Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor-agonist treatment attributes

Evaluating the Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

To quantify the preferences for an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with hypothetical OAD profiles was performed among patients with T2DM recruited from both online and offline sources. Each patient completed 12 DCE choice tasks. The attributes, elicited through mixed methods, include blood glucose level decrease, blood glucose level stability, frequency of medication, gastrointestinal side effects, dose adjustment and out-of-pocket expense. The conditional logit regression model was used to analyze the data. Patients' willingness-to-pay (WTP) was also calculated. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 741 respondents were included in the analysis sample, covering 456 respondents online and 285 offline. The result showed that all attributes and levels were statistically significant, except one level "dose adjustment required for patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency" in the attribute of dose adjustment. WTP results showed that patients were willing to pay 12.06 and 23.20 yuan, respectively to reduce the frequency of medication from "once per day" and "three times per day" to "once every 2 weeks", respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the frequency of medication (once versus two to three times per day) had the largest impact and influenced most coefficient estimates.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that Chinese patients with T2DM prioritized better efficacy, less frequency of medication, lower gastrointestinal side effects, no dose adjustment required for patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency, and less out-of-pocket expense of OAD treatment.

Pharmacotherapy for adults with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence for the benefits and harms of weight-lowering drugs.

METHODS

This systematic review and network meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 23, 2021, for randomised controlled trials of weight-lowering drugs in adults with overweight and obesity. We performed frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation frameworks to rate the certainty of evidence, calculate the absolute effects, categorise interventions, and present the findings. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021245678.

FINDINGS

14 605 citations were identified by our search, of which 132 eligible trials enrolled 48 209 participants. All drugs lowered bodyweight compared with lifestyle modification alone; all subsequent numbers refer to comparisons with lifestyle modification. High to moderate certainty evidence established phentermine-topiramate as the most effective in lowering weight (odds ratio [OR] of ≥5% weight reduction 8·02, 95% CI 5·24 to 12·27; mean difference [MD] of percentage bodyweight change -7·98, 95% CI -9·27 to -6·69) followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 6·33, 95% CI 5·00 to 8·00; MD -5·79, 95% CI -6·34 to -5·25). Naltrexone-bupropion (OR 2·69, 95% CI 2·10 to 3·44), phentermine-topiramate (2·40, 1·68 to 3·44), GLP-1 receptor agonists (2·22, 1·74 to 2·84), and orlistat (1·71, 1·42 to 2·05) were associated with increased adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. In a post-hoc analysis, semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, showed substantially larger benefits than other drugs with a similar risk of adverse events as other drugs for both likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more (OR 9·82, 95% CI 7·09 to 13·61) and percentage bodyweight change (MD -11·40, 95% CI -12·51 to -10·29).

INTERPRETATION

In adults with overweight and obesity, phentermine-topiramate and GLP-1 receptor agonists proved the best drugs in reducing weight; of the GLP-1 agonists, semaglutide might be the most effective.

FUNDING

1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Development of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess patient perceptions of simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Treatments for type 2 diabetes vary widely in their complexity. The simplicity or complexity of a treatment regimen may have an impact on patient preference, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop two draft patient-reported outcome instruments focusing on patients' experience with simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The instruments were developed in a series of steps: gather information to support development of a concept elicitation interview guide (literature review and expert interviews), concept elicitation interviews with patients (N = 30), cognitive interviews with patients (N = 20), and a translatability assessment.

RESULTS

In concept elicitation interviews, patients with type 2 diabetes reported a range of treatment attributes that influence their perceptions of treatment simplicity and complexity, such as injection devices, medication preparation, dose timing, dose frequency, ease of taking the correct dose, flexibility of dose schedule, remembering to take medication, and food requirements. Two draft questionnaires were developed based on the literature review, expert interviews, and concept elicitation interviews with patients. Revisions were made to these draft instruments based on qualitative interviews with patients and translatability assessment.

DISCUSSION

The qualitative research conducted in this study supports the content validity of two newly developed instruments, the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (Sim-Q) and the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire-Comparison (Sim-Q-Comp), designed to assess the simplicity and complexity of diabetes treatment from the patient's perspective.

