Are patients on basal insulin attaining glycemic targets? Characteristics and goal achievement of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin and physician-perceived barriers to achieving glycemic targets

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme

AIMS

Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

Patient and physician perspectives and experiences of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes in the United States: Cross-sectional surveys

AIM

Patient- and physician-associated barriers impact the effectiveness of basal insulin (BI) titration in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated the experiences of patients with T2D and physicians with BI titration education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this observational, cross-sectional study, patients with T2D and physicians treating patients with T2D were identified by claims in the Optum Research Database and were invited to complete a survey. Eligible patients had 12 months of continuous health-plan enrolment with medical and pharmacy benefits during the baseline period, and recent initiation of BI therapy. Eligible physicians had initiated BI for ≥1 eligible patient with T2D during the past 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 416 patients and 386 physicians completed the survey. Ninety per cent of physicians reported treating ≥50 patients with T2D; 66% treated ≥25% of patients with BI. Whereas 74% of patients reported that BI titration was explained to them by a physician, 96% of physicians reported doing so. Furthermore, 20% of patients stated they were offered educational materials whereas 56% of physicians reported having provided materials. Physicians had higher expectations of glycaemic target achievement than were seen in the patient survey; their main concern was the patients' ability to titrate accurately (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a marked difference in patients' and physicians' experiences of BI titration education. Novel tools and strategies are required to enable effective BI titration, with more educational resources at the outset, and ongoing access to tools that provide clear, simple direction for self-titration with less reliance on physicians/health care providers.

A retrospective comparison between intensive and nonintensive insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

This study compared the outcomes between intensive and nonintensive insulin regimens and assessed the predictive factors for failing to achieve the glycated hemoglobin (A1C) goals in type-2-diabetes-mellitus (T2DM) patients requiring insulin therapy.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective assessment of the medical records of 125 T2DM patients undergoing intensive (46 patients) and nonintensive insulin therapy (79 patients) were conducted.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found when the intensive and nonintensive insulin therapy groups were compared in terms of the percentage decreases of glucose and A1C levels. The mean A1C levels of the nonintensive and intensive groups declined from 11.15% and 11.30% to 7.97% and 8.06%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both intensive and nonintensive insulin therapies improved the baseline glycemic parameters but being overweight or obese and/or being reluctant to dietary recommendations led to treatment failures regardless of the insulin regimen.

Organosulfurs, S-allyl cysteine and N-acetyl cysteine sequester di-carbonyls and reduces carbonyl stress in HT22 cells

Diabetes, characterized by high blood glucose level, is a progressive metabolic disease that leads to serious health complications. One of the major pathological consequences associated with diabetes is the accumulation of highly reactive carbonyl compounds called advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Most of the AGEs are dicarbonyls and have the potential to covalently modify proteins especially at the lysine residues in a non-enzymatic fashion (a process termed as glycation) resulting in the functional impairment and/or toxic gain in function. Therefore, non-toxic small molecules that can inhibit glycation are of interest for the therapeutic intervention of diabetes. In the present communication, we have investigated the effect of organosulfurs (S-allyl cysteine, SAC and N-acetyl cysteine, NAC) that are major principal components of Allium sativa against the glycation of different proteins. We discovered that both SAC and NAC are potent anti-glycating agents. We also found that both SAC and NAC reduce ROS level and inhibit apoptosis caused by protein glycation.

Gaps Remain for Achieving HbA1c Targets for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Using Insulin: Results from NHANES 2009-2020

INTRODUCTION

Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an important measure to assess glycemic control and predict diabetes complications. However, there is limited information on trends in HbA1c among people with diabetes (PwDs) who use insulin. The aim of this study was to describe trends in HbA1c among PwDs who use insulin by diabetes type and insulin regimen.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2009-2020). PwDs were classified into three cohorts: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus using mealtime insulin (T2DM-MTI), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal-only insulin (T2DM basal-only). Trends in HbA1c over time were assessed using regression analysis after adjusting for age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c values aggregated over 2009-2020 were 8.0% (T1DM), 8.6% (T2DM-MTI), and 8.6% (T2DM basal-only). The American Diabetes Association-recommended target of HbA1c of < 7% was achieved by 25.2% of people in the T1DM and T2DM-MTI groups each and by 12.3% of people in the T2DM basal-only group. Over time, an upward trend was observed in the percentage of people achieving HbA1c < 7% in the T2DM basal-only group. The percentage of PwDs achieving individualized HbA1c targets was 27.0%, 12.4%, and 16.1% for the T1DM, T2DM-MTI, and T2DM basal-only groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study using NHANES data suggests that approximately 25% of PwDs achieve glycemic targets. This study highlights the need for improved therapies to better manage glycemic targets in PwDs.

Efficacy of a Smart Insulin Pen Cap for the Management of Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial

BACKGROUND

We studied a smart insulin pen cap that can be plugged to several brand of insulin pens, to track insulin administration via smart-phone Bluetooth technology, with alarm/reminder system aiming.

METHODS

This pilot randomized, cross-over design study assessed the use of a smart insulin pen cap in improving adherence, glycemic control and patient satisfaction in insulin-treated patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Eighty patients on basal insulin ± oral agents with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) between 7.0% and 12.0% were randomized to a 12-week active phase receiving alarms/reminders and a 12-week control/masked phase without feedback. We assessed differences between groups on treatment adherence, insulin omission, and mistiming of insulin injections, HbA1c, treatment satisfaction (using Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Status).

RESULTS

Compared to the control/masked phase, the active phase resulted in lower mean daily blood glucose (147.0 ± 34 vs 157.6 ± 42 mg/dL, P < .01); and greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline (-0.98% vs -0.72%, P = .006); however, no significant differences in treatment adherence, insulin omission or insulin mistiming were observed. High patient satisfaction scores were reported in both active and control phases, with DTSQc of 15.5 ± 3.7 and 14.9 ± 3.6, respectively. Statistical models showed no residual effect after cross-over between active and control phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot study indicates that this smart insulin pen cap was effective in improving glycemic control with overall good satisfaction in insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Future studies are needed to confirm its potential for improving care in insulin treated patients with diabetes.

Barriers and Facilitators in Access to Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia Medicines: A Scoping Review

Objective: Identify barriers and facilitators in access to medicines for diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, considering patient, health provider, and health system perspectives.

Methods: Scoping review based on Joanna Briggs methodology. The search considered PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Ultimate, Web of Science, SciELO Citation Index, and grey literature. Two researchers conducted screening and eligibility phases. Data were thematically analyzed.

Results: The review included 219 documents. Diabetes was the most studied condition; most of the evidence comes from patients and the United States. Affordability and availability of medicines were the most reported dimension and specific barrier respectively, both cross-cutting concerns. Among high- and middle-income countries, identified barriers were cost of medicines, accompaniment by professionals, long distances to facilities, and cultural aspects; cost of transportation emerges in low-income settings. Facilitators reported were financial accessibility, trained health workers, medicines closer to communities, and patients’ education.

Conclusion: Barriers and facilitators are determined by socioeconomic and cultural conditions, highlighting the role of health systems in regulatory and policy context (assuring financial coverage and free medicines); providers’ role bringing medicines closer; and patients’ health education and disease management.

Managing weight and glycaemic targets in people with type 2 diabetes—How far have we come?

Introduction

As the vast majority of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are also overweight or obese, healthcare professionals (HCP) are faced with the task of addressing both weight management and glucose control. In this narrative review, we aim to identify the challenges of reaching and maintaining body weight targets in people with T2D and highlight current and future treatment interventions.

