Treatment intensification for patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycaemic control

A machine learning model to predict therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes using electronic health record data

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the therapeutic inertia prevalence for patients with type 2 diabetes, develop and validate a machine learning model predicting therapeutic inertia, and determine the added predictive value of area-level social determinants of health (SDOH).

METHODS

This prognostic study with a retrospective cohort design used OneFlorida data (linked electronic health records (EHRs) from 1240 practices/clinics in Florida). The study cohort included adults (aged ≥ 18) with type 2 diabetes, HbA1C ≥ 7% (53 mmol/mol), ≥one ambulatory visit, and ≥one antihyperglycemic medication prescribed (excluded patients prescribed insulin before HbA1C). The outcome was therapeutic inertia, defined as absence of treatment intensification within six months after HbA1C ≥ 7% (53 mmol/mol). The predictors were patient, provider, and healthcare system factors. Machine learning methods included gradient boosting machines (GBM), random forests (RF), elastic net (EN), and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). The DeLong test compared the discriminative ability (represented by C-statistics) between models.

RESULTS

The cohort included 31,087 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age = 58.89 (SD = 13.27) years, 50.50% male, 58.89% White). The therapeutic inertia prevalence was 39.80% among the 68,445 records. GBM outperformed (C-statistic from testing sample = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.83-0.84) RF (C-statistic = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.80), EN (C-statistic = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.80-0.81), and LASSO (C-statistic = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.80-0.81), p < 0.05. Area-level SDOH significantly increased the discriminative ability versus models without SDOH (C-statistic for GBM = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.84-0.85 vs. 0.84, 95% CI = 0.83-0.84), p < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Using EHRs of patients with type 2 diabetes from a large state, machine learning predicted therapeutic inertia (prevalence = 40%). The model's ability to predict patients at high risk of therapeutic inertia is clinically applicable to diabetes care.

The Use of Rescue Insulin in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE)

OBJECTIVE

To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration <10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%-8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C >7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey.

RESULTS

Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use noninsulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial.

Predictors of insulin pump initiation among people with type 2 diabetes from a US claims database using machine learning

OBJECTIVE

Insulin pump use is increasing among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), albeit at a slower rate compared to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Factors associated with insulin pump initiation among people with T2D in the real-world are understudied.

METHODS

This retrospective, nested case-control study aimed to identify predictors of insulin pump initiation among people with T2D in the United States (US). Adults with T2D who were new to bolus insulin use were identified from the IBM MarketScan Commercial database (2015-2020). Candidate variables of pump initiation were entered into conditional logistic regression (CLR) and penalized CLR models.

RESULTS

Of the 32,104 eligible adults with T2D, 726 insulin pump initiators were identified and matched to 2,904 non-pump initiators using incidence density sampling. Consistent predictors of insulin pump initiation across the base case, sensitivity, and post hoc analyses included continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use, visiting an endocrinologist, acute metabolic complications, higher count of HbA1c tests, lower age, and fewer diabetes-related medication classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of these predictors could represent a clinical indication for treatment intensification, greater patient engagement in diabetes management, or proactive management by healthcare providers. Improved understanding of predictors for pump initiation may lead to more targeted efforts to improve access and acceptance of insulin pumps among persons with T2D.

Printed educational materials directed at Ontario family physicians do not improve adherence to guideline recommendations for diabetes management: a pragmatic, factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN72772651]

BACKGROUND

Printed educational materials (PEMs) have long been used to inform clinicians on evidence-based practices. However, the evidence for their effects on patient care and outcomes is unclear. In Ontario, despite widely available clinical practice guidelines recommending antihypertensives and cholesterol-lowering agents for patients with diabetes, prescriptions remain low. We aimed to determine whether PEMs can influence physicians to intensify prescribing of these medications.

METHODS

A pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial was designed to ascertain the effect of two PEM formats on physician prescribing: a postcard-sized message ("outsert") or a longer narrative article ("insert"). Ontario family physician practices (clusters) were randomly allocated to receive the insert, outsert, both or neither. Physicians were eligible if they were in active practice and their patients were included if they were over 65 years with a diabetes diagnosis; both were unaware of the trial. Administrative databases at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) were used to link patients to their physician and to analyse prescribing patterns at baseline and 1 year following PEM mailout. The primary outcome was intensification defined as the addition of a new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering agent, or dose increase of a current drug, measured at the patient level. Analyses were by intention-to-treat and accounted for the clustering of patients to physicians.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 4231 practices (39% of Ontario family physicians) with a total population of 185,526 patients (20% of patients with diabetes in Ontario primary care) to receive the insert, outsert, both, and neither; among these, 4118 practices were analysed (n = 1025, n = 1037, n = 1031, n = 1025, respectively). No significant treatment effect was found for the outsert (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.04) or the insert (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02). Percent of intensification in the four arms was similar (approximately 46%). Adjustment for physician characteristics (e.g., age, sex, practice location) had no impact on these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

PEMs have no effect on physician's adherence to recommendations for the management of diabetes-related complications in Ontario. Further research should investigate the effect of other strategies to narrow this evidence-to-practice gap.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN72772651 . Retrospectively registered 21 July 2005.

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.