GLP-1 RAs in Spain: A Short Narrative Review of Their Use in Real Clinical Practice

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of drugs with potent glucose-lowering activity. Additionally, some GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated cardiovascular and renal benefits. Current guidelines recommend their use in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk of or with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of glycaemic control, with lifestyle modification and metformin. However, several studies have recently highlighted the limited number of patients with T2D benefiting from these medications worldwide. Given the huge burden of CVD among patients with T2D, efforts should be made to bring clinical practice closer to expert guidelines. This review describes the current situation of GLP-1 RA use in Spain and the reasons behind the gap between guidelines and real-world practice and suggests possible solutions. Administrative issues, lack of awareness of the cardiovascular benefits, clinical inertia, rejection of injectable medication and costs could be some of the reasons for the current situation. Possible strategies that could help to close the gap include encouraging a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of diabetes which involves cardiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, primary care providers and pharmacists; improved awareness of comorbidities and earlier evaluation and treatment or risks; and better education of healthcare providers regarding the cardioprotective benefits of these drugs.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the novel basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa), an insulin fusion protein in development for once-weekly dosing for the treatment of patients with diabetes

AIM

To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of basal insulin Fc (BIF; LY3209590), a fusion protein combining a novel single-chain insulin variant together with human IgG2 Fc domain, following single and multiple once-weekly BIF administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The single ascending dose, 15-day study assessed four BIF doses (5-35 mg) in healthy participants and people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the 6-week multiple ascending dose study, people with T2D, previously treated with basal insulin, received insulin glargine daily or a one-time loading dose of BIF followed by 5 weeks of once-weekly dosing (1-10 mg). Safety, tolerability and PK and glucose PD were examined.

RESULTS

Mean ages of people with T2D (N = 57) and healthy participants (N = 16) in the single-dose study were 58.4 and 35.8 years, respectively; mean body mass index values were 29.5 and 26.1 kg/m² . BIF had a PK half-life of approximately 17 days, which led to a sustained, dose-dependent decrease in fasting blood glucose for 5 days or longer. No severe hypoglycaemia was observed. The 6-week ascending dose study included 33 people with T2D aged 40-69 years. BIF showed a low peak-to-trough ratio of 1.14 after the last dose at week 6 (steady state). Over 6 weeks, BIF seven-point glucose profiles remained constant and were similar to insulin glargine. Rates and duration of BIF hypoglycaemic events were similar to insulin glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

BIF was well tolerated and the PK/PD profile enabled once-weekly dosing with minimal variation in exposure in a treatment interval of 1 week. The findings suggest BIF is suitable for further development as a weekly basal insulin in people with diabetes.

The Impact of Substantial Improvements in HbA1c and Weight Loss on the Medication Preferences of People with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

To quantify the preferences of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) for treatment attributes of a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) versus an injectable GLP-1 RA medication profile.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Injection-naive people taking oral medications for T2D in the US and UK completed a web survey including a discrete choice experiment to quantify patients' preferences for five treatment attributes: delivery system, frequency of nausea, frequency of hypoglycemia, HbA1c reduction, and weight reduction. Attributes and levels were based on head-to-head clinical trial data of tirzepatide 5mg, 10mg, and 15mg versus semaglutide 1mg. Preference data were analyzed separately by country using multinomial mixed logit (MXL) models. MXL parameters were used to estimate the predicted preference for each tirzepatide dose versus semaglutide 1mg. Direct preferences for each dose of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1mg were elicited.

RESULTS

Participants (N=620) in the US (N=301) and UK (N=319) were 50.8% and 50.5% female with mean ages of 60.7 years and 58.9 years, respectively. The order and magnitude of relative attribute importance (RAI) scores differed between countries. HbA1c reduction (26.3%) had the greatest impact on US participants' preferences, and hypoglycemia (32.8%) did among UK participants. Attribute-level marginal utility results indicated preferences for greater HbA1c improvements, the single-use pre-filled pen, lower hypoglycemia, greater weight reductions, and lower frequency of nausea. Assuming the availability of only tirzepatide or semaglutide 1mg, the predicted preference for tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15mg) in the US is 95.6% (vs 4.4% for semaglutide 1mg) and in the UK was 86.3% (vs 13.7% for semaglutide 1mg).

CONCLUSION

HbA1c reduction, frequency of hypoglycemia, and weight reduction are key drivers of preferences among people with T2D when considering medication options. Overall, people with T2D are likely to prefer the tirzepatide over the semaglutide 1mg medication profiles.