Methods

A search of the PubMed database was conducted using the search terms “diabetes” and “weight loss.”

Results

According to emerging evidence, treating obesity may be antecedent to the development and progression of T2D. While clinical benefits typically set in upon achieving a weight loss of 3–5%, these benefits are progressive leading to further health improvements, and weight loss of >15% can have a disease‐modifying effect in people with T2D, an outcome that up to recently could not be achieved with any blood glucose‐lowering pharmacotherapy. However, advanced treatment options with weight‐loss effects currently in development including the dual GIP/GLP‐1 receptor agonists may enable simultaneous achievement of individual glycemic and weight goals.

Conclusion

Despite considerable therapeutic progress, there is still a large unmet medical need in patients with T2D who miss their individualized glycemic and weight‐loss targets. Nonetheless, it is to be expected that development of future therapies and their use will favourably change the scenario of weight and glucose control in T2D.

Individualized HbA1c Goals, and Patient Awareness and Attainment of Goals in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Real-World Multinational Survey

Aims

While glycemic control is key in effective type 2 diabetes mellitus management, many patients fail to reach their individualized glycemic goal. This analysis aimed to describe a real-world picture of diabetes management: individualized hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) goals, rate of goal attainment, HbA_1c at each line of therapy, and patient awareness of their glycemic goal. Secondly, we aimed to understand physician satisfaction with HbA_1c amongst patients aware vs. those unaware of HbA_1c goal.

Methods

Analysis of physicians and the next ten consulting patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus conducted in Europe and the USA including medical record data abstraction/assessment by physicians, a patient-reported survey and a physician survey. Patients were diagnosed for 3 months or more with a known current and target HbA_1c. For the sub-analysis assessment of patient awareness of HbA_1c goal, in addition to the above, these patients had to have completed a patient-reported questionnaire and answer the question on awareness of HbA_1c goal.

Results

A total of 730 physicians provided data on 8794 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; 5331 patients were eligible for this analysis. Overall, mean (standard deviation, SD) individualized HbA_1c goal was 6.8% (0.68%). Of eligible patients, 39.1% met their HbA_1c goal; of 60.9% of patients not reaching their HbA_1c goal, the mean distance from individualized HbA_1c goal was 0.9% (SD 1.0%). Physicians progressed patients’ antihyperglycemic therapy when HbA_1c was 8% or higher. Among 2560 patients who were included in the sub-analysis assessing the effect of patient awareness of their HbA_1c goal on multiple parameters, 70.5% were aware of their HbA_1c goal; mean HbA_1c goal was 6.8% (0.7%) and current mean HbA_1c value 7.1% (1.2%). A total of 949 patients in the sub-analysis (39.2%) achieved their goal; achieving HbA_1c goal was not related to knowledge of goal. Patients aware of their HbA_1c goal were slightly more adherent to their antihyperglycemic medication. They also were prescribed more antihyperglycemic agents, more often on a later therapy line receiving a GLP-1 receptor agonist, SGLT2i, or insulin, and more often tested their blood glucose levels than patients who were unaware. Physicians were not satisfied with the current blood glucose level of one third of their patients, believing that more of those who were aware of their HbA_1c goal could achieve better glucose control (32.4% of aware vs. 28.2% of unaware patients; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Our results showed that the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus achieving their goals for glycemic control was suboptimal when compared to current guideline criteria, with only about 40% of patients achieving their individualized HbA_1c goal. Treatment intensification was often delayed until HbA_1c was 8% and higher. Patients aware of their HbA_1c goal were slightly more adherent to their antihyperglycemic medication; however, awareness of HbA_1c goal did not enhance goal attainment. This highlights the need for a holistic approach to diabetes management, involving patient education, and patient–physician communication and partnership.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01985-3.

Basal insulin intensification with GLP-1RA and dual GIP and GLP-1RA in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus: A rapid review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis

Tirzepatide, a dual agonist of Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide (GIP) and Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptors, improved glucose control and reduced body weight in different therapeutic approaches. Herein, we overviewed the role of GIP and GLP-1 in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of injectable incretin-based therapy added to basal insulin in light of the results of the SURPASS-5 trial. We identified eleven randomized clinical trials. GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) or Tirzepatide added to basal insulin than rigorously titrated basal insulin significantly ameliorates glucose control (Δ HbA_1c = -1%, 95% CI -1.25; -0.74, I² 94%; Δ FPG = -14.6 mg/dL, 95% CI -21.6-; -7.6, I² 90%; chance to achieve HbA_{1c <}7% = RR 2.62, 95% CI 2.10; 3.26, I² 89%), reduces body weight (Δ = -3.95 kg, 95% CI -5.1, -2.79, I² 96%) without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.86; 1.18, I² 7.7%). Tirzepatide provides an impressive weight loss exceeding that observed with GLP-1RAs. Injectable incretin-based therapy plus basal insulin remains a potent and safe therapeutic approach in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes patients previously treated with basal insulin alone. Tirzepatide is expected to ameliorate the management of "diabesity" in this usually difficult-to-treat cluster of patients.

Individualized HbA1c target selection and achievement in the Multinational Observational Study Assessing Insulin Use (MOSA1c) type 2 diabetes study

AIM

To identify which individual-, physician-, and the healthcare system-related factors can predict individualized hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets and the likelihood of reaching those targets after initial insulin therapy over a two-year follow-up period.

METHODS

Real-world data, including baseline characteristics of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), psychosocial data, and diabetes medication use, collected from the Multinational Observational Study Assessing Insulin Use (MOSA1c) study in 18 countries were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 225 of 1194 people with T2DM (18.8%) who received initial insulin therapy for ≥3 months reached HbA1c targets at two-year follow-up; most were likely to be White (64.9%) and perceptions of their relationship with physicians were less positive than those who did not reach HbA1c targets. Higher baseline HbA1c (>8%) was the strongest predictor of being assigned an HbA1c target >7% (odds ratio [OR] 6.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.97, 9.26). A smaller difference between baseline and target HbA1c levels was the strongest predictor of reaching an HbA1c target at two-year follow-up (large vs small difference, OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17, 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors were significantly associated with establishing individualized HbA1c targets and reaching these targets. A small proportion of people with T2DM on insulin therapy reached their HbA1c target. Personalized management of glycemic targets necessitates the adoption of multi-factorial strategies, as several factors could influence an individual's glycemic outcome. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01400971.

A practical approach to the clinical challenges in initiation of basal insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes

Initiating insulin therapy with a basal insulin analogue has become a standard of care in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite increasing choices in pharmacological approaches, intensified glucose monitoring and improvements in quality of care, many patients do not achieve the desired level of glycaemic control. Although insulin therapy, when optimized, can help patients reach their glycaemic goals, there are barriers to treatment initiation on both the side of the patient and provider. Providers experience barriers based on their perceptions of patients' capabilities and concerns. They may lack the confidence to solve the practical problems of insulin therapy and avoid decisions they perceive as risky for their patients. In this study, we review recommendations for basal insulin initiation, focussing on glycaemic targets, titration, monitoring, and combination therapy with non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications. We provide practical advice on how to address some of the key problems encountered in everyday clinical practice and give recommendations where there are gaps in knowledge or guidelines. We also discuss common challenges faced by people with T2DM, such as weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and how providers can address and overcome them.

Efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease using insulin: A VERTIS CV substudy

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) inadequately controlled by insulin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

VERTIS CV was the cardiovascular outcome study for ertugliflozin. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo, or ertugliflozin 5 mg or 15 mg once daily. We report the results of a substudy in patients on a stable dose of insulin ≥20 units/d. The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to 18 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight (BW), the proportion of patients with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure and insulin dose.

RESULTS

Of 8246 patients randomized in VERTIS CV, 1065 were included in the substudy (68.2% men, mean [SD] age 64.8 [7.8] years, T2DM duration 16.7 [9.0] years, HbA1c 8.4 [1.0]%). At week 18, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was significantly greater with ertugliflozin 5 mg and 15 mg versus placebo (placebo-adjusted LS mean change -0.58%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.71, -0.44 and -0.65%, 95% CI -0.78, -0.51, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Ertugliflozin significantly reduced FPG, BW and SBP. In women, the incidence of genital mycotic infections was higher with ertugliflozin (3.5%) versus placebo (0.0%). The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ertugliflozin added to insulin improved glycaemic control, BW and SBP versus placebo at 18 weeks in patients with T2DM and ASCVD.

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes With the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery Device in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Uncontrolled type 2 diabetes can lead to a multitude of health complications. Insulin therapy is recommended when patients are unable to reach their A1C goal with oral or noninsulin injectable diabetes medications. This study evaluated the clinical benefits of switching from multiple daily insulin injections to a wearable insulin delivery device (V-Go). A retrospective chart review was conducted on 44 patients who received prescriptions for the V-Go at two family medicine offices. Investigators found a significant reduction in A1C and daily insulin requirements with no impact on weight or BMI.

Titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide: A simplified approach to glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Approximately 50% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not achieve glycemic targets and require treatment intensification. A fixed-ratio combination of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) with basal insulin, such as lixisenatide with insulin glargine (iGlarLixi), exploits the complementary mechanisms of action of each component to address hyperglycemia while mitigating potential adverse events (AEs). The iGlarLixi dose is titrated considering the effect of basal insulin on fasting plasma glucose, and the fixed-ratio combination ensures that the lixisenatide dose never exceeds 20 μg/day. We describe the characteristics of iGlarLixi therapy, based on the LixiLan clinical program, and provide guidance on the characteristics of patients likely to benefit from such treatment in routine clinical practice. In the phase III LixiLan trials, iGlarLixi resulted in significantly greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), better achievement of HbA1c targets, less glycemic variability versus insulin glargine, lixisenatide or GLP-1 RA alone, and was associated with weight control, less hypoglycemia versus insulin glargine, and fewer GI AEs versus lixisenatide. Findings were consistent regardless of age, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c. The efficacy, safety, and convenient once-daily administration schedule of iGlarLixi make it a valuable treatment option for patients with T2DM requiring treatment intensification.

Basal Insulin Dose Titration for Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Thailand: Results of the REWARDS Real-World Study

This multicenter, longitudinal, descriptive, observational study of T2DM adults in Thailand aimed to assess real-world outcomes of basal insulin (BI) dose titration on glycemic control. Three-hundred and twenty-four patients were recruited and followed up over 24 weeks. Basal insulin titration was physician-driven in 58.2% of patients and patient-driven in the rest. During the 24-week study period, the total daily BI dose moved from 20.9 to 25.6 in the physician-driven group, while in the patient-driven group, it increased from 25.3 to 29.7. Thirty-five patients (11.2%) achieved their individualized HbA1c targets, with 18 patients (5.8%) achieving HbA1c ⩽ 7% without documented hypoglycemia. In summary, this study highlights that BI titration is suboptimal in the real world, and patients are unable to achieve their glycemic targets.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

Budget Impact Analysis of Metformin Sustained Release for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions and medication nonadherence are well-known causes of sub-optimal disease control and worsened disease outcomes in patients who are treated for type 2 diabetes. Metformin sustained release (SR) might reduce these adverse events and improve medication adherence via a simplified treatment regimen for metformin immediate release (IR)-intolerant patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of metformin SR for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands, compared to the current standard of care (SoC) with metformin IR.

METHODS

A budget impact model was built to represent the course of the disease and treatment pathway of type 2 diabetes patients eligible for metformin SR from a healthcare payer's perspective. Patients were considered eligible if they used less than 2000 mg metformin IR per day, but suffered from adverse events that might lead to therapy discontinuation, and if they were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The costs of type 2 diabetes treatment and related complications over a time horizon of 3 years were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to show which parameters have the biggest influence on the budget impact.

RESULTS

The budget impact analysis showed cost-savings of - €1,962,335 over a period of 3 years through implementation of metformin SR as an alternative to SoC with metformin IR. Savings were mostly driven by the delay of other, more expensive type 2 diabetes treatments, such as insulin. In sensitivity analyses, medication adherence and persistence appeared to have the biggest influence on the budget impact.

CONCLUSION

Metformin SR could potentially be a cost-saving alternative to metformin IR for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands, especially in patients experiencing adverse events with metformin IR. However, more research is needed to better predict the effect of using once-daily metformin, compared to multiple dosages, on medication adherence and persistence and to evaluate whether metformin SR really decreases the amount of adverse events.

Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of vildagliptin or vildagliptin/metformin combination in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on insulin therapy in a real-world setting in Egypt: The OMEGA study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin or vildagliptin/metformin combination among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on insulin in a real-world setting in Egypt.

METHODS

This 12-week, prospective, observational study enrolled T2DM patients. Primary endpoint was mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 12. Secondary endpoints included mean change in body weight, insulin dosage and safety after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 90 patients enrolled, 88 (93.6%) completed the study. The mean age was 54.7 years; men, 51.1%; body mass index (BMI), 31.6 kg/m²; T2DM duration, 89.8 months; insulin dose, 55.14 IU/day. At 12 weeks, HbA1c decreased significantly with vildagliptin/metformin (-1.3 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001) and vildagliptin (-1.1 ± 0.9%, p = 0.0001). 27.1% and 11.1% achieved HbA1c <7% in vildagliptin/metformin and vildagliptin groups, respectively. Significant mean (±standard deviation [SD]) reduction in body weight (-2.5 ± 7.3 kg, p = 0.0055) and insulin dose (-24.11 ± 22.3 IU, p < 0.0001) was observed in the vildagliptin/metformin group. Overall, 8 (8.9%) patients reported 11 (12.2%) adverse events (AEs) and no hypoglycemic events. AEs possibly related to the study drug (4.2%, in vildagliptin/metformin) were mild in severity.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin with/without metformin as an add-on to insulin resulted in good glycemic control and was well tolerated without any hypoglycemic events.

Clinical Use of IDegLira: Initiation to Titration After Basal Insulin

Delayed treatment intensification is common in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin. Concerns about weight gain, hypoglycemia, increased regimen complexity, and additional copayments may lead to reluctance to initiate prandial insulin. IDegLira is a titratable, fixed-ratio coformulation that combines the advantages of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide in a single once-daily injection and mitigates the side effects associated with each component. Clinical trials have demonstrated that IDegLira improves glycemic control without the increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain observed with basal insulin up-titration and the addition of prandial insulin, and this is achieved using twice-weekly titration. Clinical trials and real-world studies have also shown that IDegLira has the potential to reduce therapeutic and titration inertia. However, better outcomes could be achieved with IDegLira initiation in suitable patients with timely titration and by providers sharing their experience with this combination product. This review describes considerations for initiation, titration, and intensification of IDegLira in patients previously receiving basal insulin.