Effects of canagliflozin compared with placebo on major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events in patient groups with different baseline levels of HbA1c, disease duration and treatment intensity: results from the CANVAS Program

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus can manifest over a broad clinical range, although there is no clear consensus on the categorisation of disease complexity. We assessed the effects of canagliflozin, compared with placebo, on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program over a range of type 2 diabetes mellitus complexity, defined separately by baseline intensity of treatment, duration of diabetes and glycaemic control.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the effects of canagliflozin on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) according to baseline glucose-lowering treatments (0 or 1, 2 or 3+ non-insulin glucose-lowering treatments, or insulin-based treatment), duration of diabetes (<10, 10 to 16, >16 years) and HbA1c (≤53.0 mmol/mol [<7.0%], >53.0 to 58.5 mmol/mol [>7.0% to 7.5%], >58.5 to 63.9 mmol/mol [>7.5 to 8.0%], >63.9 to 69.4 mmol/mol [8.0% to 8.5%], >69.4 to 74.9 mmol/mol [>8.5 to 9.0%] or >74.9 mmol/mol [>9.0%]). We analysed additional secondary endpoints for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, including a combined kidney outcome of sustained 40% decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease or death due to kidney disease. We used Cox regression analyses and compared the constancy of HRs across subgroups by fitting an interaction term (p value for significance <0.05).

RESULTS

At study initiation, 5095 (50%) CANVAS Program participants were treated with insulin, 2100 (21%) had an HbA1c > 74.9 mmol/mol (9.0%) and the median duration of diabetes was 12.6 years (interquartile interval 8.0-18 years). Canagliflozin reduced MACE (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.97]) with no evidence that the benefit differed between subgroups defined by the number of glucose-lowering treatments, the duration of diabetes or baseline HbA1c (all p-heterogeneity >0.17). Canagliflozin reduced MACE in participants receiving insulin with no evidence that the benefit differed from other participants in the trial (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.72, 1.00]). Similar results were observed for other cardiovascular outcomes and for the combined kidney outcome (HR for combined kidney outcome 0.60 [95% CI 0.47, 0.77]), with all p-heterogeneity >0.37.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In people with type 2 diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular risk, there was no evidence that cardiovascular and renal protection with canagliflozin differed across subgroups defined by baseline treatment intensity, duration of diabetes or HbA1c.

Early versus late intensification of glucose-lowering therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: Results from the DISCOVER study

AIMS

To assess the effects of glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at time of glucose-lowering treatment intensification in DISCOVER, a global observational study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating second-line therapy. Outcomes of interest were glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, and need for further intensification during 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

We included patients who intensified treatment (add-on or insulin initiation) upon initiation of second-line therapy (baseline). Outcomes were assessed according to baseline HbA_1c: HbA_1c ≤ 7·5% (early intensification) or HbA_1c > 7·5% (late intensification). Factors associated with early or late intensification were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 9575 patients included, 3275 (34·2%) intensified treatment early and 6300 (65·8%) intensified treatment late. During follow-up, mean (SD) HbA_1c was lower in the early- than in the late-intensification group (6·9% [0·95%] vs 7·5% [1·28%] at 36 months). More patients had HbA_1c < 7·0% in the early- than in the late-intensification group (61·8% vs 37·9% at 36 months; p < 0·001). The risk of further intensification was higher in the late-intensification group (hazard ratio 1·88 [95% confidence interval 1·68-2·09]). Occurrence of hypoglycaemia was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Late intensification of glucose-lowering therapy after first-line treatment failure reduces the likelihood of reaching recommended treatment goals.

Episodic Real-Time CGM Use in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Resistance to initiating insulin therapy is common for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using multiple oral agents, resulting in sustained poor glycemic control. We explored a non-pharmacologic option and examined whether adults with T2D and elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) who were using multiple, non-insulin antihyperglycemics could obtain glycemic benefit from limited, episodic use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM).

METHODS

A randomized, pilot trial enrolled patients with T2D who were using two or more non-insulin therapies and had HbA1c values of 7.8-10.5%. Following a baseline, 10-day, blinded CGM session, participants were randomized 2:1, rtCGM or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Medication changes were not made during the 12-week study unless required for safety; benefits would result from lifestyle changes. The rtCGM group used unblinded rtCGM for three sessions at weeks 0, 4, and 8, and the control group managed diabetes with SMBG and wore blinded rtCGM at week 8. Glycemic endpoints were assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy participants were enrolled from eight North American sites and data were available from 68 (n = 45 rtCGM; n = 23 SMBG). Median (IQR) baseline HbA1c was 8.4 (0.8)% and 8.3 (1.2)% and median (IQR) change in HbA1c at week 12 was - 0.5 (1.3)% and - 0.2 (1.1)% for the rtCGM and SMBG groups, respectively (between-group difference p = 0.74). More than one-third (34.1%) of the rtCGM group vs 17.4% of the SMBG group reached the HbA1c goal of less than 7.5% at week 12 (between-group difference p = 0.12). Compared to run-in, mean (SD) time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) at week 8 increased for the rtCGM group (56.3 [24.5]% vs 63.1 [25.5]%) while it decreased for the SMBG group (68.4 [21.5]% vs 55.1 [30.3]%). HbA1c reductions were not sustained at month 9.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, limited episodic rtCGM use in people failing multiple non-insulin therapies resulted in modest, short-term glycemic benefits.

Quality of Diabetes Care in the USA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current quality of diabetes care in the USA, discuss barriers to guideline-recommended treatment adherence, and outline strategies for the improvement in care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current treatment guidelines highlight the importance of glycemic control, use of novel medications with proven cardiovascular efficacy, and multifactorial cardiovascular risk factor intervention for the treatment of diabetes and associated complications. Albeit proven evidence for these guidelines, the vast majority of patients with diabetes remain insufficiently treated. Interventions to improve outcomes require focus on care delivery systems, physician behavior, and patient-centered approaches. De-fragmenting care systems to form collaborative, multi-specialty teams, use of standardized and comprehensive treatment algorithms, development of quality assessment tools, avoiding physician therapeutic inertia, and addressing patient barriers, including lack of perceived benefit, insufficient diabetes education and access to care, and medication costs, represent key objectives to improve diabetes care and outcomes. Clinical research in standardized trials has proven the feasibility to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes. Implementing models of care to disseminate these encouraging research findings to the wider population and to overcome barriers to achieving guideline-recommended treatment goals should be the objective to improve our current quality of diabetes care in the USA.

