Real-world outcomes of initiating insulin glargine-based treatment versus premixed analog insulins among US patients with type 2 diabetes failing oral antidiabetic drugs

Basal Insulinotherapy in Patients Living with Diabetes in France: The EF-BI Study

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation basal insulins like glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) have a longer duration of action and less daily fluctuation and interday variability than first-generation ones, such as glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). The EF-BI study, a nationwide observational, retrospective study, was designed to compare persistence, acute care complications, and healthcare costs associated with the initiation of such basal insulins (BI) in a real-life setting in France.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the French healthcare claims database (SNDS). Adult patients living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM) initiating Gla-300 or Gla-100 ± other hypoglycemic medications between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, and without any insulin therapy over the previous 6 months were included. Persistence was defined as remaining on the same insulin therapy until discontinuation defined by a 6 month period without insulin reimbursement. Hospitalized acute complications were identified using ICD-10 codes. Total collective costs were established for patients treated continuously with each basal insulin over 1-3 years. All comparisons were adjusted using a propensity score based on initial patient/treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 235,894 patients with T2DM and 6672 patients with T1DM were included. Patients treated with Gla-300 were 83% (T1DM) and 44% (T2DM) less likely to discontinue their treatment than those treated with Gla-100 after 24 months (p < 0.0001). The annual incidence of acute hospitalized events in patients with T2DM treated with Gla-300 was 12% lower than with Gla-100 (p < 0.0001) but similar in patients with T1DM. Comparison of overall costs showed moderate but statistically significant differences in favor of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 for all patients over the first year, and in T2DM only over a 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Use of Gla-300 resulted in a better persistence, less acute hospitalized events at least in T2DM, and reduced healthcare expenditure. These real-life results confirmed the potential interest of using Gla-300 rather than Gla-100.

Association Between Treatment Adherence and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Outcomes in People With Diabetes Using Smart Insulin Pens in a Real-World Setting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of insulin injection adherence, smart insulin pen engagement, and glycemic control using real-world data from 16 countries from adults self-administering basal insulin degludec and bolus insulin with a smart insulin pen (NovoPen 6 or NovoPen Echo Plus) alongside continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were aggregated over 14-day periods. Treatment adherence was defined according to the number of missed basal and missed bolus insulin doses and smart pen engagement according to the number of days with data uploads.

RESULTS

Data from 3,945 adults, including 25,157 14-day periods with ≥70% CGM coverage, were analyzed. On average, 0.2 basal and 6.0 bolus insulin doses were missed over 14 days. The estimated probability of missing at least one basal insulin dose over a 14-day period was 17.6% (95% CI 16.5, 18.7). Missing one basal or bolus insulin dose per 14 days was associated with a significant decrease in percentage of time with glucose levels in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), of -2.8% (95% CI -3.7, -1.8) and -1.7% (-1.8, -1.6), respectively; therefore, missing two basal or four bolus doses would decrease TIR by >5%. Smart pen engagement was associated positively with glycemic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This combined analysis of real-world smart pen and CGM data showed that missing two basal or four bolus insulin doses over a 14-day period would be associated with a clinically relevant decrease in TIR. Smart insulin pens provide valuable insights into treatment injection behaviors.

What Is the Role of Basal Weekly Insulin in Clinical Practice? The State of the Art

Despite the advent of innovative therapies in the treatment of diabetes, ever-increasing awareness is still directed to the role of insulin since it has continued to be at the centre of diabetes therapy for decades, as a therapeutic integration of innovative agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), as the only replacement therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and also in gestational diabetes. In this context, the study of molecules such as weekly basal insulins, both for their technological and pharmacodynamic innovation and their manageability and undoubted benefits in compliance with drug therapy, can only be a turning point in diabetes and for all its phenotypes. This review aims to provide insight into the knowledge of basal weekly insulins and their use in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus by examining their safety, efficacy, manageability and increased therapeutic compliance.

Association of treatment satisfaction and physician trust with glycemic control among primary care patients with type 2 diabetes in Egypt

Objectives

To evaluate the association of diabetes treatment satisfaction and trust in family physicians with glycemic control among primary care patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

A cross-sectional study on 319 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from five primary healthcare centers in Egypt. Data were collected from February to August 2021 using a structured questionnaire that contained six parts: sociodemographic data, disease profile, the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8), self-reported medication knowledge questionnaire (MKQ), and revised healthcare relationship trust scale (HCR). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess predictors of treatment satisfaction, physician trust, and HbA1c level. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

The mean age was 59.66 years (± 7.87 years) and 55.17% were females. Multiple linear regression analysis for predicting HbA1c showed that HbA1c level was lower in patients with higher treatment satisfaction scores (β =  - 0.289, p < 0.001) and higher medication adherence scores (β =  - 0.198, p = 0.001). Treatment satisfaction scores were positively predicted by higher physician trust scores (β = 0.301, p < 0.001), increased medication adherence scores (β = 0.160, p = 0.002), and longer duration of diabetes (β = 0.226, p < 0.001). Positive predictors for physician trust included HbA1c level (β = 0.141, p = 0.012), medication knowledge (β = 0.280, p < 0.001), diabetes treatment satisfaction (β = 0.366, p < 0.001) and medication adherence (β = 0.146, p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Optimizing diabetes treatment satisfaction and physician trust could have favorable associations with medication adherence and medication knowledge with a possible improvement in glycemic control. Family physicians should incorporate patients reported outcomes alongside traditional clinical measures in evaluating diabetes management in primary care.

Investigation of the relationship between the attitudes of patients with type 2 diabetes toward insulin therapy and complementary alternative medicine

AIM

This study aimed to determine the attitudes of patients with type 2 diabetes toward insulin treatment and complementary alternative medicine and to examine the relationship between them.