Comparison of the Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction of Three Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices in People With Type 2 Diabetes

AIM

This study's aim was to compare the time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences with pen devices for the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide XR BCise, and semaglutide.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this triple crossover, open-label, simulated injection study, GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices were compared, with time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences as primary outcomes. Participants had type 2 diabetes and were naive to GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. Participants watched instructional videos for each device, demonstrated administration, and then provided feedback after each demonstration. Investigators tracked errors and omissions of demonstration steps for accuracy and time. Differences across devices were compared using univariate mixed models, adjusting for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 60 participants, 50% were male, a majority (65%) were Caucasian, and most (65%) had adequate health literacy. Participants rated the dulaglutide device easier to use than those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.001 for each). Participants expressed greater satisfaction with the dulaglutide device compared with those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.01 for each). Most participants (75%) preferred the dulaglutide device overall; however, many participants (61%) preferred the size and portability of the semaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took less time to use than the exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide devices (69 vs. 126 and 146 seconds, respectively; P <0.001 for each). Participants were less accurate when using the dulaglutide device.

CONCLUSION

Most participants preferred the dulaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took the least amount of time to demonstrate; however, demonstration accuracy was lower.

Clinical Insight on Semaglutide for Chronic Weight Management in Adults: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Losses of 5-10% or more of initial body weight are associated with improvements in obesity-related comorbidities. However, attaining and sustaining this level of weight loss is challenging. The novel anti-obesity medication semaglutide 2.4 mg injected subcutaneously once weekly as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and physical activity helps patients achieve average losses of 9.6-17.4% of initial body weight at week 68, as well as improvements in cardiometabolic and psychosocial indices. Despite these average benefits, prescribers should carefully assess the suitability of patients for this medication. In this paper, we discuss considerations for the selection of individuals who are candidates for semaglutide and special considerations related to the use of this medication. These include its efficacy and safety, as well as its contraindications, potential adverse effects, management of comorbidities and drug interactions, insurance coverage and cost, and patient preferences.

Diabetes Patients' Acceptance of Injectable Treatment, a Scientometric Analysis

Diabetes is a condition associated with multiple systemic secondary risk factors, besides pancreatic dysfunctions, affecting the population worldwide and with high costs impacting the healthcare systems. This paper aims to identify the major issues in patients' adherence to injectable diabetes treatment. After the interrogation of the Web of Science database, a scientometric map was generated, from which six directions of approach were identified as essential factors influencing the patient's adherence. These directions yielded clusters of related articles. Glycemic control with the endocrinology metabolic implications, lifestyle adjustments, the healthcare services, medication therapy algorithm, healthcare services digitalization and healthcare policies seem to have a major impact on injectable diabetes therapy and patient adherence. Further research on every one of the six directions is needed to identify the potential of increasing injectable treatment adherence in diabetes patients.

Treatment-Related Attributes of Diabetes Therapies and How People with Type 2 Diabetes Report Their Impact on Indicators of Medication-Taking Behaviors

Purpose

Understanding the treatment-related attributes influencing medication-taking behaviors in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is important for delivery of patient-centered care. This review aimed to identify and summarize studies in which people with T2D (PwD) directly indicated the treatment-related attributes associated with medication-taking behaviors or intentions.

Materials and Methods

EMBASE and PubMed were searched for studies (Jan 2005-May 2021) reporting the link between PwD-expressed diabetes treatment-related attributes and the decision to initiate, adhere to, or discontinue a T2D medication. Eligible studies reported attributes associated with oral antidiabetes drugs or injectables (not insulin). Studies not explicitly exploring the link between attributes and indicators of behaviors (eg most discrete-choice experiments [DCE] and those interrogating electronic medical records or claims databases) were excluded, as were studies where the link between attribute and behavior came from anyone but the PwD.

Results

Of the 6464 studies identified, 16 were included. Studies were conducted across multiple countries; the USA was most represented (n = 8 studies). The impact of treatment attributes was described on indicators of initiation (n = 3), adherence (n = 12), and discontinuation (n = 4). Some studies evaluated multiple behaviors. PwD perspectives were solicited by structured questionnaires (n = 10), qualitative approaches (n = 4), or DCE explicitly exploring the link to medication-taking behaviors (n = 2). Closed- (n = 9) and open-ended questions (n = 7) were employed. Across studies, several factors including glycemic efficacy (n = 9), weight change (n = 9), dosing frequency (n = 9), hypoglycemia (n = 8), gastrointestinal adverse events (n = 8), regimen complexity (n = 6), route of administration (n = 3), and cardiovascular risk (n = 1) were reported as influencing behaviors, being motivators or barriers to initiation, adherence, or discontinuation.