Observational study evaluating the effectiveness of physician-targeted education for improving glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes (BEYOND II)

BACKGROUND

Because there has been no quality improvement initiatives targeting patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving basal insulin therapy, this study evaluated the effectiveness of physician-targeted education for optimizing glycemic management in these patients in China.

METHODS

This multicenter open-label observational study conducted across China had a baseline sample survey, followed by a 6-month education program, and ended with a post-education sample survey. Education based on T2D treatment guidelines was given at Months 1 and 3, and was reinforced by self-audit every month. Each hospital enrolled 100 patients with T2D receiving basal insulin at both the baseline and post-education survey. The primary outcome was the proportion of hospitals meeting individual improvement goals. The goal setting was based on the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% in each hospital at the time of the baseline survey.

RESULTS

Overall, the individual improvement goal was achieved by 35 centers (49%). Hospitals with poor glycemic management at the baseline survey had higher possibility to improve at post-education survey. Two large sample surveys at baseline and post-education showed improved glucose management among these hospitals. A higher proportion of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% in the post-education survey (27.2% vs 36.5%; P < 0.001) with reduced HbA1c levels (8.10% vs 7.72%; P < 0.001). Questionnaires from 723 physicians showed that confidence and practice of basal insulin use were significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-targeted education improved glycemic management of patients with T2D in 71 hospitals in China, and was more effective at hospitals with poor glycemic management at the baseline survey.

Efficacy and Safety of iGlarLixi, Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide, Compared with Basal-Bolus Regimen in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Propensity Score Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Basal-bolus (BB) regimens are generally used to intensify basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not meeting glycemic targets. However, drawbacks include multiple injection burden and risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A once-daily titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) may provide a simple, well-tolerated, and efficacious alternative. We compared these treatments in a post hoc propensity score matched analysis using randomized trial data.

METHODS

From the LixiLan-L study, 195 patients who had been randomized to iGlarLixi were matched for age, sex, race, T2D duration, baseline body mass index, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, insulin dose, and metformin use to 195 patients who had been randomized to a BB regimen in the GetGoal Duo-2 trial.

RESULTS

At study end, estimated treatment differences for reduction in HbA1c and weight change, and ratio of hypoglycemia events per patient-year (BB vs iGlarLixi) were - 0.28% (standard error 0.08, P = 0.0002), - 1.32 kg (standard error 0.30, P < 0.0001), and 2.85 (P < 0.0001), respectively, all favoring iGlarLixi over BB. Also, proportions of patients reaching individual and composite goals (HbA1c < 7% [< 53 mmol/mol], no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia) were higher in the iGlarLixi compared with the BB treatment group. Gastrointestinal side effects were more common with iGlarLixi.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin, iGlarLixi offers an effective alternative to BB regimen for reducing HbA1c, without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02058160 (LixiLan-L trial); NCT01768559 (GetGoal Duo-2 trial). Plain language summary available for this article.

Remote Monitoring of Diabetes: A Cloud-Connected Digital System for Individuals With Diabetes and Their Health Care Providers

Benefits of telemedicine have been proven in the field of diabetes. Among a number of technical solutions, Diabeo® has been studied in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy. This digital therapeutic system contains a self-monitoring glucose logbook and offers automated insulin dose recommendations thanks to a fully customizable algorithm. In addition, the cloud-based dedicated software also has features to facilitate remote monitoring, including a platform for diabetes nurses who perform coaching and treatment adjustment. A detailed description of this telemedicine system is provided, as well as results of completed clinical studies. In particular, TeleDiab 1's positive results on HbA1c in type 1 diabetes are detailed. We conclude with a discussion of the role of this telemedicine system within the landscape of mobile apps for diabetes.

Effect of V-Go Versus Multiple Daily Injections on Glycemic Control, Insulin Use, and Diabetes Medication Costs Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Coping with discomfort and the uncertainties of daily adjustments are prominent challenges confronting individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. For this growing population, wearable, disposable devices capable of delivering consistent and sustained doses of basal-bolus therapy may help to alleviate concerns and improve outcomes. However, studies on the comparative effectiveness of new, innovative delivery systems versus MDI on insulin requirements, glycemic control, and health care costs are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To examine glycemic control, insulin use, and diabetes medication costs for users of the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery device compared with MDI insulin therapy among individuals with T2DM in a commercially insured population in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study queried administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database from July 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017. Cohorts included individuals with T2DM aged 21-80 years either newly initiating V-Go or using MDI for basal/bolus insulin. The date of earliest claim for V-Go prescription fill or for bolus insulin was defined as the index date, depending on the cohort. Previous insulin therapy was required in both cohorts. Baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were identified during the 6 months before and 15 days after the index date; results closest to 12 months after the index date were selected as follow-up. Insulin use and diabetes medication cost data were examined during the 6 months baseline and the second half of the 1-year follow-up. V-Go and MDI users were 1:1 matched on baseline insulin exposure, A1c level, and other characteristics of interest. Univariate and multivariate tests were used to compare follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts included 118 well-balanced pairs (mean age: 56 years; mean baseline A1c: 9.2%). During follow-up, both cohorts experienced improvements in glycemic control relative to baseline (% with A1c ≤ 9%, baseline/follow-up: V-Go 49/69, P < 0.001; MDI 50/60, P = 0.046). With similar baseline insulin prescription fills and diabetes medication costs, V-Go users required fewer insulin prescription fills (mean change: -0.8 vs. +1.8 fills, P < 0.001; -17% vs. +38%); had a smaller increase in diabetes medication costs (mean change in 2016 USD: $341 vs. $1,628, P = 0.012; +10% vs. +47%); and a decrease in insulin total daily dose (mean change in insulin units per day: -29.2 vs. +5.8, P < 0.001; -21% vs. +4%), compared with MDI users, during the last 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of V-Go for up to a 1-year follow-up period. Relative to MDI users, V-Go users had similar glycemic control but lower insulin use and lower diabetes medication costs during follow-up. V-Go therapy may provide an opportunity to improve quality measures more cost-effectively in people with T2DM who require basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Valeritas. Nguyen is an employee of Valeritas. Zhou, Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which received funding for this study from Valeritas. Raval was an employee of HealthCore at the time the study was conducted. Partial findings from this study were presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23rd Annual International Meeting; May 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD; and the 54th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting; October 1-5, 2018; Berlin, Germany.