METHOD

A cross-sectional design was used in the study. A total of 293 patients with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. The study data were collected by using a Descriptive Information Form, Complementary, Alternative and Conventional Medicine Attitude Scale (CACMAS), and the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS). The factors related to the attitudes of patients with type 2 diabetes toward insulin were examined by using multiple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

It was determined that 36.5% of the patients used CAM, 49.8% received insulin therapy, and that 38.6% received oral antidiabetic treatment. Patients' mean score on the total CACMAS was 106.8 ± 19.7, indicating a moderately positive attitude. Their mean score on the total ITAS was 57.1 ± 11.6, suggesting that they had a negative attitude toward insulin therapy. In regular drug use, negative attitudes toward insulin decreased (β = -0.151, p < 0.001), and when dissatisfaction with conventional medicine increased, negative attitudes toward insulin increased, as well (β = -0.432p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

While almost all of the patients (93.9%) had a negative attitude toward insulin, they had a moderately positive attitude toward the use of CAM. A significant portion of them (36.5%) stated that they used CAM. There was a weak positive correlation between attitude toward CAM and negative attitude toward insulin.

Treatment persistence and adherence in people with type 2 diabetes switching to iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist

BACKGROUND: Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin (BI) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have greater simplicity of administration with expected improved adherence/persistence with therapy, but real-world data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare medication persistence, adherence, and health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs for insulin glargine 100 U/mL and the GLP-1 RA lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with newly initiated free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs initiated simultaneously or sequentially. METHODS: This analysis used the US Optum Clinformatics (January 2017 to November 2019) database and included data from adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) of 8% or more. Participants received iGlarLixi or free-dose combinations of BI and GLP-1 RAs prescribed simultaneously or subsequently. Participants were followed for 12 months. Cohorts were propensity score matched on baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was persistence (days on treatment without discontinuation). Secondary outcomes were adherence (proportion of days covered), change in A1c, and all-cause and diabetes-related health care resource utilization and costs. Subgroup analyses were performed for individuals with A1c levels of 9% or more. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 1,357 patients in each group; groups were well balanced. In the free-dose combination group, 65.6% started on BI, then added GLP-1 RAs; 28.5% started on GLP-1 RAs, then added BI; and 5.9% started on GLP-1 RAs and BI on the same day. In the subgroup with a baseline of A1c levels of 9% or more, 952 (iGlarLixi) and 932 (free-dose combination) participants were included. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the overall population who received iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations were persistent (44.8% vs 36.3% [hazard ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.11-1.35, P < 0.001]; the median [Q1, Q3] number of persistent days was 150 [63, 360] vs 120 [60, 310]) and adherent to therapy (41.3% vs 18.7%, [odds ratio = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.57-3.65; P < 0.001]). Results for persistence in the subpopulation of participants with HbA1c levels of 9% or more were similar. Reductions in A1c from baseline were similar between iGlarLixi and the free-dose combination group (overall population: -1.2% vs -1.3%; P = 0.1913), but the number of participants in the database with follow-up A1c data was low. All-cause and diabetes-related pharmacy visits and total medication and diabetes medication pharmacy claims costs were significantly lower (all P < 0.001) for those receiving iGlarLixi vs free-dose combinations in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 2 diabetes, iGlarLixi was associated with longer persistence by approximately 30 days, improved adherence, and reductions in outpatient and pharmacy visits and in pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi US. Medical writing support was provided by Barrie Anthony, PhD, CMPP, of Evidence Scientific Solutions and funded by Sanofi US. Dr Edelman has been on an advisory board and speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, MannKind, and Xeris and on an advisory board for BrightSight and is a board member for Senseonics and Team-Type1. Mr Cassarino is on the speakers' bureau for Sanofi. Dr Kayne has been a consultant and speakers' bureau member for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Dex and Mr Li are employees of Sanofi. Dr Pasquel has received unrestricted research support from Dexcom, Insulet, and Merck and has been a consultant for Medscape, AI Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Dexcom.

Practical Guidance on Basal Insulin Initiation and Titration in Asia: A Delphi-Based Consensus

The global health burden of diabetes is on the rise and has affected more than half a billion people worldwide, particularly in Southeast Asia, North Africa, Africa, and the Western Pacific, Middle East, and South and Central America regions of the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Despite many new treatments being available for the management of diabetes, glycemic control remains suboptimal in Asia, compared to the rest of the world. Delay in timely insulin initiation and inadequate titration of insulin are regarded to be some of the important reasons for inadequate glycemic control. Additionally, Asian populations have a distinct phenotype, including a younger age of onset and higher glycemic excursions, suggestive of a lower beta-cell function, as compared to non-Asians. Although there are multiple local and international guidelines on insulin initiation and titration, some of these guidelines can be complex. There is an unmet need for guideline recommendations on basal insulin initiation and titration to be simplified and customized for the Asian population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A unified approach would increase adoption of basal insulin initiation by primary care and family medicine physicians, which in turn would help reduce the inertia to insulin initiation. With this background, a consensus-seeking meeting was conducted with 14 experts from seven Asian countries to delineate appropriate practices for insulin initiation and titration in the Asian context. The key objective was to propose a simple insulin titration algorithm, specific for the Asian population, to improve glycemic control and optimize therapeutic outcomes of people with T2DM on basal insulin. Following a detailed review of literature and current guidelines, and potential barriers to insulin initiation and titration, the experts proposed a simplified insulin titration algorithm based on both physician- and patient-led components. The consensus recommendations of the experts related to basal insulin initiation and titration have been summarized in this article, along with the proposed titration algorithm for optimizing glycemic control in the Asian population with T2DM.

Factors associated with non-adherence to insulin and non-insulin medications in patients with poorly controlled diabetes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate differences in factors associated with self-reported medication non-adherence to insulin and non-insulin medications in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial in patients with obesity and uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between several clinical factors (measured with survey questionnaires at study baseline) and self-reported non-adherence to insulin and non-insulin medications.