Conclusion

Several attributes influence how PwD take their medications. Insights gained directly from PwD have the potential to assist stakeholders in making more informed, patient-centered, treatment decisions, thus choosing and managing medications that PwD are comfortable initiating and persisting with over the longer term.

Preference for Type 2 Diabetes Therapies in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic condition associated with substantial clinical and economic burden. As multiple therapeutic options are available, patient preferences on treatment characteristics are key in T2DM therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the preferences of US patients with T2DM for therapies recommended for first pharmacologic intensification after metformin.

Methods

As part of a discrete choice experiment, an online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings. Eligibility was met by US patients with T2DM who were aged 18 years or older with an HbA_1c ≥ 6.5%. Anonymized therapy profiles were created from six antidiabetic therapies including oral and injectable semaglutide, dulaglutide, empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and thiazolidinediones.

Results

Eligible patients (n = 500) had a mean HbA_1c of 7.4%, and a mean BMI of 32.0 kg/m², the majority of which (72.2%) were injectable-naïve. The treatment characteristic with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (35.5%), followed by body weight change (29.2%), cardiovascular event risk (19.1%), hypoglycemic event risk (9.9%), and HbA_1c change (6.5%). An oral semaglutide-like profile was preferred by 91.9–70.1% of respondents depending on the comparator agent, and preference was significant in each comparison (p < 0.05); an injectable semaglutide-like profile was preferred by 89.3–55.7% of respondents in each comparison depending on the comparator agent.

Conclusion

Patients with T2DM in the USA are significantly more likely to prefer oral or injectable semaglutide-like profiles over those of key comparators from the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and thiazolidinedione classes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02181-7.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Clinical Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: An Ambispective Study

INTRODUCTION

The method of therapy administration and injection device characteristics have been documented to influence perceptions and preference of treatment among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to assess the metabolic effectiveness and patient-reported satisfaction of once-weekly semaglutide compared to liraglutide in suboptimally controlled patients with T2D.

METHODS

We conducted this single-center cohort study at diabetes center clinics at a tertiary care hospital between February 2021 and August 2021. We included suboptimally controlled patients with T2D who had been treated with liraglutide for at least 3 months at baseline, then shifted to once-weekly semaglutide and followed up for the same period. Ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) metrics [i.e., mean glucose level, glycemic variability (GV), time above range (TAR), and time in range (TIR)] for baseline and follow-up were compared. To assess the satisfaction with shifting, we used the valid Arabic version of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (DTSQs) and change (DTSQc) while the injection device preference was assessed using the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ).

RESULTS

We included 52 patients (25 male and 27 female), with a mean age of 48 (± 6) years and a mean diabetes mellitus duration of 7.27 (± 3.79) years. We observed a significantly decreased mean HbA1c level following semaglutide treatment (7.79% at study end vs. 8.07% at baseline, p < 0.001) and body weight (84.64 ± 7.68 vs. 87.15 ± 8.011, p < 0.001). Compared to the glucometrics data at baseline, we observed a significantly improved mean average glucose, GV, TAR, and TIR (p < 0.001). Data from the DTSQs and DTSQc questionnaires showed a high level of patient-reported satisfaction after shifting to semaglutide treatment. All patients preferred/strongly preferred once-weekly semaglutide over liraglutide in most DID-PQ questionnaire domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from once-daily liraglutide to once-weekly semaglutide led to improvements in both clinical measures of glycemic control and patient-reported satisfaction.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review of the Key Evidence with Practical Considerations

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are incretin-mimetic agents that are effective adjuncts in the treatment of diabetes. This class of medications is also associated with promoting weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycemia, and some have been shown to be associated with a significant reduction of major cardiovascular events. Mounting evidence suggests that GLP-1 RAs have benefits beyond reducing blood glucose that include improving kidney function in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a common microvascular complication of T2DM. Several large clinical studies, the majority of which are cardiovascular outcome trials, indicate that GLP-1 RA therapy is safe and tolerable for people living with T2DM and compromised renal function, and also suggest that GLP-1 RAs may have renoprotective properties. Although evidence from clinical trials has shown GLP-1 RAs to be safe and efficacious in people living with T2DM and renal impairment, their use is uncommon in this patient population. With continuing developments in the field of GLP-1 RA therapy, it is important for physicians to understand the benefits and practical use of GLP-1 RAs, as well as the clinical evidence, in order to achieve positive patient outcomes. Here, we review evidence on GLP-1 RA use in people living with T2DM and CKD and summarize renal outcomes from clinical studies. We provide practical considerations for GLP-1 RA use to provide an added benefit to guide treatment in this high-risk patient population.