Effect of V-Go Versus Multiple Daily Injections on Glycemic Control, Insulin Use, and Diabetes Medication Costs Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Coping with discomfort and the uncertainties of daily adjustments are prominent challenges confronting individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. For this growing population, wearable, disposable devices capable of delivering consistent and sustained doses of basal-bolus therapy may help to alleviate concerns and improve outcomes. However, studies on the comparative effectiveness of new, innovative delivery systems versus MDI on insulin requirements, glycemic control, and health care costs are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To examine glycemic control, insulin use, and diabetes medication costs for users of the V-Go Wearable Insulin Delivery device compared with MDI insulin therapy among individuals with T2DM in a commercially insured population in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study queried administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database from July 1, 2011, through July 31, 2017. Cohorts included individuals with T2DM aged 21-80 years either newly initiating V-Go or using MDI for basal/bolus insulin. The date of earliest claim for V-Go prescription fill or for bolus insulin was defined as the index date, depending on the cohort. Previous insulin therapy was required in both cohorts. Baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were identified during the 6 months before and 15 days after the index date; results closest to 12 months after the index date were selected as follow-up. Insulin use and diabetes medication cost data were examined during the 6 months baseline and the second half of the 1-year follow-up. V-Go and MDI users were 1:1 matched on baseline insulin exposure, A1c level, and other characteristics of interest. Univariate and multivariate tests were used to compare follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts included 118 well-balanced pairs (mean age: 56 years; mean baseline A1c: 9.2%). During follow-up, both cohorts experienced improvements in glycemic control relative to baseline (% with A1c ≤ 9%, baseline/follow-up: V-Go 49/69, P < 0.001; MDI 50/60, P = 0.046). With similar baseline insulin prescription fills and diabetes medication costs, V-Go users required fewer insulin prescription fills (mean change: -0.8 vs. +1.8 fills, P < 0.001; -17% vs. +38%); had a smaller increase in diabetes medication costs (mean change in 2016 USD: $341 vs. $1,628, P = 0.012; +10% vs. +47%); and a decrease in insulin total daily dose (mean change in insulin units per day: -29.2 vs. +5.8, P < 0.001; -21% vs. +4%), compared with MDI users, during the last 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of V-Go for up to a 1-year follow-up period. Relative to MDI users, V-Go users had similar glycemic control but lower insulin use and lower diabetes medication costs during follow-up. V-Go therapy may provide an opportunity to improve quality measures more cost-effectively in people with T2DM who require basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Valeritas. Nguyen is an employee of Valeritas. Zhou, Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which received funding for this study from Valeritas. Raval was an employee of HealthCore at the time the study was conducted. Partial findings from this study were presented at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23rd Annual International Meeting; May 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD; and the 54th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting; October 1-5, 2018; Berlin, Germany.

Clinical implications of prolonged hyperglycaemia before basal insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes patients: An electronic medical record database analysis

AIMS

To assess the effect of duration of hyperglycaemia before basal insulin (BI) initiation on clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with T2D who initiated BI during 2009-2013, had continuous enrolment for ≥2 years preceding and ≥1 year following BI initiation ("index date"), and had ≥1 glycated haemoglobin (A1C) measure not at target (ie, ≥7.0%) within 6 months preindex date were included in the study. Patients were stratified by preindex-date duration of A1C ≥7.0%. Longitudinal A1C, weight, BMI, and diabetes medication were compared between cohorts for up to 15-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 37 053 patients who initiated BI, 40.7%, 15.3%, 16.0%, and 28.0%, respectively, had uncontrolled A1C for <6, 6-<12, 12-<18 and 18-24 months preindex date. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Baseline A1C values were similar across cohorts (9.2%-9.6%). Mean follow-up A1C values were higher with longer preindex-date duration of uncontrolled A1C (8.0 ± 1.7%, 8.2 ± 1.6%, 8.5 ± 1.7%, and 8.6 ± 1.7% for <6, 6-<12, 12-<18, and 18-24 months); attainment of A1C <7.0% worsened with increasing preindex-date duration of A1C ≥7.0% (29.6%, 20.0%, 14.6%, and 11.5% for <6, 6-<12, 12-<18, and 18-24 months).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that longer duration of uncontrolled A1C before BI initiation increases the risk of not reaching glycaemic targets. However, target attainment was poor in all cohorts, highlighting inadequate glycaemic control as an important unmet need in US patients with T2D.

The Diabetes Unmet Need with Basal Insulin Evaluation (DUNE) study in type 2 diabetes: Achieving HbA1c targets with basal insulin in a real-world setting

AIMS

To describe in a real-world setting the achievement of physician-selected individualized HbA1c targets in individuals with type 2 diabetes, newly or recently initiated with basal insulin, and the association of hypoglycaemia with target achievement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 12-week, prospective, single-arm, observational study of adults with type 2 diabetes, either newly initiated with any basal insulin or start on basal insulin within the preceding 12 months. At enrollment, eligible participants from 28 countries were treated with or without oral antihyperglycaemic drugs and/or GLP-1 receptor agonists.

RESULTS

Individualized targets for almost all of the 3139 evaluable participants (99.7%) had been set by their physicians, with 57% of participants having HbA1c targets between 7.0% and <7.5% (53 and <58 mmol/mol). By week 12, 28% and 27% of newly and previously initiated participants, respectively, achieved individualized HbA1c targets with modest average increases in daily insulin dose of 9 and 5 U (0.10 and 0.06 U/kg), respectively, from baseline (14 and 23 U [0.17 and 0.29 U/kg], respectively). Overall, 16% of participants experienced at least one episode of hypoglycaemia. Both the incidence and frequency of hypoglycaemia, but not the severity, were positively associated with a higher likelihood of achieving individualized HbA1c targets (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective real-world study, most participants using basal insulin did not achieve the individualized HbA1c targets set by their physicians. Participants who experienced symptomatic hypoglycaemia were more likely to achieve HbA1c targets than those who did not.

Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Prediabetes: A Mixed-Methods Primary Care Study

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to assess patient and clinician perceptions of prediabetes in an academic family medicine practice. Data were collected in preparation for an implementation study to increase utilization of the National Diabetes Prevention Program (N-DPP).

Methods

In this mixed-methods study, discussions from 3 focus groups composed of patients with prediabetes were evaluated using thematic analysis for their understanding of and beliefs about prediabetes, care experiences, and attitudes toward N-DPP. Clinicians completed a Likert-scaled survey assessing attitudes and perceived barriers to providing prediabetes care.

Results

Among the 15 focus group participants, more than half were not aware of their diagnosis. Attitudes toward prediabetes were mixed: while many believed it was serious and elicited more fear than being “at risk,” others thought there were varying degrees of risk within the same diagnosis, making the diagnosis less impactful. Patients repeatedly expressed the perception that clinicians were not forthcoming about necessary behavior changes. Patients agreed on barriers to N-DPP, including scheduling and transportation. Clinicians (N = 31) concurred that patients lack awareness of their prediabetes diagnosis. They reported that time is available to screen all patients and that a prediabetes diagnosis is effective for advising patients of the need for lifestyle modification. There was consensus from both patients and clinicians that prediabetes is curable.

Conclusions

Increased patient awareness and patient-centered education is needed to overcome barriers to prediabetes care. To facilitate implementation of N-DPP referral processes, clinicians should clearly communicate risk, treatment information, and linkage to N-DPP as the suggested treatment plan.

Impact of lixisenatide dose range on clinical outcomes with fixed-ratio combination iGlarLixi in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lixisenatide dose range delivered by the iGlarLixi SoloSTAR pen (5-20 µg), alone or in fixed-ratio combination with insulin glargine (iGlar; iGlarLixi).

METHODS

Data from three clinical studies were analyzed to assess lixisenatide efficacy and safety: a phase 2a trial assessing gastric emptying effects (ACT6011); a phase 2b dose-ranging trial (DRI6012); and a randomized controlled phase 3 trial comparing iGlarLixi with its components of iGlar and lixisenatide (LixiLan-O). Efficacy metrics included glycated hemoglobin A_1c (A1C), post-prandial glucose (PPG) values following a standardized breakfast, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and weight change. Occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was also assessed.