RESULTS

Among 263 patients, reported non-adherence was 62% (52% for insulin, 55% for non-insulin medications). Reported non-adherence to non-insulin medications was less likely in white versus non-white patients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.22,0.80) and with each additional medication taken (OR = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.61,0.93). Non-adherence to non-insulin medications was more likely with each point increase in a measure of diabetes medication intensity (OR = 1.43; 95%CI: 1.01,2.03), the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) score (OR = 1.06; 95%CI: 1.02,1.12), and in men versus women (OR = 3.03; 95%CI: 1.06,8.65). For insulin, reporting non-adherence was more likely (OR = 1.02; 95%CI: 1.00,1.04) with each point increase in the PAID.

DISCUSSION

Despite similar overall rates of reported non-adherence to insulin and non-insulin medications, factors associated with reported non-adherence to each medication type differed. These findings may help tailor approaches to supporting adherence in patients using different types of diabetes medications.

Adherence and persistence rates of major antidiabetic medications: a review

The objective of this paper was to review the adherence and persistence rates of major antidiabetic medication classes (i.e., metformin, sulfonylureas, sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and thiazolidinediones) by summarizing the major findings of the studies published since 2017. In addition, we reported the potential causes for low adherence and persistence of antidiabetic medications. Based on the literature, the highest rate of adherence and persistence was consistently observed in metformin users. Second to metformin were sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Injectable therapies such as insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists trailed low on the adherence and persistence rates. To the best of our knowledge, no studies published since the year 2017 analyzed the adherence and persistence of thiazolidinediones independently. The most frequently cited cause for low adherence and persistence was the severity of adverse events. Baseline characteristics (e.g., baseline HbA1c level), demographic information (e.g., age, gender, or ethnicity), and comorbidity profiles also had significant impacts on adherence and persistence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Basal weekly insulins: the way of the future!

Basal insulin treatment is indispensable for patients with type 1 diabetes and often required by many with type 2 diabetes. Incremental advances lengthening the duration of action of insulin analogs and reducing pharmacodynamic variability have resulted in truly once-daily, long-acting basal insulin analogs. In the quest for better basal insulins to facilitate improvements in glycemic control and long-term outcomes, the driving need is to remove barriers delaying timely initiation of basal insulin, to maximize treatment adherence and persistence and reduce treatment burden without increasing risk of hypoglycemia. We review the range of investigational once-weekly insulins and their molecular strategies and profiles. Currently, the two most advanced clinical development programs are: (1) basal insulin icodec, an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain (Novo Nordisk) and (2) basal insulin Fc, a fusion protein that combines a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain (Eli Lilly). Available phase 2 data for these two once-weekly agents show comparable glycemic control to existing once-daily insulin analogs, with no greater risk of hypoglycemia. While phase 3 data are awaited to confirm efficacy and safety, we provide future clinical perspectives on practical considerations for the potential use of once-weekly insulins.

Insulinization in T2DM with Basal Analogues During COVID-19 Pandemic: Expert Opinion from an Indian Panel

The ongoing global pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a severe strain on the management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Optimal glycemic control is always important, but more so in the existing environment of COVID-19. In this context, timely insulinization to achieve optimal glycemic control assumes major significance. However, given the challenges associated with the pandemic like restrictions of movement and access to healthcare resources, a simple and easy way to initiate and optimize insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled diabetes is required. With this premise, a group of clinical experts comprising diabetologists and endocrinologists from India discussed the challenges and potential solutions for insulin initiation, titration, and optimization in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) during the COVID-19 pandemic and how basal insulin can be a good option in this situation owing to its unique set of advantages like lower risk of hypoglycemia, ease of training, need for less monitoring, better adherence, flexibility of using oral antidiabetic drugs, and improved quality of life compared to other insulin regimens. The panel agreed that the existing challenges should not be a reason to delay insulin initiation in people with uncontrolled T2DM and provided recommendations, which included potential solutions for initiating insulin in the absence or restriction of in-person consultations; the dose of insulin at initiation; the type of insulin preferred for simplified regimen and best practices for optimal titration to achieve glycemic targets during the pandemic. Practical and easily implementable tips for patients and involvement of stakeholders (caregivers and healthcare providers) to facilitate insulin acceptance were also outlined by the expert panel. Simplified and convenient insulin regimens like basal insulin analogues are advised during and following the pandemic in order to achieve glycemic control in people with uncontrolled T2DM.

Assessment of basal insulin adherence using 2 methodologies among Texas Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin is often recommended as the initial therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment. Adequate adherence is critical to diabetes management, yet suboptimal insulin adherence has been reported. Second-generation long-acting (SGLA) insulin has higher dosing flexibility and lower hypoglycemia risk and may improve adherence. However, little is known regarding adherence to SGLA insulin and how adherence to SGLA insulin compares with intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation long-acting (FGLA) insulin. Measurement of insulin adherence is challenging because of the inaccuracies of recorded days supply of insulin, and traditional medication possession ratio (MPR) may be negatively affected. Adjusted MPR (aMPR) has been developed in an effort to address this issue. OBJECTIVE: To examine the unadjusted and adjusted associations between basal insulin type and adherence to basal insulin using MPR and aMPR. METHODS: This retrospective database study used Texas Medicaid prescription claims from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2017. The index date was the date of the first basal insulin prescription without the same prescription 6 months before (pre-index), and all patients were followed for 12 months (post-index). Patients aged 18-63 years with ≥ 1 pre-index prescription of an oral hypoglycemia agent (OHA) or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), without any post-index prescription of premixed insulin or a basal insulin different from index insulin, and with continuous enrollment throughout the pre- and post-index periods, were included. The dependent variable was basal insulin adherence over 12 months, measured using MPR and aMPR. Unadjusted and adjusted adherence comparisons were conducted by basal (background) insulin type (NPH, FGLA, and SGLA). Covariates included age, gender, baseline use of basal insulins and comorbid medications, total number of medications, OHA adherence, post-index number of OHAs, and use of bolus insulins and GLP-1 RAs. Analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 5,034 patients included, NPH, FGLA, and SGLA insulin users accounted for 3.7%, 89.8%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall mean (SD) age was 50.9 (9.9) years, and 65.9% were female. In the unadjusted bivariate analyses, SGLA insulin users had significantly higher adherence, using either MPR (SGLA 0.68 [0.25] vs. FGLA 0.59 [0.27] vs. NPH 0.55 [0.27]; P < 0.0001) or aMPR (0.83 [0.23] vs. 0.78 [0.26] vs. 0.73 [0.28]; P = 0.0001). After controlling for covariates, insulin type was not significantly associated with the likelihood of being adherent (MPR or aMPR ≥ 0.8) using either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to SGLA insulin was not different from adherence to other basal insulins after controlling for patient characteristics. Yet, MPR and aMPR have limitations and warrant further confirmation of the study findings. Before new adherence measures for insulin therapy are developed, MPR and aMPR should be used with caution. DISCLOSURES: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest. Part of the data from this study was presented as posters at the American Pharmacists Association 2020 Annual Meeting & Exposition, March 20-23, 2020, in National Harbor, MD, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 Conference, May 16-20, 2020, in Orlando, FL.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Persistence with Basal Insulin and Frequency of Hypoglycemia Requiring Hospitalization in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

