Real world outcomes of adding rapid-acting insulin versus switching to analog premix insulin among US patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine

Predicting Response to Bolus Insulin Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop a predictive model to classify people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) into expected levels of success upon bolus insulin initiation.

METHODS

Machine learning methods were applied to a large nationally representative insurance claims database from the United States (dNHI database; data from 2007 to 2017). We trained boosted decision tree ensembles (XGBoost) to assign people into Class 0 (never meeting HbA1c goal), Class 1 (meeting but not maintaining HbA1c goal), or Class 2 (meeting and maintaining HbA1c goal) based on the demographic and clinical data available prior to initiating bolus insulin. The primary objective of the study was to develop a model capable of determining at an individual level, whether people with T2D are likely to achieve and maintain HbA1c goals. HbA1c goal was defined at <8.0% or reduction of baseline HbA1c by >1.0%.

RESULTS

Of 15 331 people with T2D (mean age, 53.0 years; SD, 8.7), 7800 (50.9%) people met HbA1c goal but failed to maintain that goal (Class 1), 4510 (29.4%) never attained this goal (Class 0), and 3021 (19.7%) people met and maintained this goal (Class 2). Overall, the model's receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was 0.79 with greater performance on predicting those in Class 2 (ROC = 0.92) than those in Classes 0 and 1 (ROC = 0.71 and 0.62, respectively). The model achieved high area under the precision-recall curves for the individual classes (Class 0, 0.46; Class 1, 0.58; Class 2, 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive modeling using routine health care data reasonably accurately classified patients initiating bolus insulin who would achieve and maintain HbA1c goals, but less so for differentiation between patients who never met and who did not maintain goals. Prior HbA1c was a major contributing parameter for the predictions.

Expanding the Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Modern Diabetes Care Beyond Type 1 Disease

Application of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has moved diabetes care from a reactive to a proactive process, in which a person with diabetes can prevent episodes of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, rather than taking action only once low and high glucose are detected. Consequently, CGM devices are now seen as the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Evidence now supports the use of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on any treatment regimen, not just for those on insulin therapy. Expanding the application of CGM to include all people with T1DM or T2DM can support effective intensification of therapies to reduce glucose exposure and lower the risk of complications and hospital admissions, which are associated with high healthcare costs. All of this can be achieved while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia and improving quality of life for people with diabetes. Wider application of CGM can also bring considerable benefits for women with diabetes during pregnancy and their children, as well as providing support for acute care of hospital inpatients who experience the adverse effects of hyperglycemia following admission and surgical procedures, as a consequence of treatment-related insulin resistance or reduced insulin secretion. By tailoring the application of CGM for daily or intermittent use, depending on the patient profile and their needs, one can ensure the cost-effectiveness of CGM in each setting. In this article we discuss the evidence-based benefits of expanding the use of CGM technology to include all people with diabetes, along with a diverse population of people with non-diabetic glycemic dysregulation.

Effects of conformance to type 2 diabetes guidelines on health care resource utilization, clinical outcomes, and cost: A retrospective claims analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there is a difference in the outcomes of diabetes patients managed with high, intermediate, or low conformance to diabetes guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective database analysis of adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7% (53 mmol/mol) who were commercially insured by, or receiving Medicare benefits through, Aetna. Subjects were classified as having high, intermediate, or low conformance to current guidelines. Six, 12, and 18 months later, health care resource utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs were assessed using multivariable regression analysis to determine whether differences existed between patients with high, intermediate, and low conformance. Regression models were adjusted using pre-index variables, and the results were expressed as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 21,171 individuals were included in the analysis. In analyses of patients with low versus high conformance, pharmacy costs were significantly lower over 18 months of outcome assessment (P < 0.001), but diabetes-related outpatient costs were significantly higher (P < 0.001). In analyses of patients with intermediate versus high conformance, diabetes-related outpatient costs were significantly greater at 12 and 18 months (P < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced conformance to guidelines leads to higher diabetes-related costs.

Evaluating Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled on Basal Insulin: UK ATTAIN Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective, observational cohort study evaluated the effect of therapy intensification on change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 6 and 12 months post intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled on basal insulin (BI) (i.e., HbA1c ≥ 7.5% [≥ 58 mmol/mol]).

METHODS

Patients with T2D with suboptimal glycemic control using BI were identified from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Patients who underwent therapy intensification (intensifiers) within 12 months of index 1 (the date of the first incidence of suboptimally controlled HbA1c) were matched (1:1) to patients who did not intensify therapy (non-intensifiers). Index 2 was the date of therapy intensification for intensifiers, or a pseudo date for non-intensifiers that resulted in the same duration from index 1 to index 2 as their matched intensifier patient. Primary outcomes were HbA1c change and proportion of patients achieving the HbA1c target at 6 and 12 months post index 2.

