Patients' and Clinicians' Preferences on Outcomes and Medication Attributes for Type 2 Diabetes: a Mixed-Methods Study

The Role of Real-World Evidence in Treatment Decision-Making, Regulatory Assessment, and Understanding the Perspectives of People with Type 2 Diabetes: Examples with Gliclazide MR

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an important role in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). It provides data about the effectiveness and safety of an intervention from outside the randomised controlled trial (RCT) setting and allows healthcare professionals (HCPs) to determine if RCT data are applicable to their patients in routine clinical practice. This review provides a discussion of the value of RWE in T2D management in day-to-day clinical practice, with a focus on RWE with sulfonylureas (SUs), and presents two examples of a new generation of international real-world studies in people with T2D managed in routine clinical practice. RWE plays a valuable role in advising HCPs in the day-to-day management of T2D, informing regulatory authorities with regard to pharmacovigilance and post-approval updates, and providing insights with regard to patients' treatment adherence and preference. RWE should be used alongside RCTs to increase HCP awareness and understanding of their patients' perspectives, potentially allowing for improvements in treatment adherence, glycaemic control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, real-world studies must be conducted in a way that generates robust RWE by limiting the risks of bias and confounding as much as possible. A growing body of RWE is emerging from Asia. For example, in a preliminary HRQoL analysis of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register, Asian people with T2D had better HRQoL with gliclazide-based treatment than with other SU agents, despite being older and having more diabetes-related complications.

Prescriber Uncertainty as Opportunity to Improve Care of Type 2 Diabetes with Chronic Kidney Disease: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Over 5 million patients in the United States have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) with chronic kidney disease (CKD); antidiabetic drug selection for this population is complex and has important implications for outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand how providers choose antidiabetic drugs in T2D with CKD DESIGN: Mixed methods. Interviews with providers underwent qualitative analysis using grounded theory to identify themes related to antidiabetic drug prescribing. A provider survey used vignettes and direct questions to quantitatively assess prescribers' knowledge and preferences. A retrospective cohort analysis of real-world prescribing data assessed the external validity of the interview and survey findings.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care physicians, endocrinologists, nurse-practitioners, and physicians' assistants were eligible for interviews; primary care physicians and endocrinologists were eligible for the survey; prescribing data were derived from adult patients with serum creatinine data.

MAIN MEASURES

Interviews were qualitative; for the survey and retrospective cohort, proportion of patients receiving metformin was the primary outcome.

KEY RESULTS

Interviews with 9 providers identified a theme of uncertainty about guidelines for prescribing antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2D and CKD. The survey had 105 respondents: 74 primary care providers and 31 endocrinologists. Metformin was the most common choice for patients with T2D and CKD. Compared to primary care providers, endocrinologists were less likely to prescribe metformin at levels of kidney function at which it is contraindicated and more likely to correctly answer a question about metformin's contraindications (71% versus 41%) (p < .05). Real-world data were consistent with survey findings, and further showed low rates of use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (<10%) in patients with eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers are unsure how to treat T2D with CKD and incompletely informed as to existing guidelines. This suggests opportunities to improve care.

Personalized Type 2 Diabetes Management: An Update on Recent Advances and Recommendations

Previous guidelines for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have relied heavily upon rigid algorithms for the sequential addition of pharmacotherapies to achieve target glycemic control. More recent guidelines advocate a personalized approach for diabetes treatment, to improve patient satisfaction, quality of life, medication adherence and overall health outcomes. Clinicians should work with patients to develop personalized goals for their treatment, including targeted glycemic control, weight management, prevention and treatment of associated comorbidities and avoidance of complications such as hypoglycemia. Factors that affect the intensity of treatment and choice of pharmacotherapy should include medical and patient influences. Medical considerations include the diabetes phenotype, biomarkers including genetic tests, and the presence of comorbidities such as cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic disease. Patient factors include their treatment preference, age and life expectancy, diabetes duration, hypoglycemia fear and unawareness, psychological and social circumstances. The use of a personalized approach in the management of people with T2D can reduce the cost and failure associated with the algorithmic "one-size-fits-all" approach, to anticipate disease progression, improve the response to diabetes pharmacotherapy and reduce the incidence of diabetes-associated complications. Ultimately, the use of personalized medicine in people with T2D should improve medication adherence, patient satisfaction and quality of life to reduce diabetes distress and improve physical health outcomes.