A second-generation basal insulin analogue insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) has been marketed in France since June 2016. This real-world study was designed to assess persistence with Gla-300 and the prevalence of related hypoglycemia requiring hospitalization as compared to first-generation basal insulins, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using data in the large French comprehensive national healthcare system claims databases. Patients with T2DM newly treated with insulin in 2016 and 2017 (2-year period) were included. Three basal insulins [Gla-300, glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100; both branded and biosimilar) and insulin detemir (IDet)] were compared for (1) persistence until treatment discontinuation using adjusted Cox models and (2) hypoglycemia requiring hospitalization over the period of insulin exposure.

RESULTS

During the 2-year study period, in France, 181,263 patients initiated basal insulin therapy (in a basal scheme or a more complex insulin scheme), of whom 74% initiated Gla-100, 14.2% initiated IDet and 11.8% initiated Gla-300. Patient characteristics varied according to the insulin regimen in terms of age, gender, social coverage, insulin scheme, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Overall, 72% of patients were still treated with any basal insulin after 1 year (75% in basal scheme). In all insulin treatment regimens, patients were less likely to discontinue Gla-300 as compared to Gla-100 [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.41], with similar results when only the basal scheme was considered (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Persistence with IDet was similar to that with Gla-100. Patients treated with Gla-100 had higher crude hospitalization rates for hypoglycemia than those receiving Gla-300 (1.4 for 100 patients-years; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81); however, this difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for patient characteristics. Emergency Room (ER) visits were less frequent in patients treated with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 with or without adjustment for patient characteristics (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Real-world persistence for basal insulin therapy in patients with T2DM was significantly better in those on Gla-300 compared with those on Gla-100 and IDet. A trend to a lower frequency of hospitalization for hypoglycemia and ER visits, whatever the cause, was also observed in patients on Gla-300.

Mexican population sub-analysis of the lixilan clinical program with the fixed ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi)

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in the LixiLan clinical trials and compare results with the rest of the patients.

METHODS

Data was collected for Mexican patients who participated in either of three studies: phase 2 trial LixiLan-POC, that compared iGlarLixi vs insulin glargine (iGlar) on inadequately controlled patients with metformin; phase 3 trial LixiLan-O, comparing iGlarLixi vs iGlar and lixisenatide on inadequately controlled patients with oral antidiabetic agents; and finally the phase 3 trial LixiLan-L, comparing iGlarLixi vs iGlar on inadequately controlled patients with basal insulin. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment.

RESULTS

In the Mexican population, treatment with iGlarLixi significantly improved HbA1c compared with each component alone achieving an average of 6.5%; (6.17%, 6.63% and 6.73% for the LixiLan-POC, O and L studies respectively) and an average HbA1c reduction from baseline of 1.6%, for the three studies at end of treatment period.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety profile of iGlarLixi demonstrate a fair or better composite endpoint of HbA1c without hypoglycemia and no weight gain compared to overall trial population, which could help improve Mexican patients' outcomes.

Treatment Patterns, Adherence, and Persistence Associated With Human Regular U-500 Insulin: A Real-World Evidence Study

OBJECTIVE | Human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) is concentrated insulin with basal and prandial activity that can be used as insulin monotherapy. The goal of this study was to better understand treatment patterns (total daily dose [TDD] and concomitant medications), adherence, and persistence in real-world patients treated with U-500R. DESIGN AND METHODS | We selected patients from the Truven Health MarketScan database who initiated U-500R between 2010 and 2013. We collected data for three periods: pre-index (12 months before initiation), post-index (12 months after initiation or until a gap of ≥60 days in U-500R claims), and follow-up (12 months after post-index). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a regression model as appropriate. RESULTS | We identified 1,582 patients who met the selection criteria. The median TDD of U-500R during the post-index period was 333 units/day, with 70.0% of patients using 300-400 units/day. During the post-index period, 74.1% of patients had U-500R claims that did not overlap with prescriptions for other insulins, interpreted as U-500R monotherapy. Among patients with ≥1 U-500R fill in the post-index period (n = 1,208), 54.4% had a medication possession ratio (MPR, a measure of adherence) ≥80%. Although 849 patients had a gap of ≥60 days in U-500R claims in the post-index period, 602 of those resumed U-500R in the follow-up period. Of the 733 patients who had no gap in U-500R claims in the post-index period, 286 had a gap of ≥60 days in claims in year 2, and 447 continued with U-500R treatment beyond 2 years. CONCLUSION | These results demonstrate that U-500R was commonly used as insulin monotherapy, with a median TDD >300 units/day. Compared with published, relevant studies of other insulins, U-500R showed similar or greater adherence and persistence rates. These new data may help guide clinical decision-making when choosing insulin therapy for patients requiring high doses of insulin.