Evaluating the Evidence behind the Novel Strategy of Early Combination from Vision to Implementation

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex and progressive chronic disease characterised by elevating hyperglycaemia and associated need to gradually intensify therapy in order to achieve and maintain glycaemic control. Treating hyperglycaemia with sequential therapy is proposed to allow holistic assessment of the efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratio of each added component. However, there is an array of evidence supporting the scientific rationale for using synergistic, earlier, modern drug combinations to achieve glycaemic goals, delay the deterioration of glycaemic control, and, therefore, potentially preserve or slow down the declining β-cell function. Additionally, implementation of early combination(s) may lead to opportunities to combat clinical inertia and other hurdles to optimised disease management outcomes. This review aims to discuss the latest empirical evidence for long-term clinical benefits of this novel strategy of early combination in people with newly diagnosed T2DM versus the current widely-implemented treatment paradigm, which focuses on control of hyperglycaemia using lifestyle interventions followed by sequentially intensified (mostly metformin-based) monotherapy. The recent reported Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmin For earlY treatment of T2DM (VERIFY) study results have provided significant new evidence confirming long-term glycaemic durability and tolerability of a specific early combination in the management of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients worldwide. These results have also contributed to changes in clinical treatment guidelines and standards of care while clinical implementation and individualised treatment decisions based on VERIFY results might face barriers beyond the existing scientific evidence.

Glycaemic trajectory and predictors of suboptimal glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes

We aimed to describe the glycaemic trajectory and define characteristics associated with suboptimal glycaemic control in the type 2 diabetes clinic. Higher glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 1 year was associated with higher baseline HbA1c, concurrent anti-depressant or antipsychotic medication, higher bodyweight and low treatment adherence. These characteristics may help identify patients unlikely to attain HbA1c treatment targets and be better served by a different model of care.

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.

Cardiovascular and kidney outcomes of linagliptin treatment in older people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease: A prespecified subgroup analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled CARMELINA® trial

AIMS

In CARMELINA®, linagliptin demonstrated cardiovascular and renal safety in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with high renal and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We investigated safety and efficacy of this dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in older participants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects aged ≥18 years with T2D and established CVD with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) >30 mg/g, and/or prevalent kidney disease, were randomized to linagliptin or placebo added to usual care. The primary endpoint (time to first occurrence of 3P-MACE: cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) and other outcomes were evaluated across age groups <65 (n = 2968), 65 to <75 (n = 2800) and ≥75 years (n = 1211).

RESULTS

Mean age was 65.9 years (17.4% and 5.9% aged ≥75 and 80, respectively) and median follow-up was 2.2 years. The hazard ratio (HR) for 3P-MACE with linagliptin versus placebo was 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89, 1.17] with no significant interaction between age and treatment effect (P = 0.0937). HRs for participants aged <65, 65 to <75 and ≥75 years were 1.11 (95% CI 0.89, 1.40), 1.09 (0.89, 1.33) and 0.76 (0.57, 1.02), respectively. Linagliptin did not increase the risk of adverse kidney outcomes or hospitalization for heart failure across age groups. The incidence of adverse events, including hypoglycaemia, increased with age but was similar with linagliptin and placebo despite glycated haemoglobin A1c reduction with linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin did not increase risk for cardiovascular events or hypoglycaemia and kidney function remained stable in older people with T2D and established CVD with albuminuria and/or kidney disease.

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis

Aims: The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for oral administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, was evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program, and a recently published network meta-analysis allowed comparison with further injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly exenatide 2 mg, twice-daily exenatide 10 µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg, once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, in terms of the cost per patient achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets (cost of control).Materials and methods: Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists. Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.Results: For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively. Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%. All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.Conclusions: Oral semaglutide 14 mg is likely to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide, exenatide (once weekly and twice daily), liraglutide, and lixisenatide in terms of bringing people with type 2 diabetes to glycemic control targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% in the US.

The impact of phenotype, ethnicity and genotype on progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To conduct a comprehensive review of studies of glycaemic deterioration in type 2 diabetes and identify the major factors influencing progression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search with terms linked to type 2 diabetes progression. All the included studies were summarized based upon the factors associated with diabetes progression and how the diabetes progression was defined.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2785 articles; based on title, abstract and full-text review, we included 61 studies in the review. We identified seven criteria for diabetes progression: 'Initiation of insulin', 'Initiation of oral antidiabetic drug', 'treatment intensification', 'antidiabetic therapy failure', 'glycaemic deterioration', 'decline in beta-cell function' and 'change in insulin dose'. The determinants of diabetes progression were grouped into phenotypic, ethnicity and genotypic factors. Younger age, poorer glycaemia and higher body mass index at diabetes diagnosis were the main phenotypic factors associated with rapid progression. The effect of genotypic factors on progression was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS); a PRS constructed from the genetic variants linked to insulin resistance was associated with rapid glycaemic deterioration. The evidence of impact of ethnicity on progression was inconclusive due to the small number of multi-ethnic studies.

CONCLUSION

We have identified the major determinants of diabetes progression-younger age, higher BMI, higher HbA1c and genetic insulin resistance. The impact of ethnicity is uncertain; there is a clear need for more large-scale studies of diabetes progression in different ethnic groups.