Comparative efficacy of glucose-lowering medications on body weight and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources until 29 September 2020 for randomized controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. We performed frequentist network meta-analyses and calculated weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals combining trial arms of different approved doses of a given intervention into a single group. We evaluated the confidence in pooled estimates using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis) framework.

RESULTS

In total, 424 trials (276 336 patients) assessing 21 antidiabetic medications from nine drug classes were included. Subcutaneous semaglutide was the most efficacious in reducing body weight followed by oral semaglutide, exenatide twice-daily, liraglutide, and the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin. The same agents also conferred the greatest reductions in systolic blood pressure. Metformin had a modest effect in reducing body weight and systolic blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure was reduced with the SGLT-2 inhibitors pioglitazone, exenatide twice-daily and semaglutide. In subgroup analyses of trials with over 52 weeks' duration, semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced both body weight and systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors conferred reductions both in body weight and blood pressure that were sustainable for over 1 year of treatment. These agents may be preferable treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes who are overweight/obese and/or hypertensive.

Adoption of and adherence to the Hellenic Diabetes Association guidelines for the management of subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus by Greek physicians

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of adoption of and adherence to the Hellenic Diabetes Association (HDA) guidelines for the management of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by Greek physicians.

METHODS

We used a constructed questionnaire distributed to physicians in Greece. The questionnaire assessed the adoption of and adherence to the general and treatment guidelines of the HDA, as well as factors affecting physicians' prescribing habits and demographic characteristics of the participating healthcare professionals. Factors affecting the preferred therapy or glycated hemoglobin target setting were evaluated using non-parametric tests. The likelihood of adherence was estimated by logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Adoption of the HDA guidelines was reported by 92.2% of physicians. Adherence to the treatment algorithm was reported by 53.5% and to the general HDA guidelines by 42.0% of healthcare professionals; overall adherence to both general and treatment guidelines was 26.1%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the likelihood of adherence to treatment guidelines was higher among individuals attending over five in comparison with those attending under two diabetes seminars per year (p = 0.037); in contrast, years of work (professional experience ≥ 21 vs. ≤ 5 years) affected adherence negatively (p = 0.031). No significant association was found between other parameters and adherence to either general or overall guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption rates of the guidelines for the management of T2DM were high, while adherence rates to general and treatment guidelines were low. The rate of seminar attendance affected treatment adherence positively, while long professional practice affected treatment adherence negatively.

Comparative Effectiveness of Glucose-Lowering Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several pharmacologic options for type 2 diabetes are available.

PURPOSE

To compare benefits and harms of glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

Several databases from inception through 18 December 2019 and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 April 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language randomized trials that had at least 24 weeks of intervention and assessed the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on mortality, glycemic, and vascular outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pairs of reviewers extracted data and appraised risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

453 trials assessing 21 antidiabetic interventions from 9 drug classes were included. Interventions included monotherapies (134 trials), add-on to metformin-based therapies (296 trials), and monotherapies versus add-on to metformin therapies (23 trials). There were no differences between treatments in drug-naive patients at low cardiovascular risk. Insulin regimens and specific glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) added to metformin-based background therapy produced the greatest reductions in hemoglobin A_1c level. In patients at low cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background treatment (298 trials), there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments for mortality and vascular outcomes. In patients at increased cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background treatment (21 trials), oral semaglutide, empagliflozin, liraglutide, extended-release exenatide, and dapagliflozin reduced all-cause mortality. Oral semaglutide, empagliflozin, and liraglutide also reduced cardiovascular death. Odds of stroke were lower with subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors reduced heart failure hospitalization and end-stage renal disease. Subcutaneous semaglutide and canagliflozin increased diabetic retinopathy and amputation, respectively.

LIMITATION

Inconsistent definitions of cardiovascular risk and low-level confidence in some estimates for patients at low cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSION

In diabetic patients at low cardiovascular risk, no treatment differs from placebo for vascular outcomes. In patients at increased cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background therapy, specific GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors have a favorable effect on certain cardiovascular outcomes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, supported by an unrestricted educational grant from AstraZeneca. (PROSPERO: CRD42019122043).