A Practitioner's Toolkit for Insulin Motivation in Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evidence-Based Recommendations from an International Expert Panel

AIM

To develop an evidence-based expert group opinion on the role of insulin motivation to overcome insulin distress during different stages of insulin therapy and to propose a practitioner's toolkit for insulin motivation in the management of diabetes mellitus (DM).

BACKGROUND

Insulin distress, an emotional response of the patient to the suggested use of insulin, acts as a major barrier to insulin therapy in the management of DM. Addressing patient-, physician- and drug-related factors is important to overcome insulin distress. Strengthening of communication between physicians and patients with diabetes and enhancing the patients' coping skills are prerequisites to create a sense of comfort with the use of insulin. Insulin motivation is key to achieving targeted goals in diabetes care. A group of endocrinologists came together at an international meeting held in India to develop tool kits that would aid a practitioner in implementing insulin motivation strategies at different stages of the journey through insulin therapy, including pre-initiation, initiation, titration and intensification. During the meeting, emphasis was placed on the challenges and limitations faced by both physicians and patients with diabetes during each stage of the journey through insulinization.

REVIEW RESULTS

After review of evidence and discussions, the expert group provided recommendations on strategies for improved insulin acceptance, empowering behavior change in patients with DM, approaches for motivating patients to initiate and maintain insulin therapy and best practices for insulin motivation at the pre-initiation, initiation, titration and intensification stages of insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the management of DM, bringing in positive behavioral change by motivating the patient to improve treatment adherence helps overcome insulin distress and achieve treatment goals.

Basal Insulin Initiation and Maintenance in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States

OBJECTIVE

A survey of US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus was conducted to better understand patients' insulin initiation experiences and treatment persistence behaviors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were recruited from consumer panels and grouped by basal insulin treatment pattern: continuers (no gap of ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation); interrupters (gap ≥7 days, resumed treatment); discontinuers (stopped for ≥7 days, not resumed). A quota of approximately 50 respondents per persistence category was set.

RESULTS

A total of 154 respondents (52 continuers, 52 interrupters, 50 discontinuers) completed the survey. Mean age was 51.4 years; 51.9% male. Continuers were more likely to report their views being considered during initiation, and less likely to report a sense of failure. Concerns included insulin dependence (64.3% agree/strongly agree), frequent blood glucose monitoring (55.2%), costs/ability to pay (53.9%), fears of or mistakes during self-injection (52.6%), and weight gain (52.6%). Continuers were motivated by benefits of insulin therapy; experienced or potential side effects were notable factors for interruption/discontinuation. Healthcare provider instruction was indicated as a reason for continuing, stopping, and restarting therapy.

CONCLUSION

Benefits of basal insulin therapy motivated continuers while side effects impacted interruption/discontinuation. Persistence on basal insulin is often influenced by provider actions. Earlier provider intervention upon signs of treatment discontinuation may promote persistence.

[Actual state of injection techniques and effect of medical treatment instructions in elderly patients with diabetes using insulin]

AIM

Support for elderly patients using insulin to continue self-injection safely is required for clinical settings. The aim of this study was 1) to clarify the actual state of self-injection procedures for elderly people injecting insulin and 2) to verify whether or not the injection procedures can be improved by nurses' medical treatment instructions.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The subjects were outpatients at an educational facility certified by the Japan Diabetes Society. Basic clinical characteristics, the Mini-Cog cognitive function test, basic ADL and instrumental ADL, and 24 items of the self-injection procedure were evaluated by nurses. After receiving a 30-minute face-to-face session of individual instructions from trained nurses two or more times, the injection procedure was re-evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 63 study subjects, 10 were injecting insulin with the support of others (supported injection group). The median age in the self-injection group was 72 years old, while that in the supported injection group was 82 years old. The supported injection group was older, the female ratio higher, and the Mini-Cog and ADL indices lower than in the self-injection group (p <0.05). The median history of the use of insulin was over 10 years in both groups. In the self-injection group, the degree of proficiency with the injection technique was significantly improved after receiving the instructions (p <0.05). The biggest improvement was in response to the question, "Do you know that you need to shift the site of injections?", which doubled (p <0.05). The correct answer rate for "Do you know the name of your insulin formulation?" was less than half, and it remained unchanged even after receiving instructions. In the supported injection group, 90% had a Mini-Cog of ≤2 points, but 6 subjects (60%) were able to perform an injection by themselves with others supporting the adjustments made to the amount of insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-injection technique improved significantly, even in elderly people, following the delivery of medical treatment instructions by nurses, and the item with the highest improvement effect was subjects' understanding of the need to shift the injection site. Our study showed that even in elderly people with cognitive dysfunction who are performing injections with the support of others, some of the injection procedures were retained by relying on procedural memory acquired in the past.

Efficacy of two telemonitoring systems to improve glycaemic control during basal insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: The TeleDiab-2 randomized controlled trial

TeleDiab-2 was a 13-month randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of two telemonitoring systems to optimize basal insulin (BI) initiation in subjects with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c, 7.5%-10%). A total of 191 participants (mean age 58.7 years, mean HbA1c 8.9%) were randomized into three groups: group 1(G1, standard care, n = 63), group 2 (G2, interactive voice response system, n = 64) and group 3 (G3, Diabeo-BI app software, n = 64). The two telemonitoring systems proposed daily adjustments of BI doses, in order to facilitate the achievement of fasting blood glucose (FBG) values targeted at ~100 mg/dL. At 4 months follow-up, HbA1c reduction was significantly higher in the telemonitoring groups (G2: -1.44% and G3: -1.48% vs. G1: -0.92%; P < 0.002). Moreover, target FBG was reached by twice as many patients in the telemonitoring groups as in the control group, and insulin doses were also titrated to higher levels. No severe hypoglycaemia was observed in the telemonitoring groups and mild hypoglycaemia frequency was similar in all groups. In conclusion, both telemonitoring systems improved glycaemic control to a similar extent, without increasing hypoglycaemic episodes.