Therapeutic Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care: A Challenge That Just Won't Go Away

Therapeutic inertia is a prevalent problem in people with type 2 diabetes in primary care and affects clinical outcomes. It arises from a complex interplay of patient-, clinician-, and health system-related factors. Ultimately, clinical practice guidelines have not made an impact on improving glycemic targets over the past decade. A more proactive approach, including focusing on optimal combination agents for early glycemic durability, may reduce therapeutic inertia and improve clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Economic Burden of Poor Glycemic Control Associated with Therapeutic Inertia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

Introduction

Therapeutic inertia refers to the failure to initiate or intensify treatment in a timely manner and is widespread in type 2 diabetes (T2D) despite the well-established importance of maintaining good glycemic control. The aim of this analysis was to quantify the clinical and economic burden associated with poor glycemic control due to therapeutic inertia in patients with T2D in the USA.

Methods

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate life expectancy, costs associated with diabetes-related complications, and lost workplace productivity in US patients. Baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), 11.0% (97 mmol/mol) 13.0% (119 mmol/mol), or 15.0% (140 mmol/mol), with targets of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), or 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) depending on baseline HbA1c, across several delayed intensification scenarios (values above target were defined as poor control). The burden associated with intensification delays of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 years was estimated over time horizons of 1–30 years. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results

In a population of 13.4 million patients with T2D and baseline HbA1c of 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), delaying intensification of therapy by 1 year was associated with a loss of approximately 13,390 life-years and increased total costs of US dollars (USD) 7.3 billion (1-year time horizon). Longer delays in intensification were associated with a greater economic burden. Delaying intensification by 7 years was projected to cost approximately 3 million life-years and USD 223 billion over a 30-year time horizon.

Conclusion

Therapeutic inertia is common in routine clinical practice and makes a substantial contribution to the burden associated with type 2 diabetes in the USA. Initiatives and interventions aimed at preventing therapeutic inertia are needed to improve clinical outcomes and avoid excess costs.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01199-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of the Cost Per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets with Oral Semaglutide: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and has been evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program. These trials assessed the proportions of patients achieving single and composite endpoints, encompassing glycemic control [defined in terms of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)], weight loss, and hypoglycemia. The present study assessed the cost of control with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US.

METHODS

Four endpoints were evaluated: (1) HbA1c ≤ 6.5%; (2) HbA1c < 7.0%; (3) ≥ 1.0%-point HbA1c reduction and weight loss ≥ 3.0%; and (4) HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain. The proportions of patients achieving each endpoint were sourced from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 trials. Treatment costs were accounted over an annual time-period in 2019 US dollars (USD), based on wholesale acquisition cost. Cost of control was calculated by dividing treatment costs by the proportion of patients achieving each target.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was consistently associated with the lowest cost of control for all four endpoints. For the targets of HbA1c ≤ 6.5% and HbA1c < 7.0%, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with lower cost of control than empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg by USD 15,036, 14,697, and 6996, respectively, and USD 931, 346 and 4497, respectively. For the double composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 525, 32,277 and 13,011, respectively versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg. For the triple composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 1255, 7510 and 5774, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was associated with lower cost of bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to four clinically-relevant treatment targets versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

A 96-week, multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of bexagliflozin as a monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To explore the safety and effectiveness of extended exposure to bexagliflozin as a monotherapy for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Adults with diabetes (n = 288) from the USA, Colombia and Mexico were randomized 1:1 to receive bexagliflozin (20 mg) or placebo for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the placebo-adjusted change in HbA1c at 24 weeks. Dosing was continued an additional 72 weeks to assess safety and the durability of the treatment effect. Secondary endpoints measured changes from baseline in body mass and systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at week 24, and the change, over study duration, in HbA1c_. RESULTS: The placebo-adjusted change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was -0.79% (-8.6 mmol/mol) [95%CI -0.53, -1.06 (-5.8, -11.6), P < .0001]. The unadjusted change from baseline through week 96 was -0.55% (-6.0 mmol/mol) ± 1.184% (12.9) (SD) for the bexagliflozin arm compared with 0.53% (5.8 mmol/mol) ± 1.215% (13.3) for the placebo arm (P < .0001). Significant decreases in body mass, SBP and DBP could be attributed to bexagliflozin exposure. The incidence of serious adverse events was lower in the bexagliflozin-treated group (2.8%) than in the placebo group (8.5%). Urinary tract infections occurred less frequently in the active arm (14.5%) than in the placebo arm (20.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Bexagliflozin at 20 mg/d was well tolerated and provided a durable, clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control over 96 weeks to participants in this phase 2 trial. A substantial reduction in weight and blood pressure was produced by bexagliflozin, with no increase in significant adverse event rates.

Combination therapy with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as complementary agents that address multi-organ defects in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has a complex pathophysiology composed of multiple underlying defects that lead to impaired glucose homeostasis and the development of macrovascular and microvascular complications. Of the currently available glucose-lowering therapies, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) both provide effective glycemic control and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with T2D and a high CV risk or established CV disease. Because these agents have complementary mechanisms of action, they are able to act on multiple defects of T2D when used in combination. This review discusses the rationale for and potential benefits of SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA combination therapy in patients with T2D. A search of the PubMed database was conducted for studies and reviews describing the combined use of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs, with a specific focus on identifying clinical studies of combination therapy in patients with T2D. In clinical studies, glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was significantly reduced over 28-52 weeks with SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA therapy versus the individual agents or baseline. Several CV risk factors, including body weight, blood pressure, and lipid parameters, were also improved. SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA therapy was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycemia and no unexpected findings. Taken together with results from large CV outcomes trials of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs, combination therapy with these agents potentially provides effective durable glycemic control and CV benefits due to their complementary actions on the defects of T2D.

