Patient preferences for newer oral therapies in type 2 diabetes

Adherence to newer second-line oral antidiabetic drugs among people with type 2 diabetes-A systematic review

The adherence to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is suboptimal. However, new OADs have been marketed within the last 10 years. As these new drugs differ in mechanism of action, treatment complexity, and side effects, they may influence adherence. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the adherence to newer second-line OADs, defined as drugs marketed in 2012-2022, among people with T2D. A systematic review was performed in CINAHL, Cochrane Trials, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Articles were included if they were original research of adherence to newer second-line OADs and reported objective adherence quantification. The quality of the articles was assessed using JBI's critical appraisal tools. The overall findings were reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and summarized in a narrative synthesis. All seven included articles were European retrospective cohort studies investigating alogliptin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and unspecified types of SGLT2i. Treatment discontinuation and medication possession ratio (MPR) were the most frequently reported adherence quantification measures. Within the first 12 months of treatment, 29%-44% of subjects on SGLT2i discontinued the treatment. In terms of MPR, 61.7%-94.9% of subjects on either alogliptin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin or an unspecified SGLT2i were adherent. The two investigated adherence quantification measures, treatment discontinuation and MPR, suggest that adherence to the newer second-line OADs may be better than that of older OADs. However, a study directly comparing older and newer OADs should be done to verify this.

Evaluating Patient and Provider Preferences for a Once-Weekly Basal Insulin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Purpose

The global burden of disease of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is significant, and insulin currently plays a central role in T2D management. This study sought to assess the preferences of patients with T2D and healthcare providers (HCPs) involved in T2D care regarding a hypothetical once-weekly basal insulin in comparison to current basal insulin options.

Patients and Methods

In a survey-based study in the United States that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE), patients with T2D (insulin naïve and current insulin users) and providers who treat individuals with T2D were asked to evaluate current basal insulins and identify attributes of importance regarding a hypothetical once-weekly basal insulin. A regression analysis was conducted to identify drivers of preference by relevant demographics, attitudes, and behaviors.

Results

Most respondents (91% of patients with T2D and 89% of HCPs in the base case scenario) would choose a once-weekly basal insulin product over another type of basal insulin. Both patients with T2D and HCPs rated insulin type and delivery method to be attributes of highest importance in the discrete choice exercise. Current basal insulin users ("insulin experienced") reported higher levels of confidence that a once-weekly insulin would help them to achieve their desired blood sugar levels compared to their current basal insulin (5.7 vs 5.2 on a 7-point Likert scale). Most insulin-experienced respondents (88%) were likely to inquire about once-weekly basal insulin, and most HCPs (85%) indicated willingness to educate patients on management of their T2D using a once-weekly basal insulin.

Conclusion

Discussing preferences for T2D medication management is important for patients and HCPs to ensure treatments are offered for patients based on their preferences. This study showed that patient and provider preferences are similar towards a once-weekly basal insulin over current basal insulin preparations.

Physician Perceptions of Dose Escalation for Type 2 Diabetes Medications in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Medications used to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) often require dose escalation to optimize effectiveness. Physician and patient perceptions of treatment characteristics of T2D medications have previously been examined, but little is known about perceptions of escalation to the optimal dose for each patient. This study examined physicians' perceptions of dose escalation for medications used to treat T2D.

METHODS

Data on dose escalation and other factors influencing decision-making for treatment of T2D were collected via an online survey of endocrinologists and primary care physicians in the USA.

RESULTS

The sample included 501 physicians (348 primary care physicians and 153 endocrinologists). Dose escalation was not frequently considered by physicians as a primary factor keeping patients' from reaching treatment goals (mentioned as a factor by only 7.6% of the sample) or a barrier to prescribing T2D medication (16.2%). Factors more likely to keep patients from reaching treatment goals included an unhealthy diet (86.6%) and medication adherence (77.4%). The most common reasons that physicians reported for escalating dose levels were the need for better glycemic control (reported by 89.8% of the sample), ability to decrease the total number of medications by increasing the dose of one medication (39.9%), and the need for the patient to lose weight (39.3%). Data reported by primary care physicians and endocrinologists followed similar patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although common with T2D treatments, escalating the dose of T2D medication was not perceived by physicians to be a significant barrier to attaining treatment goals or prescribing medication. Multiple factors contribute to the decision to escalate the dose of T2D medication.

Outcomes and Attributes Patients Value When Choosing Glucose-Lowering Medications: A Mixed-Methods Study

This mixed-methods study sought to identify pharmacotherapy preferences among 40 noninsulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes receiving care at two U.S. health care systems. Participants ranked by relative importance various health outcomes and medication attributes and then contextualized their rankings. Most participants ranked blindness (63%), death (60%), heart attack (48%), and heart failure (48%) as the most important health outcomes and glucose-lowering efficacy (68%) as the most important medication attribute, followed by oral administration (45%) and lack of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).