RESULTS

ACT6011: lixisenatide doses from 5-20 μg once daily (QD) suppressed PPG; maximal reductions in mean PPG area under the curve were achieved with doses ≥12.5 µg QD, but doses as low as 5 μg achieved 44% of maximal reduction. DRI6012: lixisenatide doses 5-20 μg QD resulted in significant, dose-dependent decreases in A1C, percentage of patients achieving A1C <7.0%, and 2-h PPG levels; doses of 20 μg achieved complete suppression of PPG. LixiLan-O: iGlarLixi decreased 2-h PPG across the entire dose range. Lixisenatide dose was unrelated to reductions in FPG with iGlarLixi. Similar reductions in A1C were seen with iGlarLixi across all lixisenatide doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates the clinical benefit of lixisenatide alone or in the formulation of iGlarLixi over the entire dose range of lixisenatide contained in iGlarLixi (5-20 µg), supporting the selection of the lixisenatide dose range delivered by the iGlarLixi SoloSTAR pen.

Unmet Needs in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Starting Insulin Therapy with Basal or Premix Insulin in Routine Clinical Practice in Serbia

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease with declining beta cell function, ultimately necessitating insulin therapy. Timely introduction of adequate insulin improves management of diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the unmet needs in the management of T2DM patients recently initiated on insulin therapy in routine clinical practice in Serbia.

METHODS

The NEED study was a cross-sectional, observational, multicenter, real-world study conducted in Serbia, involving 26 physicians, endocrinologists, treating individuals with T2DM from 17 secondary health care institutions. Study participants were newly initiated with insulin therapy, being treated with basal or premix insulin ± oral antidiabetics (OAD) for 6-12 months.

RESULTS

Four hundred one individuals were included in the study between October 2016 and March 2017. The mean age of study patients was 61.8 ± 9.2 years with mean BMI 30.0 ± 5.0 kg/m2, and duration of diabetes, prior to initiation of insulin therapy, was 8.4 ± 5.9 years. A basal insulin regimen was used by 287 (71.6%) and premix insulin by 114 (28.4%) subjects. The average daily dose (39.8 ± 13.9 units premix vs. 26.3 ± 13.5 units basal), dose/kg (0.47 ± 0.15 units/kg premix vs. 0.31 ± 0.17 units/kg basal), and number of injections per day were higher in the premix compared with basal insulin regimen (p < 0.01). The percentage of T2DM participants with at least one unmet need was high (95.8%). The majority of participants had two or three unmet needs. The most common unmet needs were: HbA1c > 7.0% (79.3%), at least one documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤ 3.9 mmol/l) event in the previous 3 months (63.8%), and two or more doses of insulin per day (53.1%). The mean individual HbA1c target was 6.8% in the NEED study cohort, with only 16% of participants reaching it. Most participants [281 (70.1%)] experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

The NEED study showed that new insulin users of either basal or premix HM insulin have many unmet needs in the first 6-12 months of treatment. This confirms that in real-life settings novel insulins should be considered in the management of T2DM to reduce the number of symptomatic hypoglycemic events and reach a better HbA1c level.

FUNDING

Sanofi, Serbia.

Comparative Effectiveness of Metformin Dosage Uptitration Versus Adding Another Antihyperglycemic Medication on Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Failing Initial Metformin Monotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Metformin is recommended as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). A disadvantage of metformin is the possibility of gastrointestinal adverse effects in some patients. Many T2D patients are not able to achieve/maintain glycemic control from initial metformin treatment and receive treatment intensification by means of metformin dosage uptitration or addition of a T2D drug. This retrospective study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of these 2 treatment intensification strategies. The study cohort included T2D patients at a US integrated health care system who: were initiated on metformin monotherapy (MM) during January 2009 - September 2013; had an uncontrolled HbA1c (≥7%) after at least 90 days of MM; and received metformin dosage uptitration or an additional T2D medication within 6 months of the uncontrolled HbA1c reading. Statistical techniques included Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression. The study cohort included 1167 patients, 52.4% male and 65.1% white, with a mean age of 55.3 (±11.9) years. Of these, 49.1% received metformin dosage uptitration and 50.9% received an additional T2D medication. Metformin dosage uptitration was as effective as adding another T2D medication with the probability of not achieving glycemic control (P = 0.599) and rate of glycemic control (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval = 0.98-1.68) within 6 months of intensification not significantly different between the 2 groups. Metformin dosage uptitration could be a preferable initial intensification strategy in patients failing initial MM unless there is a concern for gastrointestinal adverse effects, in which case adding a T2D medication might be preferable.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Compare the Real-World Effectiveness of V-Go versus Standard Delivery of Insulin in Patients with Advanced Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not have adequate glycemic control, leading to poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective pragmatic clinical trial evaluated V-Go, a wearable insulin delivery device, compared with standard treatment optimization (STO) among insulin-treated patients with T2DM in a real-world, community-based practice setting.

METHODS

Study sites, rather than individual patients, were randomized to V-Go or STO via cluster randomization. Patients were treated according to routine clinical practice and followed up to 4 months. T2DM medications and supplies were purchased utilizing usual insurance and co-pay systems. The primary analysis was an unadjusted treatment group comparison of glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to end of study (EOS). A cost of therapy analysis was completed on patients who had received comparable baseline T2DM treatment with multiple daily basal-bolus insulin injections (MDI).

RESULTS

Analysis included 415 patients (169 V-Go, 246 STO) enrolled from 52 US sites. Mean baseline HbA1c (9.6%) was higher in V-Go (9.9%, range 8.0% - 14.2%) than STO (9.3%, range 7.9% - 13.9%, p <.001). HbA1c decreased from baseline to EOS in both V-Go (-1.0%, p<.001) and STO (-0.5%, p<.001); V-Go had significantly larger decrease (p=.002). V-Go had a significant reduction (p<.001) in mean insulin total daily dose (TDD; 0.76 U/kg baseline, 0.57 U/kg EOS), not seen in STO (0.72 U/kg baseline and EOS). The MDI group included 95 (56.2%) V-Go and 113 STO (45.9%) patients. Mean baseline HbA1c was significantly higher in V-Go (9.9%) than STO (9.4%). V-Go also experienced larger decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-1.0%) than STO (-0.36%) (p=.006) with a decrease in TDD, while STO TDD remained unchanged. EOS mean per patient per day cost of diabetes treatment was lower for V-Go ($30.59) vs STO ($32.20) (p=.006). V-Go was more cost effective than STO ($24.02 per 1% drop in HbA1c vs $58.86, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This pragmatic clinical trial demonstrated improved HbA1c levels, lower cost, and decreased insulin dose in patients with T2DM initiating V-Go vs STO in a real-world community-based practice setting. Observed baseline HbAlc indicated use of V-Go in more difficult to manage diabetes patients.

Insulin Glargine U100 Utilization in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in an Italian Real-World Setting: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

This study is aimed at estimating the proportion of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated with basal insulin (insulin glargine U100) and at evaluating daily insulin dose, treatment pattern, and adherence to treatment of these patients.

METHODS

Data from administrative and laboratory databases of 3 Italian Local Health Units were retrospectively collected and analyzed. All patients with a diagnosis of T2DM between 01/01/2012 and 31/12/2012 were considered, and those with at least a prescription of insulin glargine between 01/01/2013 and 31/12/2014 were included and followed up for one year. For each patient, we evaluated HbA1c levels both at baseline and during the follow-up period and the daily average dose of insulin. Medication adherence was defined by using medication possession ratio (MPR) and reported as proportion of patients with MPR ≥ 80%.