RESULTS

A total of 1342 patients (n = 646 intensifiers; n = 696 non-intensifiers) were included in the analysis. At post index 2, mean HbA1c change was substantially greater at 6 months for intensifiers than for non-intensifiers (- 0.81% vs. - 0.35%), with no additional benefit at 12 months (- 0.81% vs. - 0.49%, respectively). Compared with non-intensifiers, a greater proportion of intensifiers achieved target HbA1c at 6 months (25.1% vs. 18.8%) and at 12 months (33.4% vs. 28.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Many real-world patients with T2D suboptimally controlled with BI do not have their therapy intensified. The results of this study suggest that in this patient population, therapy intensification achieves significant reductions in HbA1c at 6 months post intensification, with little additional clinical benefit at 12 months. This suggests that, for patients who fail to achieve their glycemic targets at 6 months, since no meaningful additional clinical benefit is observed at 12 months when continuing the same therapy, further therapy intensification or change should be promptly considered.

FUNDING

This study and the Rapid Service Fees were funded by Sanofi.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

17THIN068.

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.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes on Multiple Daily Injections of Basal-bolus Insulin (MDI) Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) not achieving hemoglobin (Hb) A_1c targets may progress from an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) to added basal insulin and then to multiple daily injections of basal-bolus insulin (MDI); however, the relative clinical and economic burden experienced by patients prescribed MDI for T2DM is not well quantified. The intent of this work was to describe direct medical costs, health care resource utilization, and glycemic control in patients with T2DM exposed to MDI in a clinical practice setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data (2012-2015, United States) from patients aged 18 to 64 years with T2DM prescribed OAD, basal insulin, or MDI therapy. Eligible patients had continuous enrollment from ≥6 months before to 12 months after the date of the index prescription drug claim. Patients eligible for inclusion in the MDI cohort had ≥2 pharmacy claims each for basal and bolus insulin from the index date through the postindex period. Glycemic control, defined as an HbA1c value of <7% during the last 9 postindex months, was assessed in a subset of patients with HbA_1c data available from that period. Descriptive analyses were performed.

FINDINGS

We identified 225,135 patients with T2DM and claims for an OAD (n = 188,230), basal insulin (n = 23,724), or MDI (n = 13,181). The mean age was 51 or 52 years in each cohort; 54% to 59% of patients in each cohort were men. The mean Charlson comorbidity index scores were 0.8, 1.4, and 1.8, respectively; the percentages of patients with obesity and diabetes-related complications were greatest in the MDI cohort compared with OAD and basal insulin cohorts. The mean direct medical costs (all-cause; year-2015 US $) were $9368 in the OAD cohort, $14,420 in the basal insulin cohort, and $25,624 in the MDI cohort; diabetes-related costs were $3396, $7285, and $13,538. In the OAD, basal insulin, and MDI cohorts, 7%, 9%, and 14% of patients had ≥1 hospitalization, and 17%, 20%, and 24% had ≥1 emergency department visit, while 5%, 7%, and 11% had ≥1 diabetes-related hospitalization, and 8%, 11%, and 15% had ≥1 diabetes-related emergency department visit. Glycemic control was found in 64%, 22%, and 15% of patients in the OAD, basal insulin, and MDI cohorts.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings suggest that patients prescribed MDI therapy for T2DM have greater disease burden, experience greater medical costs and health care resource utilization, and exhibit poorer glycemic control than do patients treated with OAD or basal insulin therapy.

Comparative Effectiveness of Rapid-Acting Insulins in Adults with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although there are a variety of insulin products and new delivery modalities available, the absence of direct clinical and economic comparisons can make treatment planning and formulary decision making difficult. Direct comparisons between insulin aspart and insulin lispro from a large heterogeneous population are not available.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in clinical outcomes, medication adherence, utilization, and total health care costs between aspart and lispro and vial versus pen modalities for administering these short-acting insulin analogs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from the Humana Research Database to identify people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and Medicare or commercial insurance (with medical and pharmacy benefits) who newly initiated rapid-acting insulin between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, and were continuously enrolled during the 12-month baseline and 12-month follow-up periods. Generalized linear models were used to assess differences in costs and utilization. Logistic regression models measured the likelihood of having a hypoglycemic event, worsening diabetes complications, or a change in glycated hemoglobin (A1c).

RESULTS

8,189 patients included in the study were grouped by rapid-acting insulin product (aspart, n = 5,364, and lispro, n = 2,566) and modality (vial, n = 6,135, and pen, n = 2,054). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with a hypoglycemic event, new or worsening diabetes complications, or change in A1c, and there were no significant differences in adjusted total health care, medical and pharmacy costs, or emergency department visits between any of the product or modality comparisons. There was a significant difference in mean annual inpatient stays between lispro and aspart (adjusted mean = 2.24, 95% CI = 0.73-6.69, and adjusted mean = 2.65, 95% CI = 0.86-7.86, respectively; P < 0.001) and pen and vial cohorts (adjusted mean = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.56-4.99, and adjusted mean = 3.05, 95% CI = 1.01-9.08, respectively; P < 0.001). Adherence was similar for the lispro and aspart cohorts. Adherence was higher in the pen cohort (as measured by medication possession ratio ≥80%) compared with the vial cohort (adjusted odds ratio = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.12-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of outcomes and costs between 2 commonly used rapid-acting insulin products. Overall, there was little differentiation between products, although adherence improved significantly with pen devices. These findings may simplify decisions related to formulary options and choice of therapy.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Racsa and Ellis are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a subsidiary of Humana, and Saverno was employed with Comprehensive Health Insights at the time of this study. Meah is an employee of, and owns stock in, Humana. The authors have no financial disclosures or potential conflicts of interest to report. All authors contributed equally to study concept and design, data interpretation, and manuscript preparation. Racsa collected the data.