Longitudinal changes in glycated haemoglobin following treatment intensification after inadequate response to two oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To identify change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) for 1 year after treatment intensification in patients with HbA1c >53 mmol/mol (7.0%) while on two classes of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a regional health plan claims database for the period January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2017. Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) whose treatment was intensified with insulin, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or a third OAD within 365 days of having HbA1c ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0%) on two OADs were included. The HbA1c trajectory for 1 year after intensification was estimated using a mixed-effects regression model.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1226 patients with a mean ± SD HbA1c at treatment intensification of 74.2 ± 18.7 mmol/mol (8.93 ± 1.7%). HbA1c was higher in the insulin group (74.2 mmol/mol) than in the non-insulin group (70.6 mmol/mol), as was the HbA1c decrease (P < 0.01) over the 1-year follow-up, particularly in patients with baseline HbA1c >9%. After intensification, insulin- and non-insulin-treated patients achieved an average change by month in HbA1c of -4.7 mmol/mol and -2.6 mmol/mol points, respectively. The analysis predicted HbA1c to be the lowest at 6 to 10 months post intensification, depending on intensification treatment and HbA1c at intensification; however, on average, HbA1c remained above 64.0 mmol/mol (8.0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM, intensification following an HbA1c value ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0%) while on two OADs was associated with a significant improvement in glycaemic control. Patients intensified with insulin had a higher baseline HbA1c but greater HbA1c reduction than those intensified with a non-insulin agent. However, HbA1c remained above 64 mmol/mol (8.0%) overall. Additional opportunity exists to further intensify therapy to improve glycaemic control.

Influence of Treatment Intensification on A1c in Patients with Suboptimally Controlled Type 2 Diabetes After 2 Oral Antidiabetic Agents

BACKGROUND

In the United States, more than 50% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have hemoglobin A1c (A1c) levels that fail to achieve the recommended target of < 7.0%. Of these, 30%-45% have an A1c > 9.0%, the threshold for poorly controlled T2DM per National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) measures. Treatment inertia is a known challenge. However, recent treatment intensification patterns and outcomes after treatment fails 2 classes of oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize treatment intensification patterns and glycemic control outcomes in patients with A1c ≥ 7.0% on 2 OADs.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with T2DM from a regional health plan claims dataset augmented with A1c results between January 1, 2010, and March 31, 2017. Patients were identified with an A1c ≥ 7.0% (baseline), while on 2 OADs, and whose treatment was intensified with basal/biphasic insulin (insulin), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1RA), or a third OAD within 365 days after the baseline A1c ≥ 7.0%. Patients had at least 1 A1c value 60-365 days (follow-up period) after treatment intensification. The proportion of patients with an A1c < 7.0% and < 9.0% at follow-up were identified by therapeutic intensification strategy. Odds ratios for achieving A1c < 7.0% and < 9.0% were calculated.

RESULTS

1,226 patients were included in the analysis, and 33.5% of the patients had a baseline A1c ≥ 9.0%. 24% of patients received insulin; 16% received GLP-1RA; and 60% received a third OAD for the treatment intensification. Overall, 26.0% achieved A1c < 7.0% and 76.1% of patients achieved < 9.0%, with a median follow-up of 119 days. The proportion of patients intensified with insulin who had an A1c ≥ 9.0% at follow-up was 34.6% versus 53.2% at baseline (P < 0.01). The corresponding percentages for those intensified with a GLP-1RA and OAD were 21.6% versus 27.1% (P = 0.24) and 20.1% versus 27.3% (P < 0.01). After controlling for baseline characteristics, the odds ratio (95% CI) of achieving A1c < 7.0% and < 9.0% was 2.05 (1.45-2.90) for GLP-1RA and 0.92 (0.61-1.40) for OAD. The association between goal attainment and GLP-1RA versus OAD intensification was influenced by the time to the A1c follow-up and baseline A1c.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment intensification was associated with improved glycemic control in patients after therapy failed 2 OADs. Patients with higher A1c at baseline were likely to initiate insulin, which was associated with a greater drop in A1c. GLP-1RA was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving NCQA-suggested glycemic control compared with a third OAD. However, the association varied by the follow-up period. These findings are important to health plans seeking to improve patient outcomes as reflected in high performance on NCQA diabetes quality measures by promoting effective and timely treatment intensification.

DISCLOSURES

Research funding was provided by Sanofi to the Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center at the University of Utah and SelectHealth to conduct this study. Thomas, Sterling, and Johnstone are employees and stock/shareholders of Sanofi. Kim, Unni, McAdam-Marx, and Brixner are employees of the Department of Pharmacotherapy at the University of Utah. Brixner also has served as an advisory board member and presenter for Sanofi. McAdam-Marx also reports grants to the Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, from AstraZeneca and Janssen, outside of the submitted work. Olsen is employed by SelectHealth. Part of the results of this study was presented at the Academy of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2018 in Boston, MA, during April 23-26, 2018.