RESULTS

7,422 T2DM patients were available for the study. According to the antidiabetic medication prescribed, patients were categorized into four groups: insulin glargine only, insulin glargine plus oral glucose-lowering drugs, insulin glargine plus rapid-acting insulin, and insulin glargine plus DPP-4 inhibitors. Median daily dose of insulin among insulin glargine only patients was higher than in other groups (35 IU vs. 20 IU, p < 0.05), and a higher percentage of them achieved a target HbA1c value of less than 7.0% (53.8% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). Adherence to insulin treatment was lowest (41%) in the insulin glargine only group compared to other groups (ranging from 58.4% to 64.4%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of T2DM patients treated with insulin fail in achieving the glycemic target of HbA1c level < 7%, irrespective of treatment regimen; however, basal insulin only is associated with lower therapeutic unsuccess. Adherence to antidiabetes medications is also suboptimal in these patients and should be addressed to improve long-term outcomes of reducing and preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Clinical and economic considerations based on persistency with a novel insulin delivery device versus conventional insulin delivery in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Insulin is one of the most efficacious treatments for hyperglycemia; however, adherence to insulin therapy is poor, impacting its efficacy. Thus, the objectives of this study were to determine if persistent use of a new insulin delivery option, V-Go, improved clinical outcomes and secondly compare clinical and economic outcomes between persistent use of V-Go and conventional insulin delivery (CID).

METHODS

A retrospective review of an outpatient clinic's records was performed. Patients initiating V-Go with documented persistent use of V-Go or resumed persistent use of CID after short-term V-Go use were included (≥5 months of persistency). Baseline data and a total of two post-V-Go or CID initiation visits were examined for clinical and economic outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of each therapy was calculated by dividing the mean cost difference (baseline to office visit 2) by the mean change in A1c (baseline to office visit 2).

RESULTS

V-Go persistent patients had a significant decrease in A1c (-1.42; p < 0.001). Between baseline and office visit two, they required less insulin units/day and units/kg and had significantly lower A1c, insulin units/day, insulin units/kg, and 30-day insulin costs than CID patients. V-Go persistent patients had a lower incremental cost by $695.61 per 1% change in A1c compared to CID persistent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of a new insulin delivery option resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to CID and was more cost-effective. Clinicians and health plans should consider the use of new insulin delivery options for the management of patients with diabetes on insulin therapy to promote persistence.

A practical approach and algorithm for intensifying beyond basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Despite the availability of long-term data demonstrating the benefits of timely and aggressive intensification of antihyperglycaemic regimens among individuals with type 2 diabetes, intensification beyond basal insulin continues to be suboptimal and a global challenge. This review summarizes the evidence surrounding the various options of advancing glucose-lowering management beyond basal insulin and provides a practical algorithm to assist in optimizing patient care and enhancing glycaemic target achievements.

Effect of exenatide QW or placebo, both added to titrated insulin glargine, in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: The DURATION-7 randomized study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of adding the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide once weekly (QW) 2 mg or placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled despite titrated insulin glargine (IG) ± metformin.

METHODS

This multicentre, double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02229383) randomized (1:1) patients with persistent hyperglycaemia after an 8-week titration phase (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0%-10.5% [53-91 mmol/mol]) to exenatide QW or placebo. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 28. Secondary endpoints included body weight, 2-hour postprandial glucose, and mean daily IG dose.

RESULTS

Of 464 randomized patients (mean: age, 58 years; HbA1c, 8.5% [69 mmol/mol]; diabetes duration, 11.3 years), 91% completed 28 weeks. Exenatide QW + IG vs placebo + IG significantly reduced HbA1c (least-squares mean difference, -0.73% [-8.0 mmol/mol]; 95% confidence interval, -0.93%, -0.53% [-10.2, -5.8 mmol/mol]; P < .001; final HbA1c, 7.55% [59 mmol/mol] and 8.24% [67 mmol/mol], respectively); body weight (-1.50 kg; -2.17, -0.84; P < .001); and 2-hour postprandial glucose (-1.52 mmol/L [-27.5 mg/dL]; -2.15, -0.90 [-38.7, -16.2]; P < .001). Significantly more exenatide QW + IG-treated patients vs placebo + IG-treated patients reached HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) (32.5% vs 7.4%; P < .001); daily IG dose increased by 2 and 4 units, respectively. Gastrointestinal and injection-site adverse events were more frequent with exenatide QW + IG (15.1% and 7.8%, respectively) than with placebo + IG (10.8% and 3.0%, respectively); hypoglycaemia incidence was similar between the exenatide QW + IG (29.7%) and placebo + IG (29.0%) groups, with no major hypoglycaemic events.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with inadequate glycaemic control, exenatide QW significantly improved glucose control and decreased body weight, without increased hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings.

Probability of Achieving Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Practice in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Basal insulin (BI) plays an important role in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially when oral antidiabetic (OAD) medications are insufficient for glycemic control. We conducted a retrospective, observational study using electronic medical records (EMR) data from the IBM^® Explorys database to evaluate the probability of achieving glycemic control over 24 months after BI initiation in patients with T2D in the USA.

METHODS

A cohort of 6597 patients with T2D who started BI following OAD(s) and had at least one valid glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result recorded both within 90 days before and 720 days after BI initiation were selected. We estimated the changes from baseline in HbA1c every 6 months, the quarterly conditional probabilities of reaching HbA1c < 7% if a patient had not achieved glycemic control prior to each quarter (Q), and the cumulative probability of reaching glycemic control over 24 months.

RESULTS

Our cohort was representative of patients with T2D who initiated BI from OADs in the USA. The average HbA1c was 9.1% at BI initiation, and decreased robustly (1.5%) in the first 6 months after initiation with no further reductions thereafter. The conditional probability of reaching glycemic control decreased rapidly in the first year (26.6% in Q2; 17.6% in Q3; 8.6% in Q4), and then remained low (≤ 6.1%) for each quarter in the second year. Cumulatively, about 38% of patients reached HbA1c < 7% in the first year; only approximately 8% more did so in the second year.

CONCLUSION

Our study of real-world data from a large US EMR database suggested that among patients with T2D who initiated BI after OADs, the likelihood of reaching glycemic control diminished over time, and remained low from 12 months onwards. Additional treatment options should be considered if patients do not reach glycemic control within 12 months of BI initiation.

FUNDING

Sanofi Corporation.

Patient and prescriber characteristics among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus continuing or discontinuing sulfonylureas following insulin initiation: data from a large commercial database

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient and provider characteristics for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiating basal insulin and describe basal insulin's impact on sulfonylurea (SU) discontinuation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients had ≥12 months of continuous coverage prior to initiating insulin, and were utilizing at least one anti-hyperglycemic drug at the time of insulin initiation. Predictors for SU discontinuation were evaluated utilizing Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Among the 74,334 individuals aged ≥18 years with T2DM who initiated basal insulin from 2006-2015, 30% were taking metformin (MET) and SU when initiating insulin. Among the 22,418 MET/SU patients, 31% discontinued SU within 3 months of insulin initiation and, by 12 months, 55% had discontinued SU. Sulfonylurea discontinuation was similar among many patient and provider characteristics, while being modestly positively associated (p < .05; HRs <1.5) with female gender, more co-morbidities, cardiac revascularization, chronic liver disease, hospitalizations with a T2DM diagnosis, and hypoglycemia prior to insulin initiation. SU discontinuation was modestly inversely associated with receiving an insulin prescription from an endocrinologist (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.85-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Roughly half of commercially-insured T2DM patients discontinued SU within 1 year after insulin initiation, and SU discontinuation was not strongly associated with a range of patient and provider characteristics.