Pharmacotherapy for adults with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence for the benefits and harms of weight-lowering drugs.

METHODS

This systematic review and network meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 23, 2021, for randomised controlled trials of weight-lowering drugs in adults with overweight and obesity. We performed frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation frameworks to rate the certainty of evidence, calculate the absolute effects, categorise interventions, and present the findings. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021245678.

FINDINGS

14 605 citations were identified by our search, of which 143 eligible trials enrolled 49 810 participants. Except for levocarnitine, all drugs lowered bodyweight compared with lifestyle modification alone; all subsequent numbers refer to comparisons with lifestyle modification. High to moderate certainty evidence established phentermine-topiramate as the most effective in lowering weight (odds ratio [OR] of ≥5% weight reduction 8·02, 95% CI 5·24 to 12·27; mean difference [MD] of percentage bodyweight change -7·97, 95% CI -9·28 to -6·66) followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 6·33, 95% CI 5·00 to 8·00; MD -5·76, 95% CI -6·30 to -5·21). Naltrexone-bupropion (OR 2·69, 95% CI 2·11 to 3·43), phentermine-topiramate (2·40, 1·69 to 3·42), GLP-1 receptor agonists (2·17, 1·71 to 2·77), and orlistat (1·72, 1·44 to 2·05) were associated with increased adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. In a post-hoc analysis, semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, showed substantially larger benefits than other drugs with a similar risk of adverse events as other drugs for both likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more (OR 9·82, 95% CI 7·09 to 13·61) and percentage bodyweight change (MD -11·41, 95% CI -12·54 to -10·27).

INTERPRETATION

In adults with overweight and obesity, phentermine-topiramate and GLP-1 receptor agonists proved the best drugs in reducing weight; of the GLP-1 agonists, semaglutide might be the most effective.

FUNDING

1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments

INTRODUCTION

The administration of medications targeting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) has evolved over time. As injection delivery systems continue to evolve, it is necessary to understand patients' perceptions of currently available treatments. The objective of this study was to examine the patient perspective of injectable treatment for T2D and identify characteristics of these treatments that are most important to patients.

METHODS

Data were collected via an online survey study with a sample of individuals in the UK and US who were treated for T2D with injectable medication. The survey was designed to elicit perceptions of the treatment process for injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and insulin.

RESULTS

The sample included 504 participants (251 UK, 253 US). Approximately half (50.4%) were treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and half (49.6%) were treated with insulin. Respondents were presented with a list of 17 characteristics of injectable medication and asked to indicate which were most important to them. Respondents most frequently selected confidence in administering the correct dose (n = 300, 59.5%); ease of selecting the correct dose (n = 268, 53.2%); overall ease of using the injection device (n = 239, 47.4%); frequency of injections (n = 223, 44.2%); and ease of carrying the device when necessary to inject away from home (n = 190, 37.7%). Characteristics least frequently cited as important included dose escalation (n = 79, 15.7%); handling the needle (n = 74, 14.7%); connectivity to an electronic device (n = 70, 13.9%); and the time required to prepare and inject each dose (n = 62, 12.3%).

CONCLUSION

Results of this survey suggest that patients prioritize some attributes of injectable treatments over others. These findings may have implications for clinical practice and development of injection devices.

Medication adherence to injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal medication adherence has been associated with increased resource utilisation and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of T2D. However, medications in this class differ considerably in their dosing frequency, which may impact adherence. We sought to perform a meta-analysis to compare adherence to injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with T2D.

METHODS

Medline and Scopus were searched from 1/2005 to 7/2020 using keywords and MeSH terms pertaining to adherence and GLP-1RAs. Studies of adults with T2D were included if they compared adherence (as measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) to injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily. A meta-analysis of non-overlapping studies was performed to evaluate the primary outcome of non-adherence, defined as the proportion of patients with a PDC < 80.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies evaluating 75 159 patients (range: 2886-30 097) with T2D were included. The follow-up periods of included studies ranged from 6 to 12 months. Injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly were either dulaglutide, albiglutide or exenatide extended release; while liraglutide was the injectable once daily agent evaluated in all included studies. Upon meta-analysis, once weekly GLP-1RA dosing was associated with an 11% lower risk of non-adherence compared to once daily dosing (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval = 0.83-0.95; I²  = 89%).