Combination Therapy with an SGLT2 Inhibitor as Initial Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Guidelines differ with regard to indications for initial combination pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of (i) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor combination therapy in treatment-naïve type 2 diabetes adults; (ii) initial high and low dose SGLT2 inhibitor combination therapy. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial SGLT2 combination therapy. Mean difference (MD) for changes from baseline (HbA1c, weight, blood pressure) after 24–26 weeks of treatment and relative risks (RR, safety) were calculated using a random-effects model. Risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed. Results: In 4 RCTs (n = 3749) there was moderate quality evidence that SGLT2 inhibitor/metformin combination therapy resulted in a greater reduction in HbA1c (MD (95% CI); −0.55% (−0.67, −0.43)) and weight (−2.00 kg (−2.34, −1.66)) compared with metformin monotherapy, and a greater reduction in HbA1c (−0.59% (−0.72, −0.46)) and weight (−0.57 kg (−0.89, −0.25)) compared with SGLT2 inhibitor monotherapy. The high dose SGLT2 inhibitor/metformin combination resulted in a similar HbA1c but greater weight reduction; −0.47 kg (−0.88, −0.06) than the low dose combination therapy. The RR of genital infection with combination therapy was 2.22 (95% CI 1.33, 3.72) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.50, 0.96) compared with metformin and SGLT2 inhibitor monotherapy, respectively. The RR of diarrhoea was 2.23 (95% CI 1.46, 3.40) with combination therapy compared with SGLT2 inhibitor monotherapy. Conclusions: Initial SGLT2 inhibitor/metformin combination therapy has glycaemic and weight benefits compared with either agent alone and appears relatively safe. High dose SGLT2 inhibitor/metformin combination therapy appears to have modest weight, but no glycaemic benefits compared with the low dose combination therapy.

Changes in HbA1c and weight, and treatment persistence, over the 18 months following initiation of second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND

Intensification of metformin monotherapy with additional glucose-lowering drugs is often required in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study evaluated changes in HbA1c and weight, as well as treatment persistence, associated with different second-line therapies used in UK clinical practice.

METHODS

The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink was used to identify patients with T2D who initiated second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy between 1 August 2013 and 14 June 2016. Treatment persistence and changes in HbA1c and weight were assessed at 6-month intervals up to 18 months.

RESULTS

In total, 9097 patients (mean age 61.2 years, 57.2% men, mean [standard deviation] HbA1c 9.0% [1.8]/ 75 mmol/mol [19.7]) were included in the analysis, with a median 2.3 years between initiating metformin monotherapy and initiating second-line therapy. Patients were stratified according to second-line therapy: metformin in combination with sulfonylurea (SU; n = 4655 [51.2%]), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4 inhibitor; n = 2899 [31.9%]), or a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2 inhibitor; n = 441 [4.9%]) or other therapies (all other second-line treatments; n = 1102 [12.1%]). At 18 months, the cumulative proportion of patients changing treatment was lowest for those who received metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor (42.3%), followed by patients on metformin plus SU or metformin plus a DPP-4 inhibitor (46.8%). HbA1c reductions were seen with all second-line therapies, with an overall mean (standard error) reduction of -1.23% (0.05)/-13.4 mmol/mol (0.5). Changes were directly, but not linearly, related to baseline HbA1c and were greater in those with higher HbA1c at baseline. Weight loss from baseline was greatest in patients treated with metformin plus either an SGLT-2 inhibitor (-4.2 kg) or a DPP-4 inhibitor (-1.5 kg). The highest proportion of patients who achieved the composite outcome of HbA1c reduction ≥ 0.5%, body weight loss ≥ 2.0 kg and treatment persistence for 18 months was observed in those receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor (36.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort, all second-line therapies added to metformin monotherapy improved glycaemic control, but the lowest treatment change/discontinuation rate and most sustained weight loss was seen with patients receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor.

Glycaemic impact of treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antidiabetes drugs or basal insulin

AIMS

To investigate the impact of treatment intensification (TI) on glycaemic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes with glycated haemoglobin A1c (A1C) ≥7% after ≥6 months of treatment with 2 oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) or basal insulin (BI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from the Optum administrative claims database from 1 January 2009 to 31 August 2015. Patients with TI ≤6 months after the first A1C ≥7% (index date) were compared with patients with no TI (NTI). TI included addition of OAD, GLP-1 receptor agonist or premixed insulin in OAD and BI cohorts, addition of BI and/or bolus insulin in the OAD cohort and addition of bolus insulin or increasing BI dose in the BI cohort. Change from the index A1C value and hypoglycaemia events was compared at 12 months after TI after adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 3990/28 123 (14.2%) and 10 425/16 140 (65%) of eligible adults in the OAD and BI cohorts, respectively, underwent TI. These patients showed greater adjusted A1C change vs NTI patients (OAD cohort: -0.59% vs -0.25%; BI cohort: -0.30% vs -0.16%; P < .001 for both comparisons), but with higher hypoglycaemia rates (OAD cohort: odds ratio [OR] 1.68; P < .001; BI cohort: OR: 1.23; P = .004) at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical inertia appears to be a significant issue in this population. Although associated with more frequent hypoglycaemia, these results demonstrate that timely TI improves A1C levels, highlighting the need for new and improved agents to effectively manage glycaemia while reducing hypoglycaemia risk.

Assessment of the relationship between diabetes treatment intensification and quality measure performance using electronic medical records

AIMS

Assess the relationship between timely treatment intensification and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) control quality-of-care performance measures, i.e., HbA1C levels, among patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records and diabetes registry data from a large, accountable care organization (ACO) were used to isolate a sample of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who received at least one oral antidiabetes agent and had at least one HbA1C level measurement ≥8.0% (64 mmol/mol; i.e., uncontrolled diabetes) between 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2015. Treatment intensification status was evaluated for each patient during a 120-day treatment intensification window following the index HbA1c measure. Two-level hierarchical generalized linear models, with patients aggregated at the physician level, were used to assess the association between treatment intensification and achieving HbA1C quality performance measures.