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 treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A comprehensive systematic review of current options

AIM

As type 2 diabetes mellitus progresses, most patients require treatment with basal insulin in combination with another agent to achieve recommended glycaemic targets. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence supporting the use of the available add-on treatments [rapid-acting insulin (RAI), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors] to basal insulin.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBSCOhost were searched for English-language articles, and all those captured were original articles (case studies and narrative reviews were omitted). Data on study design, population demographics, interventions and outcomes were tabulated. The extracted outcome data included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), as well as body weight and safety data.

RESULTS

A total of 88 publications were deemed relevant. All treatments reduced HbA_1c and FPG. The most pronounced reductions in PPG, an unmet need in patients not controlled by basal insulin, were seen following administration of RAIs and short-acting GLP-1 RAs, although data for this outcome are generally lacking. Body weight benefits were observed with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors. However, as only articles in English were included, the result was a possible publication bias, while the diversity of study designs and drug combinations limited comparisons between studies.

CONCLUSION

The evidence supports effectiveness of the available add-on treatments to basal insulin. However, other factors, such as potential body-weight increases, convenience/compliance and adverse events, particularly hypoglycaemia, should be considered on a patient-by-patient basis to optimalize treatment outcomes.

TREATMENT OF TYPE 2 DIABETES WITH BIPHASIC INSULIN ANALOGUES

The majority of patients with Type 2 diabetes require insulin therapy for treating hyperglycaemia. There are several regimens available for insulin initiation and maintenance. Insulin analogues have been developed to mimic normal physiology as closely as possible. Biphasic analogues can target both fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia, with the added advantage of being premixed and thus convenient for the patient. A practical and feasible option is to initiate insulin with one or more biphasic preparations at mealtimes, thus providing both basal and prandial coverage. Individual titration of dose and frequency of daily injections with biphasic insulin preparations has the potential for improving glycaemic control with a high degree of patient acceptance. Drawbacks include a more rigid regimen, a relative lack of flexibility, and a somewhat higher degree of glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemia when compared to multiple daily basal-bolus injections. Awareness of the advantages and limitations of biphasic insulin analogues can assist clinicians in their appropriate use for the treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes.

Attributes Influencing Insulin Pen Preference Among Caregivers and Patients With Diabetes Who Require Greater Than 20 Units of Mealtime Insulin

BACKGROUND

This study compared patient preference for Humalog® KwikPen™ 200 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 200 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) versus the Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 100 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) in patients with diabetes requiring >20 units of mealtime insulin and diabetes caregivers. This study also determined which attributes had the greatest influence on pen preference selection.

METHODS

In this 2-period, crossover, simulated-use study, 106 participants were randomized to 1 of 8 sequences that varied the pen order (IL 100 pen or IL 200 pen) and dosing order (15 units = low dose or 50 units = high dose) for a total of 4 simulated injections. Participants then completed a self-administered questionnaire to select their overall preference between the 2 pens and then rated the importance of 11 pen attributes in contributing to their overall preference.

RESULTS

Of the 90 participants expressing an overall preference, significantly more preferred the IL 200 pen to the IL 100 pen (IL 200 pen: 80 respondents; IL 100 pen: 10 respondents; 95% confidence interval [0.81, 0.94], P < .0001). The total amount of insulin in the pen, the ease in pressing the injection button, and the amount of fluid injected were key attributes influencing IL 200 pen preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these key attributes, the IL 200 pen was significantly preferred over the IL 100 pen by patients with diabetes who require >20 daily mealtime insulin units or diabetes caregivers and may improve the injection experience for these patients.

Intensification of insulin therapy with basal-bolus or premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intensified insulin regimens (basal-bolus versus premixed) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted an electronic search until March 2015 on many electronic databases including online registries of ongoing trials. All RCTs comparing basal-bolus with premixed insulin regimens, with a duration of >12 weeks and with >30 patients per arm, were included. Investigators extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and methodological quality. We found thirteen RCTs lasting 16-60 weeks and involving 5255 patients assessed for the primary endpoint (reduction of HbA1c from baseline). Meta-analysis of change in HbA1c level between basal-bolus and premixed insulin regimens resulted in a small and non-significant difference of 0.09% (95% CI -0.03 to 0.21), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 74.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in the event rate for overall hypoglycemia (0.16 episode/patient/year, 95%CI -2.07 to 2.3), weight change (-0.21 kg, -0.164 to 0.185), and daily insulin dose (-0.54 U/day, -2.7 to 1.6). The likelihood for reaching the HbA1c <7% was 8% higher (3-13%, I(2) = 68.8%) with the basal-bolus as compared with the premixed regimen. There is no clinically relevant difference in the efficacy of basal-bolus versus premixed insulin regimens for HbA1c decrease in type 2 diabetic patients. These findings may be helpful to adapt treatment to individual patient needs.