CONCLUSION

Once weekly dosing of injectable GLP-1RAs was associated with better adherence vs once daily dosing among patients with T2D. These findings coupled with the known detrimental consequences of non-adherence suggest that dosing frequency is an important factor to consider when selecting a GLP-1RA.

Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options.

METHODS

Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies.

RESULTS

17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020159284.

Efficacy of Semaglutide in a Subcutaneous and an Oral Formulation

Despite the benefits of early and effective glycemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets is challenging in some patients. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) provide effective reductions in HbA1c and body weight. Semaglutide is the only GLP-1RA that is available in both an injectable and oral formulation. The efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and once-daily oral semaglutide has been investigated in the global SUSTAIN and PIONEER phase III clinical trial programs in a range of clinical settings, including early T2D managed with diet and exercise only, more established T2D uncontrolled on one to three oral antidiabetic drugs, and advanced disease treated with insulin. Across the SUSTAIN program, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.5-1.8% after 30-56 weeks, which was significantly more than sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide extended release, dulaglutide, canagliflozin, or insulin glargine. Across the PIONEER program, once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.0-1.4%, significantly more than sitagliptin or empagliflozin, and to a similar extent as liraglutide after 26 weeks. In addition, subcutaneous semaglutide reduced body weight significantly more than all active comparators tested, while oral semaglutide reduced body weight more than sitagliptin and liraglutide, and to a similar extent as empagliflozin. Neither formulation of semaglutide has been associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and both improve various measures of health-related quality of life. Semaglutide offers the benefits of a highly effective GLP-1RA in both injectable and oral formulations. Selection of the most appropriate formulation can be made on an individual basis to best suit the patient's preferences and needs.

Treatment Patterns and Persistence With GLP-1 RA Treatments Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in France: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), persistence with injectable glucose-lowering therapy is associated with better outcomes. This study used real-world pharmacy data to report on persistence with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with T2D in France.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis presents longitudinal data from approximately 7500 French retail pharmacies that filled GLP-1-RA prescriptions for GLP-1 RA-naïve patients with T2D ('index therapy': dulaglutide; once-weekly exenatide [exenatide QW]; twice-daily exenatide [exenatide BID]; liraglutide) between January 2015 and December 2016 (follow-up ≥ 12 months). The main outcome was treatment persistence (absence of discontinuation [gap following index therapy prescription ≥ 2-fold the expected duration of that prescription] or switch [new non-index glucose-lowering prescription issued ≤ 30 days before/after index therapy discontinuation]). Persistence was calculated as the median duration through Kaplan-Meier survival analysis over the variable follow-up period and as the proportion of patients persistent at 12 months. In addition to persistence outcomes (discontinuation/switch), three other treatment modifications were assessed: augmentation/intensification with a new non-index glucose-lowering therapy; off-label dose increase (daily dose > 20 μg for exenatide BID; two consecutive prescriptions with daily dose > 1.8 mg for liraglutide); and off-label dose decrease (two consecutive prescriptions with average daily dose lower than the index dose). Off-label dose changes were not assessed for dulaglutide or exenatide QW (as single-dose, prefilled pens).

RESULTS

Median persistence was longest for dulaglutide (373 days) versus liraglutide (205 days), exenatide QW (184 days) and exenatide BID (93 days). Twelve months after treatment initiation, the percentage of persistent patients ranged from 51% (dulaglutide) to 21% (exenatide BID). Overall, treatment modification occurred less commonly for dulaglutide than for the other index GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

This analysis revealed marked differences in persistence among GLP-1 RAs, which was highest for dulaglutide and lowest for exenatide BID. The prospective TROPHIES study will provide additional information about persistence with dulaglutide and liraglutide, including reasons for treatment modifications.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Data from a Real-World Study in Spain

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to describe utilization patterns, persistence, resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in routine clinical practice in Spain.