Lack of Treatment Persistence and Treatment Nonadherence as Barriers to Glycaemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Treatment persistence (continuing to take medication for the prescribed period) and treatment adherence (complying with the prescription in terms of drug schedules and dosage) are both important when treating chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). They can be indicators of patient satisfaction with treatment. In T2D, the achievement of optimal outcomes requires both persistence with and adherence to prescribed therapy. Poor persistence with and adherence to T2D medication can have profound consequences for the patient, including non-achievement of glycaemic goals and an increased risk of long-term complications and mortality. Therefore, poor treatment persistence and adherence may also have economic consequences, including increased healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs. Treatment persistence and adherence are affected by several factors, including the mode of administration, administration frequency/regimen complexity, and patient expectations. The aims of this review are as follows: to provide an overview of persistence with and adherence to different antidiabetes therapies for patients with T2D in the real-world setting; examine factors contributing to poor treatment persistence and adherence; and assess available data on the impact of poor treatment persistence and/or adherence on clinical and economic outcomes. Numerous potential targets for improving treatment persistence and/or adherence are identified, including developing less complex treatment regimens with lower pill burdens or less frequent injections, improving the convenience of drug-delivery systems, such as the use of insulin pen devices rather than the conventional vial and syringe, and developing therapies with an improved safety profile to alleviate patient fears of adverse effects, such as weight gain and risk of hypoglycaemia.Funding: Sanofi.

Basal insulin initiation use and experience among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with different patterns of persistence: results from a multi-national survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often interrupt basal insulin treatment soon after initiation. This study aimed to describe the experiences during and after basal insulin initiation among people with T2DM with different persistence patterns.

METHODS

Adults with T2DM from France, Germany, Spain, UK, US, Brazil, and Japan were identified from consumer panels for an online survey. Respondents who initiated basal insulin 3-24 months prior to survey date were categorized as continuers (no gaps of ≥7 days in insulin treatment); interrupters (first gap ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation and restarted insulin); and discontinuers (stopped insulin for ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation without restarting).

RESULTS

Among 942 participants, continuers were older than interrupters and discontinuers (46, 37, and 38 years, respectively, p < .01). Continuers reported having fewer concerns before and after insulin initiation than interrupters and discontinuers, while interrupters had the most concerns. Continuers also reported fewer challenges during the first week of insulin use. Continuers were more likely to respond that insulin use had a positive impact on specific aspects of life than interrupters and discontinuers, for example on glycemic control (73.0%, 63.0%, and 61.8%, respectively; p < .01 vs. continuers).

CONCLUSION

Among people with T2DM with different persistence patterns after basal insulin initiation there were significant differences in patient characteristics and experience during and after insulin initiation. Interrupters and discontinuers more frequently reported having concerns and challenges during the initiation process, negative impacts after initiation, and less improvement in glycemic control than continuers.

Cost of medication adherence and persistence in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a literature review

PURPOSE

To explore published evidence on health care costs associated with adherence or persistence to antidiabetes medications in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Primary research studies published between January 2006 and December 2015 on compliance, adherence, or persistence and treatment in patients with T2DM that document a link with health care costs were identified through literature searches in bibliographic databases and 2015 abstract books for relevant DM congresses. Results were assessed for relevance by two reviewers. The review was part of a larger overview evaluating the impact of adherence and persistence on a range of clinical and economic outcomes; only findings from the cost element are reported herein.

RESULTS

A total of 4,662 de-duplicated abstracts were identified and 110 studies included in the wider review. Of these, 19 reported an association between adherence (n=13), persistence (n=5), or adherence and persistence (n=1), and health care costs. All studies were retrospective, with sample sizes ranging from 301 to 740,195. Medication possession ratio was the most commonly employed adherence measure (n=11). The majority of adherence studies (n=9) reported that medication adherence was associated with lower total health care costs. Pharmacy costs were often increased in adherent patients but this was offset by beneficial effects on other costs. Findings were more variable in persistence studies; three reported that higher pharmacy costs in persistent patients were not sufficiently offset by savings in other areas to result in a reduction in total health care costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have evaluated the relationship between adherence, persistence, and health care costs in T2DM. However, it has been consistently shown that medication nonadherence increases health care costs, suggesting that cost savings from better adherence could be substantial. Available data support the economic case for identification of strategies that facilitate improved medication adherence in patients with T2DM.

Economic Impact of Treatment Duration and Persistence with Basal Insulin in Previously Insulin-Naive Users

BACKGROUND

Although insulin is a well-established therapy that is associated with improved clinical outcomes, adherence and persistence with insulin regimens are poor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes-related health care costs and the impact of insulin persistence patterns on these health care costs have been previously studied; however, these aspects of insulin therapy have limited data beyond the first year of use and have not been characterized among patients previously naive to basal insulin.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe and compare medical- and pharmacy-related costs, health care resource utilization, and comorbidities and complications during the initial year and second (experienced) year of basal insulin therapy, and (b) describe and compare the impact of continuous versus interrupted basal insulin use during each year.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational database analysis using claims from multiple U.S. commercial health plans (Truven Health MarketScan) in previously insulin-naive patients with T2DM who were initiated on basal insulin. Data collected included all-cause and diabetes-related medical and pharmacy costs, health care resource utilization (i.e., number and type of outpatient visits, hospitalization, emergency department [ED] visits), medication use, and preselected comorbidities and complications. This cost analysis described and compared health care costs and resource use between the initial and experienced years and further compared health care costs and resource use between continuers and interrupters within each of those years.