RESULTS

547 patients met study selection criteria and 480 patients had at least one HbA1C test after the treatment intensification window and were used for the statistical analyses. About 40% of patients who had uncontrolled diabetes received treatment intensification during the 120-day window. Greater index HbA1C, greater patient body mass index, and fewer unique pre-index oral antidiabetes agents were significantly associated with greater likelihood of receiving timely treatment intensification. The odds of receiving treatment intensification were about 1.8 times higher (P = 0.0027) among patients with poor index HbA1C control (HbA1c level >9.0% [75 mmol/mol]) compared to other patients (index HbA1c 8.0% - 9.0%). Hispanic patients (compared to White patients) were significantly more likely to exhibit poor control after treatment intensification (odds ratio [OR] 2.91, P = 0.0304), underscoring the difficulty of controlling diabetes in this vulnerable group. In contrast, being male and being treated primarily by an internist (compared to primary treatment by a family medicine specialist) were both significantly associated with achieving superior control (HbA1c level <8.0%) after treatment intensification (OR 0.53 [P = 0.0165]; OR 0.41 [P = 0.0275], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Timely treatment intensification was significantly associated with greater likelihood of patients achieving superior HbA1C control (<8.0%) and better HbA1C control quality performance for the practice. Even in an ACO with resources dedicated to diabetes control, it is incumbent upon clinicians to readily identify and open dialogues with patients who may benefit from closely supervised, individualized attention.

Treatment Intensification in Type 2 Diabetes: A Real-World Study of 2-OAD Regimens, GLP-1 RAs, or Basal Insulin

INTRODUCTION

Treatment guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to glycemia management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but this may result in uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between steps. This retrospective analysis compared clinical and economic outcomes among patients with uncontrolled T2D initiating two oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), or basal insulin in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Adults with T2D on OAD monotherapy were identified in the MarketScan claims database (2007-2014). Those initiating two OADs (simultaneously or sequentially), GLP-1 RAs, or basal insulin were selected (date of initiation was termed the 'index date'); patients were required to have HbA1c > 7.0% in the 6 months pre-index date. HbA1c was compared from 6 months pre- to 1-year post-index. Annual all-cause healthcare utilization and costs were reported over the 1-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Data for 6054 patients were analyzed (2-OAD, n = 4442; GLP-1 RA, n = 361; basal insulin, n = 1251). Baseline HbA1c was high in all cohorts, but highest in the basal-insulin cohort. Treatment initiation resulted in reductions in HbA1c in all cohorts, which was generally maintained throughout the follow-up period. Average HbA1c reductions from the 6 months pre- to 1 year post-index date were -1.2% for GLP-1 RA, -1.6% for OADs, and -1.8% for basal insulin. HbA1c < 7.0% at 1 year occurred in 32.6%, 47.5%, and 41.1% of patients, respectively. Annual healthcare costs (mean [SD]) were lowest for OAD (US$10,074 [$22,276]) followed by GLP-1 RA (US$14,052 [$23,829]) and basal insulin (US$18,813 [$37,332]).

CONCLUSION

Despite robust HbA1c lowering following treatment initiation, many patients did not achieve HbA1c < 7.0%. Basal insulin, generally prescribed for patients with high baseline HbA1c, was associated with a large reduction in HbA1c and with higher costs. Therapy intensification at an appropriate time could lead to clinical and economic benefits and should be investigated further.

FUNDING

Sanofi U.S., Inc.

Pharmacist Impact on Treatment Intensification and Hemoglobin A1C in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at an Academic Health Center

Background:

Achievement of treatment goals for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is suboptimal. This is in part driven by a lack of treatment intensification when warranted, termed “clinical inertia.”

Objectives:

To investigate time to treatment intensification and changes in A1C among pharmacist–physician managed (PPM) patients compared to usual medical care (UMC) in patients with T2DM.

Methods:

Retrospective matched cohort study at 2 academic family medicine clinics. Patients in each cohort were matched 1:1 based on age (±5 years), primary care provider, gender, and race.

Results:

A total of 50 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean time to treatment intensification was longer in the UMC cohort as compared with the PPM cohort (325 (66) days vs 200 (62) days [ P = .50]). A higher percentage of patients in the PPM cohort achieved ≥0.5% reduction in A1C in comparison to the UMC cohort (60% vs 44%, respectively [ P = .41]). Patients in the PPM cohort experienced a greater mean decrease in A1C from baseline when compared to patients in the UMC cohort (−1% (1.8%) vs −0.4% (2.2%) [ P = .24]).

Conclusion:

Patients exposed to a pharmacist in this retrospective matched cohort study experienced shorter time to treatment intensification and a greater reduction in A1C than those managed solely by a medical provider, although results were not statistically significant. Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of the pharmacist in improving clinical inertia in the management of T2DM.

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

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

Changing Patients' Treatment Preferences and Values with a Decision Aid for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results from the Treatment Arm of a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Failure to intensify treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when indicated, or clinical inertia, is a major obstacle to achieving optimal glucose control. This study investigates the impact of a values-focused patient decision aid (PDA) for T2DM antihyperglycemic agent intensification on patient values related to domains important in decision-making and preferred treatments.

METHODS

Patients with poorly controlled T2DM who were taking a metformin-containing regimen were recruited through physicians to access a PDA presenting evidence-based information on T2DM and antihyperglycemic agent class options. Participants' preferences for treatment, decision-making, and the relative importance they placed on various values related to treatment options (e.g., dosing, weight gain, side effects) were assessed before and after interacting with the PDA. Changes from baseline were calculated (post-PDA minus pre-PDA difference) and assessed in univariate generalized linear models exploring associations with patients' personal values.

RESULTS

Analyses included 114 diverse patients from 27 clinics across the US. The importance of avoiding injections, concern about hypoglycemia, and taking medications only once a day significantly decreased after interacting with the PDA [- 1.1 (p = 0.002), - 1.3 (p < 0.001), - 1.1 (p = 0.004), respectively], while the importance of taking medications that avoided weight gain increased [0.8 (p = 0.004)]. Prior to viewing the PDA, most patients (58.8%) had not begun thinking about the decision of adding a medication, and few (12.3%) indicated that they had already made a decision. Post-PDA, 46.5% could state a medication preference.