METHODS

This retrospective study of medical records in the Big-Pac database identified adults starting treatment with once-weekly (QW) dulaglutide, exenatide-QW or once-daily liraglutide between 1 November 2015 and 30 June 2017. Patients were followed for up to 18 months from treatment initiation. Data on clinical characteristics of patients, treatment patterns, average daily dose and costs were obtained for the three cohorts. Persistence over the 18-month period was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves. All analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were included in this study (dulaglutide [n = 492], exenatide-QW [n = 438] or liraglutide [n = 472]); 52.8% were men, and the mean (SD) age was 62 (11) years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.1% (1.2) and body mass index was 35.5 (3.2) kg/m² at treatment initiation. Persistence at 18 months was 59.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.8-63.4) for dulaglutide, 45.7% (95% CI 41.0-50.4) for exenatide-QW and 46.6% (95% CI 42.1-51.1) for liraglutide. The average (SD) dose was 1.2 (0.4) mg/week for dulaglutide, 1.9 (0.3) mg/week for exenatide-QW and 1.1 (0.3) mg/day for liraglutide. The average reduction in HbA1c levels at 1 year was - 0.68% for patients who initiated dulaglutide, - 0.54% for patients who initiated exenatide-QW and - 0.50% for patients who initiated liraglutide. The mean (SD) total annual health care costs were €4072 (1946) for dulaglutide, €4418 (2382) for exenatide-QW and €4382 (2389) for liraglutide.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that patients who started treatment with dulaglutide had higher persistence over 18 months, presented lower HbA1c levels at 12 months and incurred lower annual total healthcare costs than patients who initiated exenatide-QW or liraglutide.

Switching between GLP-1 receptor agonists in clinical practice: Expert consensus and practical guidance

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are an established treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Differences between GLP-1RAs in pharmacokinetics, dosing regimens and clinical effects, including cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, mean there may be benefits to switching from one to another. However, clinical guidance on switching is lacking and data from clinical trials are limited. This article provides a clinical perspective and consensus on the benefits of switching between GLP-1RAs, the triggers for switching and how best to manage this in clinical practice. Once weekly (OW) semaglutide is used as an example to illustrate how the authors might switch to a different GLP-1RA in clinical practice.

METHODS

Literature was searched and perspectives from 10 healthcare professionals with experience in switching patients with T2D to OW semaglutide from another GLP-1RA were collated.

RESULTS

Medical triggers for switching to another GLP-1RA included HbA_1c targets not being met, a desire for additional weight loss, poor adherence, patients moving to increased CV risk status and adverse effects with the current GLP-1RA. Non-medical triggers for switching included patient preference, cost, formulary changes and insurance mandates. Once the decision to switch is made, an individualised approach is recommended, based on considerations that include reimbursement requirements, treatment duration with (and dose of) previous GLP-1RA, the patient's experience initiating the prior GLP-1RA, any concomitant treatment and clinical characteristics. When switching, it is important to emphasise that treatment burden will not increase and that if gastrointestinal adverse effects occur, they are typically transient. Any transient gastrointestinal adverse effects that may occur (or recur) when switching to another GLP-1RA can be reduced by slow up-titration and advising patients to reduce food portion sizes and fat intake.

CONCLUSION

Switching from one GLP-1RA to another, such as OW semaglutide, can provide clinical benefits and may delay the need for treatment intensification.

Optimizing Therapeutic Outcomes With Oral Semaglutide: A Patient-Centered Approach

In September 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved oral semaglutide as the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for treating people with type 2 diabetes. Although injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists are well-established treatment options for people with type 2 diabetes, clinical experience with an oral formulation in this class is limited. This article provides practical guidance for diabetes care and education specialists on how to effectively counsel patients initiating therapy with oral semaglutide on appropriate administration of the treatment and its possible effects on glycemic control, body weight, and quality of life. Strategies for mitigating potential side effects typical of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, namely nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, are also provided. Involving patients in treatment decisions and educating them about available and prescribed medications are key strategies for encouraging treatment adherence and ensuring optimal therapeutic outcomes.

Preference for Oral and Injectable GLP-1 RA Therapy Profiles in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) approved to date are administered by injection; therefore, patient perceptions of an oral GLP-1 RA are unknown. This discrete choice experiment explored preferences for (unbranded) oral and injectable GLP-1 RA profiles among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

An online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings, and administered to Japanese patients with T2D and HbA_1c ≥ 7.0% receiving oral antiglycaemic medication (with no experience of injectable antiglycaemic medication). Therapy profiles were created using Japanese head-to-head trial data for orally administered semaglutide (7 mg and 14 mg), injectable dulaglutide (0.75 mg), and injectable liraglutide (0.9 mg). Profiles were not labelled. Choice tasks tested preference between hypothetical profiles, preference between profiles with actual trial data, and willingness to initiate treatment. Relative importance of attributes was determined using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