RESULTS

A total of 23,645 patients were included in the analysis; 12,224 were classified as continuers and 11,421 were classified as interrupters. Among all patients, mean increases from the initial year to the experienced year were observed for all-cause medical costs ($12,690-$13,408; P = 0.048), all-cause pharmacy costs ($6,253-$6,559; P < 0.001), and all-cause health care costs ($18,943-$19,967; P = 0.006), after adjusting for inflation. All-cause pharmacy costs were significantly higher for continuers versus interrupters, but total diabetes-related medical care costs, all-cause ED costs, and all-cause medical costs were significantly lower, resulting in similar all-cause health care costs between continuers and interrupters in both the initial and experienced years. Among all patients, diabetes-related inpatient visits and outpatient primary care physician (PCP) visits, total medical inpatient visits, and total medical outpatient PCP visits were significantly higher in the initial year than in the experienced year; however, there were fewer diabetes-related ED visits in the initial year.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of basal insulin appears to be associated with increased health care costs, and treatment persistence pattern (continuers vs. interrupters) is further correlated with health care expenditures. Although associated with decreased pharmacy costs, interruption of therapy increases medical costs, underscoring the importance of addressing persistence to therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer Ingelheim. Eli Lilly reviewed and approved this manuscript for submission. All the authors are employees and minor shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Study concept and design were contributed by Kalirai, Duan, and Reed. Duan and Liu collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Kalirai. The manuscript was written by all the authors and revised by Kalirai.

Comparison of Antidiabetic Regimens in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled by Combination Therapy of Sulfonylurea and Metformin: Results of the MOHAS Disease Registry in Korea

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the glucose-lowering efficacy of antidiabetic treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled by sulfonylurea plus metformin.

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted in 144 centers in Korea, from June 2008 to July 2010, and included patients with T2DM who had received sulfonylurea and metformin for at least 3 months and had levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.0% in the last month. Data of clinical and biochemical characteristics were collected at baseline and 6 months after treatment. The treatment option was decided at the physician's discretion. Subjects were classified into the following three groups: intensifying oral hypoglycemic agents (group A), adding basal insulin (group B), or starting intensified insulin therapy (group C).

RESULTS

Of 2,995 patients enrolled, 2,901 patients were evaluated, and 504 (17.4%), 2,316 (79.8%), and 81 patients (2.8%) were classified into groups A, B, and C, respectively. Subjects in group C showed relatively higher baseline levels of HbA1c and longer duration of diabetes. The mean decrease in HbA1c level was higher in the insulin treated groups (-0.9%±1.3%, -1.6%±1.3%, and -2.4%±2.3% in groups A, B, and C, respectively, P=0.042). The proportion of patients who achieved target HbA1c <7.0% was comparable among the groups; however, intensified insulin therapy seemed to be the most effective in achieving the target HbA1c of 6.5%.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that insulin-based therapy will be an important option in the improved management of Korean patients with T2DM whose glycemic control is not sufficient with sulfonylurea and metformin.

A Systematic Review of Insulin Adherence Measures in Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes care is associated with a considerable burden to the health care system in the United States, and measuring the quality of health care is an important development goal of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Diabetes is a priority disease within the National Quality Strategy and should therefore remain a focus in the measurement of health care quality. Despite the importance of measuring quality in diabetes care management, no quality measure is currently associated with adherence to insulin treatment, and measuring adherence to insulin is known to be complicated.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) identify methods to measure insulin adherence in patients with diabetes and (b) evaluate whether identified methods could be considered for testing as a quality measure.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in the online electronic databases Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented with additional manual searches to identify publications on insulin adherence from the year 2000 onward. Identified citations were screened for relevance against predefined eligibility criteria, and methods to measure adherence to insulin were extracted from relevant studies into data extraction tables. Methods were critiqued on the feasibility for consideration as a quality measure.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight publications met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Included studies reported various indirect methods to measure adherence to insulin, using prescription claims or self-report questionnaires. Commonly reported methods included the (adjusted) medication possession ratio, proportion of days covered, persistence, daily average consumption, and the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. All types of identified methods were associated with measuring challenges varying from accuracy of estimated adherence, complexity of data collection, absence of validated threshold for good adherence, and reliability of adherence outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Without additional research, none of the identified methods are appropriate for use as a quality measure for insulin adherence. We suggest patient involvement in future research and additional quality measure development.

DISCLOSURES

Novo Nordisk paid DRG Abacus to complete the systematic review and manuscript and was involved in the study design, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings of the systematic review. Kroes and Webb report personal fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study and personal fees from DRG Abacus, outside of the submitted work. Webb is employed by DRG Abacus, and Kroes was employed by DRG Abacus at the time of this study. Wisniewski is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the systematic review reported in this article, and also owns stocks in Novo Nordisk. Stolpe has nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Kroes, Webb, and Wisniewski, with assistance from Stolpe. Webb took the lead in data collection, along with Kroes, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Kroes, Webb, and Wisniewski, with assistance from Stolpe, and revised by Kroes, Stolpe, Wisniewski, and Webb.

Basal Insulin Persistence, Associated Factors, and Outcomes After Treatment Initiation: A Retrospective Database Study Among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Japan

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and economic outcomes for insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.

METHODS

People aged at least 18 years with T2DM with first claim for basal insulin between May 2006 and April 2013 (index date), no insulin use before index date, and continuous insurance coverage for 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after index date were selected from the Japan Medical Center Database. On the basis of whether there were at least 30-day gaps in basal insulin treatment, patients were classified as continuers (no gap), interrupters (at least one prescription after gap), and discontinuers (no prescription after gap). A multinomial logistic regression model identified factors associated with persistence. Annual healthcare resource use and costs in the year after initiation were compared between continuers and interrupters and between continuers and discontinuers using propensity score-based inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences.