The intersection of physician wellbeing and clinical application of diabetes guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Prediabetes (preDM) and diabetes are complex conditions that place significant strain on medical providers. This can have a negative impact on providers' wellbeing and could impact clinical decisions. We investigated the interplay of caring for patients with prediabetes, physician mental wellbeing, and clinical care.

METHODS

Using the theory of planned behavior, we conducted a secondary analysis to evaluate physicians' self-reported provision of care to patients with preDM. We evaluated the effect of mental wellbeing and perceived barriers to caring for patients with preDM.

RESULTS

Among 1015 academic physicians, a greater perception of barriers to care and a higher percentage of patients seen with preDM were both significantly associated with a less positive physician state of mind. Physician state of mind was not associated with self-reported clinical behavior. Physician perception of patient barriers has a positive correlation with their likelihood of prescribing metformin for preDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Caring for a larger proportion of patients with preDM is associated with worse mental wellbeing. Physician attitudes and subjective norms may predict adherence to guidelines, while physician attitudes and wellbeing affect self-reported prescribing behavior.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future research should evaluate ways to lessen the psychological burden of caring for patients with diabetes and preDM.

Insulin/Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Are Two Agents Better Than One?

IN BRIEF Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, treatment intensification is usually necessary to maintain glycemic control. However, for a variety of reasons, treatment is often not intensified in a timely manner. The combined use of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist is recognized to provide a complementary approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of two co-formulation products, insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine/lixisenatide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on either component agent alone. We consider the benefits and limitations of these medications based on data from randomized clinical trials and discuss how they may address barriers to treatment intensification.

Slow Titration and Delayed Intensification of Basal Insulin Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) refers to the failure of clinicians to intensify therapy when indicated. Many T2DM patients remain suboptimally controlled after initiating basal insulin.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of patients treated with basal insulin but in poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [A1c] ≥ 7%) after initiation and subsequent treatment intensification patterns and glycemic outcomes in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with T2DM newly initiating a basal insulin analog (insulin glargine or detemir) from January 2010 to September 2014 were identified in the QuintilesIMS Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims linked to the QuintilesIMS Real-World Data Electronic Medical Records. Patients were previously naive to insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), were persistent on therapy for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment after initiation. First treatment intensification (increase in basal insulin dose [of ≥ 10%], addition of bolus insulin, GLP-1 RA, or a new oral antidiabetic drug [OAD]) was assessed among patients in poor glycemic control at 6 months after initiation over the available (minimum ≥ 12-month) follow-up. Subsequent glycemic outcomes and treatment intensification were assessed. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis evaluated time-to-treatment intensification and time to A1c goal.

RESULTS

Of 427 eligible patients with A1c available at 6 months, 59.3% were male; mean age was 53.9 years; mean follow-up was 29.4 months; and mean dose of the initiated prescription was 29.6 insulin units (U) (median 24U). Six months after initiating basal insulin, 81.0% of patients (n = 346) remained in poor glycemic control, and mean basal insulin dose was 31.0U (median 25U). Most (88.4%; n = 306) of these uncontrolled patients subsequently intensified treatment over the available follow-up. Using KM analysis, these patients intensified treatment in a median of 58 days (range: 17.5 days [GLP-1 RA addition] to 52 days [increase in basal insulin dose]) from the first elevated A1c measurement taken after 6 months, and 72.5% (GLP-1 RA addition) to 91.1% (OAD addition) of patients continued to remain in poor glycemic control at 12 months after intensification. Most patients (66.8%; n = 231/346) first intensified treatment by increasing their basal insulin dose, and mean dose increased to 61.7U (median 38U) at intensification. Six months following basal insulin increase, almost all patients remained on basal insulin therapy and among those with available A1c, 92.1% (140 of 152) were in poor glycemic control. In the subsequent 12 months, only a third (34%) of uncontrolled patients added another antihyperglycemic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients remained uncontrolled in the 6 months following basal insulin initiation. Basal insulin up-titration was slow and insufficient in the 6 months after initiation, indicating treatment inertia. Subsequently, most patients failed to achieve glycemic targets despite intensification with basal insulin. This finding suggests a substantial unmet need for effective treatment intensification among T2DM patients treated with basal insulin who remain uncontrolled. Improved provider education and guidelines on appropriate intensification are warranted.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Mocarski, Guerrero, Langer, and Thorsted are employees and shareholders of Novo Nordisk. Yeaw, Divino, and DeKoven are employed by QuintilesIMS, which received remuneration from Novo Nordisk for work on this study. Study concept and design were contributed by Mocarski, DeKoven, Langer, and Thorsted. Yeaw took the lead in data collection, along with Divino and DeKoven. Data interpretation was performed by Yeaw, Divino, DeKoven, and Guerrero. The manuscript was written by Mocarski and Divino and revised by Guerrero, Langer, and Thorsted, along with Yeaw and DeKoven. Some of the data from this study were presented via poster at the AMCP Annual Meeting in March 2017 and at the 53rd EASD Annual Meeting in September 2017.

Impact of improving postprandial glycemic control with intensifying insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Worldwide, many people with type 2 diabetes are not at recommended glycemic targets and remain at increased risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Reaching recommended glycemic targets requires normalizing both fasting and postprandial glucose (PPG). For some patients, this will require addition of a prandial insulin delivered by injection to control PPG excursions. Evidence from epidemiological studies suggests an association between postprandial hyperglycemia and cardiovascular disease, and thus, expert guidelines recommend that treatment for elevated PPG not be delayed. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that PPG makes the greatest contribution to HbA_1c in patients who are approaching, but have not yet reached HbA_1c <7.0%. Appropriately timed exposure of the liver to insulin is critical in suppressing hepatic glucose output (and therefore PPG levels) after a meal. Rapid-acting insulin analogs, with their faster onset and shorter duration of action, offer advantages over regular human insulin. Unfortunately, even with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, rapid-acting insulin analogs are still unable to fully reproduce the rapid release of insulin into the portal circulation and suppression of hepatic glucose output that occurs in the individual without diabetes after starting a meal. The next generation of rapid-acting insulin analogs will have an even more favorable pharmacokinetic profile that should allow patients to further improve glycemic control. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents another option for intensifying therapy and improving postprandial control in some patients, and studies have shown that the benefits are sustainable long-term. However, it is currently unclear which patients stand to benefit the most from the extra expense and complexity of a CSII regimen, and further studies are needed.

New Basal Insulins: a Clinical Perspective of Their Use in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes and Novel Treatment Options Beyond Basal Insulin

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review was to review advances in basal insulin formulations and new treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic targets despite optimized basal insulin therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in basal insulin formulations have resulted in products with increasingly favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, including flatter, peakless action profiles, less inter- and intra-patient variability, and longer duration of activity. These properties have translated to significantly reduced risk of hypoglycemia (particularly during the night) compared with previous generation basal insulins. When optimized basal insulin therapy is not sufficient to obtain or maintain glycemic goals, various options exist to improve glycemic control, including intensification of insulin therapy with the addition of prandial insulin or changing to pre-mixed insulin and, more recently, the addition of a GLP-1 receptor agonist, either as a separate injection or as a component of one of the new fixed-ratio combinations of a basal insulin and GLP-1 RA. New safer and often more convenient basal insulins and fixed ratio combinations containing basal insulin (and GLP-1 receptor agonist) are available today for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic goals. Head-to-head studies comparing the latest generation basal insulins are underway, and future studies assessing the fixed-ratio combinations will be important to better understand their differentiating features.