended glycemic targets. The components of currently available co-formulations (insulin degludec/ liraglutide [IDegLira,] and insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide [iGlarLixi]) act synergistically to address multiple pathophysiologic defects while minimizing the side effects associated with either component when used alone. In Europe, these products are approved for use in patients on regimens of one or more oral antidiabetic drugs; in the United States, they are indicated for use as an adjunct to diet and exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with either basal insulin or their respective GLP-1 receptor agonist component. This article reviews key clinical trials in which these products were initiated in insulin-naive patients and describes how they can be safely and effectively titrated in clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin+dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to metformin+sulfonylureas for treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically use several drug treatments during their lifetime. There is a debate about the best second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure due to the increasing number of available antidiabetic drugs and the lack of comparative clinical trials of secondary treatment regimens. While prior research compared the cost-effectiveness of two alternative drugs, the literature assessing T2D treatment pathways is scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) compared to sulfonylureas (SU) as second-line therapy in combination with metformin in patients with T2D.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with four health states, 1 year cycle, and a 25-year time horizon. Clinical and cost data were collected from previous studies and other readily available secondary data sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from the US third party payer perspective. Both, costs and outcomes, were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base-case results.

RESULTS

The discounted incremental cost of metformin+DPP-4i compared to metformin+SU was $11,849 and the incremental life-years gained were 0.61, resulting in an ICER of $19,420 per life-year gained for patients in the metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway. The ICER estimated in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis was $19,980 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were not sensitive to changes in the parameters used in base-case.

CONCLUSIONS

The metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway was cost-effective compared to metformin+SU as a long-term second-line therapy in the treatment of T2D from the US health care payer perspective. Study findings have the potential to provide clinicians and third party payers valuable evidence for the prescription and utilization of cost-effective second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure in the treatment of T2D.

Comparison of Insulin Dose Adjustments by Primary Care Physicians and Endocrinologists

IN BRIEF Insulin dose adjustment decisions in 20 simulated patients by nine primary care physicians (PCPs) and nine endocrinologists were compared to the algorithms used in a diabetes program in a large safety-net clinic. The number of dose changes was similar in the PCP and endocrinologist groups; however, the amounts of the dose changes in the PCP group were significantly closer to the diabetes program algorithms than the amounts in the endocrinologist group. Time constraints, rather than lack of ability, seem to be the major barrier to PCPs treating patients with insulin.

Physicians' real-world experience with IDegLira: results of a European survey

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to build on the current clinical findings and investigate physicians' experiences and level of satisfaction in using insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) to treat patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicountry, European online survey included respondents from primary (n=132) and secondary (n=103) care and examined physicians' use, confidence and satisfaction with IDegLira. To standardize responses, 24 of 28 questions pertained to an 'average patient' with T2D who has no major comorbidities, aged 35-70 years, with average cognitive ability/normal mental status and body mass index ≥25 kg/m².

RESULTS

The majority (70%) of respondents prescribe IDegLira in the same visit they first mention it, with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (44%) and weight gain (22%) being the most common reasons. On average, physicians reported that patients weighed 95 kg and the HbA1c level was 9.0% at initiation. Physicians also reported the average HbA1c target set was 7.1%; 76% of patients achieved their target. On average, patients achieved their HbA1c target in <6 months, and the average dose of IDegLira in patients in glycemic control was 28 dose steps. Respondents were more satisfied with IDegLira than basal-bolus therapy across all parameters assessed, including reaching HbA1c targets (59%), number of injections (77%) and avoiding weight gain (84%). Correspondingly, 77% of physicians reported that IDegLira had more potential to improve patient motivation compared with basal-bolus to reach target blood glucose levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world experience of IDegLira is consistent with previous trials/studies, with no major differences between primary and secondary care. Importantly, the majority of respondents were more/much more satisfied with IDegLira than with basal-bolus therapy.