CONCLUSION

The values-focused PDA for T2DM medication intensification prepared patients to make a shared decision with their clinician and changed patients' values regarding what was important in making that decision. Helping patients understand their options and underlying values can promote shared decision-making and may reduce clinical inertia delaying treatment intensification.

FUNDING

Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.

Initiating therapy in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: Combination therapy vs a stepwise approach

There is clear evidence that achieving glycaemic targets reduces the risk of developing complications as a result of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients, however, continue to have suboptimal glycaemic control because of issues that include unclear advice on how to achieve these targets as well as clinical inertia. The two management approaches recommended for patients newly diagnosed with T2D are stepwise and combination therapy, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Stepwise therapy may result in good patient adherence and allow greater individualization of therapy, and minimization of side effects and cost, and so may be appropriate for patients who are closer to goal. Stepwise therapy, however, may also lead to frequent delays in achieving glycaemic goals and longer exposure to hyperglycaemia. Combination therapy, which is now emerging as an important therapy option, has a number of potential advantages over stepwise therapy, including reduction in clinical inertia and earlier and more frequent achievement of glycated haemoglobin goals by targeting multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously, which may more effectively delay disease progression. Compared with stepwise therapy, the disadvantages of combination therapy include reduced patient adherence resulting from complex, multi-drug regimens, difficulty determining the cause of poor efficacy and/or side effects, patient refusal to accept disease, and higher cost. Fixed-dose and fixed-ratio combinations are novel therapeutic approaches which may help address several issues of treatment complexity and patient burden associated with combination therapy comprising individual drugs. The choice of which drugs to administer and the decision to use stepwise vs combination therapy, however, should always be made on an individualized basis.

Therapeutic inertia in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

AIMS

Therapeutic inertia, defined as the failure to initiate or intensify therapy in a timely manner according to evidence-based clinical guidelines, is a key reason for uncontrolled hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The aims of this systematic review were to identify how therapeutic inertia in the management of hyperglycaemia was measured and to assess its extent over the past decade.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic searches for articles published from January 1, 2004 to August 1, 2016 were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase. Two researchers independently screened all of the titles and abstracts, and the full texts of publications deemed relevant. Data were extracted by a single researcher using a standardized data extraction form.

RESULTS

The final selection for the review included 53 articles. Measurements used to assess therapeutic inertia varied across studies, making comparisons difficult. Data from low- to middle-income countries were scarce. In most studies, the median time to treatment intensification after a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement above target was more than 1 year (range 0.3 to >7.2 years). Therapeutic inertia increased as the number of antidiabetic drugs rose and decreased with increasing HbA1c levels. Data were mainly available from Western countries. Diversity of inertia measures precluded meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic inertia in the management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes is a major concern. This is well documented in Western countries, but corresponding data are urgently needed in low- and middle-income countries, in view of their high prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

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.

Delays in treatment intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs and risk of microvascular and macrovascular events in patients with poor glycaemic control: An individual patient simulation study

AIMS

To use the Archimedes model to estimate the consequences of delays in oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment intensification on glycaemic control and long-term outcomes at 5 and 20 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using real-world data, we modelled a cohort of hypothetical patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥8%, on metformin, with no history of insulin use. The cohort included 3 strata based on the number of OADs taken at baseline. The first add-on in the intensification sequence was a sulphonylurea, next was a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and last, a thiazolidinedione. The scenarios included either no delay or delay, based on observed and extrapolated times to intensification.

RESULTS

At 1 year, HbA1c was 6.8% for patients intensifying without delay, and 8.2% for those delaying intensification. For no delay vs delay, risks of major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, heart failure and amputations were reduced by 18.0%, 25.0%, 13.7%, and 20.4%, respectively, at 5 years; severe hypoglycaemia risk, however, increased to 19% for the no delay scenario vs 12.5% for delay. At 20 years, the results showed similar trends to those at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of intensification of OAD therapy according to guideline recommendations led to greater reductions in HbA1c and lower risks of complications, but higher risks of hypoglycaemia than delaying intensification. These results highlight the potential impact of timely treatment intensification on long-term outcomes.

Change in HbA1c associated with treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the HbA1c change associated with treatment intensification in a real-world population of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Using a large US insurance claims database, patients aged ≥18 years with a T2D diagnosis and HbA1c ≥8.0% (64 mmol/mol) after ≥3 months of oral pharmacotherapy with metformin (± other oral antidiabetes agents) were identified (index date). Continuous enrollment was required for ≥12 months before (baseline) and after the index date with no baseline use of injectable antidiabetes drugs. We defined treatment intensification as prescriptions for injectable or additional oral antidiabetes drugs. Time to intensification was classified as timely (within 6 months) or not (≥6 months or not intensified). Linear regression models with propensity score 1:1 matching were performed to assess the effect of timely intensification on HbA1c.

RESULTS

Of the 11,525 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, only 37% had treatment intensified within 6 months. Mean age at index date was 57 years, 40% of the sample was female. The mean baseline A1C was 9.4% and 9.0%, while post-index A1C was 7.9% and 8.2% for timely intensified patients versus not, respectively. Patients with timely intensification had significantly greater HbA1c reduction compared with others (-0.33%, 95% CI: -0.41% to -0.25%) within 1 year of follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patients with T2D and treatment failure in a real-world setting, earlier treatment intensification was associated with better glycemic control as indicated by lower HbA1c values.