A total of 500 respondents were analysed: mean age 61.2 years; 93.8% male; mean HbA_1c 7.6%; 78.2% with HbA_1c ≥ 7.0 to < 8%; 89% with HbA_1c above personal target. Mean BMI was 25.4 kg/m²; 49% had obesity (≥ 25 kg/m²). The treatment attribute with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (49.1%), followed by nausea risk (30.8%), weight change (11.3%), and HbA_1c change (8.8%). Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg-like profiles were both preferred: the 7 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 91.0% of respondents) and liraglutide (by 89.4%); the 14 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 88.2%) and liraglutide (by 94.4%). Willingness to initiate treatment was also higher for orally administered semaglutide-like profiles: 62.4% with 7 mg and 64.0% with 14 mg, versus 13.6% and 11.0% with injectable GLP-1 RA-like profiles. Subgroup results were generally consistent with the overall sample.

CONCLUSION

Japanese patients with T2D appear to prefer oral GLP-1 RA profiles over injectable GLP-1 RA profiles, and administration appears to be the most important factor in this decision. This highlights the unmet need for an effective and orally administered GLP-1 RA for the treatment of T2D in Japan.

Patients' preferences for health insurance coverage of new technologies for treating chronic diseases in China: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to inform insurance decision-making in China by investigating patients' preferences for insurance coverage of new technologies for treating chronic diseases.

DESIGN

We identified six attributes of new medical technologies for treating chronic diseases and used Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice sets for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). After conducting the DCE, we analysed the data by mixed logit regression to examine patient-reported preferences for each attribute.

SETTING

The DCE was conducted with patients in six tertiary hospitals from four cities in Jiangsu province.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years or older with a history of diabetes or hypertension and taking medications regularly for more than 1 year were recruited (n=408).

RESULTS

The technology attributes regarding expected gains in health outcomes from the treatment, high likelihood of effective treatment and low incidence of serious adverse events were significant, positive predictors of choice by the study patients (p<0.01). The out-of-pocket cost was a significant, negative attribute for the entire study sample (β = -0.258, p<0.01) and for the patients with Urban-Rural Residents Basic Medical Insurance (URRBMI) (β = -0.511, p<0.01), but not for all the patients with Urban Employees Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) (β = -0.071, p>0.05). The severity of target disease was valued by patients with lower EQ-5D-5L index value as well as URRBMI enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients highly valued the health benefits and risks of new technologies, which were closely linked to their feelings of disease and perceptions of health-related quality of life. However, there existed heterogeneity in preferences between URRBMI and UEBMI patients. Further efforts should be made to reduce the gap between insurance schemes and make safe and cost-effective new technologies as a priority for health insurance reimbursement.

Real-World Effectiveness of Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of dulaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but results may not be generalizable in routine practice. This pragmatic literature review aimed to summarize real-world evidence (RWE) for dulaglutide.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from January 2014 to July 2019 for studies providing RWE for dulaglutide in adults with T2DM regarding at least one outcome of interest (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]; weight; adherence; persistence; discontinuation; costs; healthcare resource utilization; health-related quality of life; patient satisfaction; and preference). Relevant congress abstracts were identified from EMBASE.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies (11 articles; 18 abstracts) were included. RWE for dulaglutide was not identified for all outcomes of interest. Dulaglutide reduced HbA1c from baseline to 3-24 months by 0.5-2.2% across studies (n = 20), and 23.4-55.7% of patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0%. Weight was reduced by 2.1-6.4 kg across studies of 3-12 months (n = 15). Based on outcomes from ten studies, 27.2-61.0% of dulaglutide patients were adherent. Mean persistence was 146-152 days and > 250 days in 6- and 12-month studies, respectively. Most studies reported discontinuation rates of 26.2-37.0%. Adherence and persistence were consistently reported to be greater in dulaglutide-treated patients in RW settings compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Dulaglutide was associated with lower costs per 1% reduction in HbA1c compared with exenatide, liraglutide, or basal insulin (n = 3 studies).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from RWE studies suggests that dulaglutide may be associated with clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c, with a favorable adherence, persistence, and discontinuation profile in patients with T2DM in routine clinical practice. These findings provide additional insights regarding the potential value of dulaglutide in real-world settings that may assist healthcare decision makers in the delivery of patient-centered care.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER)

AIM

When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset.

RESULTS

There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.