Challenges and unmet needs in basal insulin therapy: lessons from the Asian experience

Basal insulin therapy can improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. However, timely initiation, optimal titration, and proper adherence to prescribed basal insulin regimens are necessary to achieve optimal glycemic control. Even so, glycemic control may remain suboptimal in a significant proportion of patients. Unique circumstances in Asia (eg, limited resources, management of diabetes primarily in nonspecialist settings, and patient populations that are predominantly less educated) coupled with the limitations of current basal insulin options (eg, risk of hypoglycemia and dosing time inflexibility) amplify the challenge of optimal basal insulin therapy in Asia. Significant progress has been made with long-acting insulin analogs (insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir), which provide longer coverage and less risk of hypoglycemia over intermediate-acting insulin (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin). Furthermore, recent clinical evidence suggests that newer long-acting insulin analogs, new insulin glargine 300 units/mL and insulin degludec, may address some of the unmet needs of current basal insulin options in terms of risk of hypoglycemia and dosing time inflexibility. Nevertheless, more can be done to overcome barriers to basal insulin therapy in Asia, through educating both patients and physicians, developing better patient support models, and improving accessibility to long-acting insulin analogs. In this study, we highlight the unique challenges associated with basal insulin therapy in Asia and, where possible, propose strategies to address the unmet needs by drawing on clinical experiences and perspectives in Asia.

Group visits to encourage insulin initiation: targeting patient barriers

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of an 'insulin introduction' group visit on insulin initiation and A1C in adults with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND

The clinical course of type 2 diabetes involves eventual beta-cell failure and the need for insulin therapy. Patient psychological insulin resistance, provider-related delays and system barriers to timely initiation of insulin are common. Group visits are widely accepted by patients and represent a potential strategy for improving insulin initiation.

DESIGN

A single two-hour group visit in English or Spanish, facilitated by advanced practice nurses, addressed psychological insulin resistance and encouraged mock injections to overcome needle anxiety.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 273 patients referred from 2008-2012, determined characteristics of group attenders, rates of mock self-injection, rates of insulin initiation and changes in A1C from baseline to 2-6 and 7-12 months postgroup. Change in A1C was compared to patients referred to the group who did not attend ('nonattenders').

RESULTS

Of 241 patients eligible for analysis, 87·6% were racial/ethnic minorities with an average A1C of 9·99%. Group attendance rate was 66%; 92% performed a mock injection, 55% subsequently started insulin. By 2-6 months, A1C decreased by 1·37% among group attenders, and by 1·6% in those who did a mock injection and started insulin. Fewer nonattenders started insulin in primary care (40%), experiencing an A1C reduction of 0·56% by 2-6 months. A1C improvements were sustained by 7-12 months among group attenders and nonattenders who started insulin.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses can effectively address patient fears and engage patients in reframing insulin therapy within group visits.

CONCLUSIONS

This one-time nurse-facilitated group visit addressing psychological barriers to insulin in a predominantly minority patient population resulted in increased insulin initiation rates and clinically meaningful A1C reductions.

Cross-National Variation in Glycemic Control and Diabetes-Related Distress Among East Asian Patients Using Insulin: Results from the MOSAIc Study

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend insulin progression for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with inadequate glycemic control. The Multinational Observational Study Assessing Insulin use (MOSAIc [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01400971]) study is a 2-year observational study, investigating factors that influence insulin progression in T2D patients. In this first of two reports, we describe baseline clinical and psychosocial characteristics of Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean patients who participated in MOSAIc. Insulin treatment, factors affecting progression, and outcomes will be reported separately.

METHODS

Patients with T2D using insulin for ≥3 months were eligible. Baseline demographic, clinical, and psychosocial data were collected from patients. Quality of life instruments, including the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), were used to assess patient's concerns about disease management, support, and emotional burden. The association between the DDS and the selected covariates was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients in China, 157 in Japan, and 141 in South Korea were enrolled from July 2011 to July 2013. Mean ± standard deviation duration (years) of T2D differed across countries (China 11.4 ± 7.5; Japan 13.8 ± 8.7; South Korea 15.7 ± 8.8; P < 0.0001). Japanese patients used more noninsulin anti-hyperglycemic agents than did Chinese or South Korean patients (P < 0.0001). Exclusive use of basal insulin was most common in Japan and South Korea compared with China, whereas approximately 66.8% of Chinese patients used mixed insulin. Covariates associated with the DDS were younger age [P = 0.044 (Japan)], higher incidence of monthly hypoglycemia [P = 0.036 [China]; P = 0.021 (South Korea)], and male gender [P = 0.037 (South Korea)].