RESULTS

Of the 827 people included (mean age 50 years, ca. 71% male), 36% continued, 42% interrupted, and 22% discontinued basal insulin therapy in the year after initiation. Having at least one inpatient visit and using fewer classes of non-insulin antihyperglycemic medications during baseline were associated with lower likelihoods of continuing therapy. Relative to interrupters and discontinuers, continuers had lower hospitalization rates [continuers, 12.7%; interrupters, 25.4% (p < 0.001); discontinuers, 28.4% (p < 0.001)] and lower inpatient costs [continuers, ¥132,013; interrupters, ¥225,745 (p = 0.054); discontinuers, ¥320,582 (p = 0.036)], but higher pharmacy costs [continuers, ¥158,403; interrupters, ¥134,301 (p = 0.039); discontinuers, ¥121,593 (p = 0.002)] in the year after insulin initiation. Total healthcare costs were similar for the three cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial proportions of people with T2DM in Japan interrupt or discontinue basal insulin within the year after initiation, and they have higher rates and costs of hospitalizations than patients who continue with their insulin therapy. Further research is needed to understand reasons behind basal insulin persistence and the implications thereof to help clinicians manage T2DM more effectively.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Insulin adherence and persistence among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess adherence and persistence to insulin therapy and identify its associated factors among Chinese insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Tianjin Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance claims database was used (2008-2011). Adult patients with T2D who initiated insulin therapy during January 2009 through December 2010 and were continuously enrolled for 12 months pre-(baseline) and 12 months post-initiation (follow-up) were included. Patients who had a ≥80% medication possession ratio were deemed adherent, while patients who had no gaps of ≥90 days in insulin therapy were deemed persistent. Associated factors of insulin adherence and persistence were detected by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 24,192 patients were included; the patients had a mean age of 58.9 years, with 49.5% being female. About 51.9% of the patients had human insulin as initiation therapy, while 39.1% were initiated with insulin analog and 9.0% with animal-derived insulin. Premixed insulin (77.3%) was prescribed most often in comparison with basal (11.8%) and prandial (10.9%) insulin. Only 30.9% of patients were adherent, and the mean (standard deviation) medication possession ratio was 0.499 (0.361). About 53.0% of patients persisted insulin therapy during follow-up, and the mean time to nonpersistence was 230.3 (145.5) days. Patients initiated with analog were more likely to be adherent (adjusted odds ratio: 1.07, P=0.036) and persistent (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.88, P<0.001) compared with those initiated with human insulin. Patients initiation with basal insulin had lower adherence relative to premixed (adjusted odds ratio: 0.79, P<0.001). Patients comorbid with hypertension or dyslipidemia, initiated with prandial insulin, and with baseline severe hypoglycemic events were more likely to be nonadherent/nonpersistent.

CONCLUSION

The insulin adherence and persistence among Chinese patients with T2D are generally poor. Initiation with insulin analog or premixed insulin may result in better adherence/persistence to insulin therapy.

Basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and outcomes after treatment initiation among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the US

OBJECTIVE

To assess basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and economic outcomes for insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the US.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

People aged ≥18 years diagnosed with T2DM initiating basal insulin between April 2006 and March 2012 (index date), no prior insulin use, and continuous insurance coverage for 6 months before (baseline) and 24 months after index date (follow-up period) were selected using de-identified administrative claims data in the US. Based on whether there were ≥30 day gaps in basal insulin use in the first year post-index, patients were classified as continuers (no gap), interrupters (≥1 prescription after gap), and discontinuers (no prescription after gap).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with persistence - assessed using multinomial logistic regression model; annual healthcare resource use and costs during follow-up period - compared separately between continuers and interrupters, and continuers and discontinuers.

RESULTS

Of the 19,110 people included in the sample (mean age: 59 years, ∼60% male), 20% continued to use basal insulin, 62% had ≥1 interruption, and 18% discontinued therapy in the year after initiation. Older age, multiple antihyperglycemic drug use, and injectable antihyperglycemic use during baseline were associated with significantly higher likelihoods of continuing basal insulin. Relative to interrupters and discontinuers, continuers had fewer emergency department visits, shorter hospital stays, and lower medical costs (continuers: $10,890, interrupters: $13,674, discontinuers: $13,021), but higher pharmacy costs (continuers: $7449, interrupters: $5239, discontinuers: $4857) in the first year post-index (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Total healthcare costs were similar across the three cohorts. Findings for the second year post-index were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of people in this study interrupted or discontinued basal insulin treatment in the year after initiation; and incurred higher medical resource use and costs than continuers. The findings are limited to the commercially insured population in the US. In addition, persistence patterns were assessed using administrative claims as opposed to actual medication-taking behavior and did not account for measures of glycemic control. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind basal insulin persistence and the implications thereof, to help clinicians manage care for T2DM more effectively.

Total costs of basal or premixed insulin treatment in 5077 insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients: register-based observational study in clinical practice

Background

To investigate the costs of treatment with basal insulin (insulin NPH [NPH], insulin glargine [IG], insulin determir [IG]), and premixed insulin (PM) in routine clinical care.

Methods

Cohort study based on data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register, including 5077 insulin-naïve men and women with type 2 diabetes, resident in a distinct geographical region of Sweden. Patients were included between 1 July 2006 and 31 December 2009 and followed for 12 months. All drug- and healthcare-related costs, stratified by diabetes-related or non-diabetes care contacts, were quantified and compared to baseline.

Results

Initiation of insulin treatment generally entails increased diabetes-related health care contacts and treatment costs, and decrease in health care costs. The median changes in costs were generally smaller than the mean changes, reflecting great variations between patients. The treatment costs were higher for IG, ID and PM compared with NPH, although higher age, history cardiovascular disease and diabetes complications as well as higher diabetes-related and other treatment costs were independent predictors. Overall, only PM (but not IG or ID) were associated with higher diabetes-related health care costs, although these were also independently predicted by cardiovascular morbidity and markers of complicated diabetes.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice leads to increased health care contacts, overall and treatment costs, but also generally results in a decrease in health care costs. The diabetes-related treatment cost was lowest using NPH insulin but only premixed insulin was associated with higher diabetes-related health care costs than NPH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40842-015-0017-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.