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant differences amongst East Asian patients with T2D treated with insulin, including in quality of life scores. Results from the MOSAIc longitudinal analyses will further investigate trends of insulin intensification and barriers to insulin progression.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Healthcare utilization of people with type 2 diabetes in Germany: an analysis based on health insurance data

AIMS

This population-based study assesses the healthcare utilization of people with Type 2 diabetes by analysing routine data from Allgemeine Orts-Krankenkasse (AOK), the largest statutory health insurance provider in Germany.

METHODS

Anonymized billing data from all AOK-insured persons with at least one day of insurance during the evaluation year 2010 were analysed. Treatment and cost data from all areas of inpatient and outpatient care were available, as was information regarding patient age and sex. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnosis and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification were used to identify 2.7 million insured persons with diabetes.

RESULTS

The age- and sex-standardized prevalence of Type 2 diabetes was 9.8%. Of those patients identified, 33.9% had at least one diabetes-related complication and 83.0% had a diagnosis of hypertension. Almost two-thirds (63.1%) received antihyperglycaemic medication. Metformin and sulfonylurea were prescribed most often; medications without proof of benefit in endpoint studies were prescribed much less frequently. People without diabetes were admitted to hospital only half as often as those with Type 2 diabetes. The projected total expenditure in Germany for all people with Type 2 diabetes amounted to approximately €33.3 billion in 2010.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows an increase in both the prevalence of diabetes and treatment costs. The majority of people with Type 2 diabetes were aged 70 years or older. One third of this group has diabetes-related complications. Antihyperglycaemic medications without proof of benefit in endpoint studies were prescribed much less frequently than drugs with proof of benefit.

What happens when patients require intensification from basal insulin? A retrospective audit of clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from four Australian centres

AIMS

Little is known about clinical practices beyond the initiation of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Australia. To determine the proportion of patients who progressed from basal insulin to each of three possible therapy groups: Group 1 addition of rapid-acting insulin, Group 2 switch to pre-mixed insulin, Group 3 addition of another therapy (incretin, glitazone, sulphonylurea, metformin, acarbose).

METHODS

Retrospective audit across four Australian hospital clinics. Patients had a diagnosis of T2DM, basal insulin had been initiated and a subsequent treatment intensification/change had occurred during the analysis period (September 2007-March 2012).

RESULTS

Patients were classified into one of three intensification groups for analysis: Group 1, 56.1% (111/198); Group 2, 22.7% (45/198) and Group 3, 21.2% (42/198). Prior to basal insulin initiation, mean T2DM duration was 11 years. Between starting basal insulin and treatment intensification, 42/183 (22.9%) patients achieved the HbA1c target of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Initiation of basal insulin provided temporary improvement in glycaemic control followed by subsequent deterioration. With further treatment intensification, only 40/180 (22.2%) patients achieved the HbA1c target of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Patients in the insulin groups gained weight (Group 1, rapid acting insulin, 1.9 ± 7.4 kg; Group 2, premixed insulin 2.3 ± 4.8 kg); those in Group 3 lost weight (-0.9 ± 13.54 kg). Hypoglycaemic episodes were uncommon irrespective of group.

CONCLUSIONS

There is continued need for improved patient management; individualised strategies should focus on when to initiate insulin, how to adjust and optimise doses over time and, when required, the introduction of intensification regimens.

The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research

BACKGROUND

The importance of understanding the perspective of patients towards their own care is increasingly recognized, both in clinical practice and in pharmaceutical drug development. Stated preference methods to assess the preference of patients towards different aspects of diabetes treatment have now been applied for over a decade.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, and to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical and policy decisions.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The information sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Current Contents, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit.

RESULTS

Three contingent valuation studies and 11 discrete choice experiments were retrieved. The majority of studies were conducted from 2009 onwards, but some date back to 1998. The reasons provided for applying the stated preference methods were to help differentiate between products, or to enable inclusion of the patient's perspective in treatment decisions. The main aspects of treatment examined were related to glucose control, adverse events, and drug administration. The majority of patients preferred glucose control over avoiding minor hypoglycemic events. Patient willingness to pay was above $US100/month for glucose control, avoiding immediate health hazards such as nausea, and oral or inhaled drug administration. Preference towards drug administration was highly associated with previous experience with injectable diabetes medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions-from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage-is warranted.