Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine disposable pen versus exenatide BID

Greater persistence and adherence to basal insulin therapy is associated with lower healthcare utilization and medical costs in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database analysis

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess persistence and adherence to basal insulin therapy, their association with all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and direct medical costs, and predictors of persistence and adherence in adults with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted with US adults with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin therapy between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims data. Persistence and adherence were assessed during 1 year post-initiation per previous definitions. Demographic/clinical characteristics were assessed during the 1 year pre-initiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding variables. Post-IPTW, all-cause HCRU and direct medical costs were assessed during the first-year and second-year post-initiation by persistence and adherence status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of persistence and adherence.

RESULTS

The final sample comprised 64,953 patients; 56.8% demonstrated persistence and 41.9% demonstrated adherence. Patients demonstrating persistence and adherence were significantly less likely to have a hospitalization than patients demonstrating non-persistence or non-adherence, respectively. In the second-year post-initiation, total mean all-cause direct medical costs per patient were lower for patients demonstrating persistence and significantly lower for patients demonstrating adherence. Prior use of both oral and injectable antidiabetic medication predicted persistence and adherence compared with patients with only prior oral antidiabetic medication use (persistence OR, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.44 to 1.57); adherence OR, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.42 to 1.55)).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistence and adherence to basal insulin was associated with fewer hospitalizations and lower direct medical costs.

Diabetes-Related Effectiveness and Cost of Liraglutide or Insulin in German Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 5-Year Retrospective Claims Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To date, limited long-term data (> 2 years) exist comparing real-world diabetes-related effectiveness and costs for liraglutide versus insulin treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective claims data analysis covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017 and included continuously insured patients with T2DM who initiated insulin or liraglutide and had 3.5 or 5 years' follow-up data, identified using the German AOK PLUS dataset. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 825 and 436 patients in the liraglutide and insulin groups at 3.5 and 5 years' follow-up, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between compared cohorts. The respective change from baseline to follow-up in mean glycated haemoglobin for liraglutide and insulin patients was - 0.88% and - 0.81% (p > 0.100) after 3.5 years and - 1.15%/ - 1.02% (p > 0.100) after 5 years. Mean respective changes in body mass index (kg/m2) were - 1.21/+ 1.14 (p < 0.001) after 3.5 years and - 1.29/+ 1.13 after 5 years (p < 0.001). Liraglutide- versus insulin-treated patients were less likely to have an early T2DM-related hospitalisation (3.5-year hazard ratio [HR]: 0.414 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.263-0.651]; 5-year HR: 0.448 [95% CI 0.286-0.701]). At 5 years' follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in total direct costs between treatment groups (cost ratio: 1.069 [95% CI 0.98-1.13]; p > 0.100).

CONCLUSION

The clinical effectiveness of liraglutide is maintained long term (up to 5 years). Liraglutide treatment is not associated with higher total direct healthcare costs.

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.

All-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs among US adults with type 2 diabetes initiating exenatide once weekly or insulin glargine

AIMS

To compare healthcare utilization and costs between patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with exenatide (Bydureon) once weekly (EQW) and patients treated with insulin glargine (IG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult US patients with claim with a diagnosis of T2D, initiating EQW or IG from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (first claim = index date). All-cause and diabetes-related utilization and costs were measured during the 12 months after the index date. EQW patients were matched 1:1 to IG patients, using propensity scores. Logistic and ordinary least-squares regression models were fit to model differences between the matched cohorts.

RESULTS

There were 7749 EQW patients matched to 7749 IG patients. EQW patients had significantly (P < .05) lower odds of all-cause inpatient (IP) admissions (odds ratio = 0.737 [95% confidence interval, 0.661, 0.822]), diabetes-related IP admissions (0.720 [95% confidence interval, 0.635, 0.815]) and diabetes-related IP admissions or emergency room visits (0.778 [95% confidence interval, 0.713, 0.847]). EQW patients had significantly (P < .05) lower all-cause (cost difference = -113 USD [95% confidence interval, -120 USD, -106 USD]) and diabetes-related (-806 USD [95% confidence interval, -871 USD, -746 USD]) medical costs, and had significantly (P < .05) higher all-cause total costs (ie, medical plus pharmacy) (3228 USD [95% confidence interval, 3110 USD, 3367 USD]), diabetes-related total costs (1951 USD [95% confidence interval, 1873 USD, 2036 USD]), all-cause pharmacy costs (2792 USD [95% confidence interval, 2700 USD, 2928 USD]) and diabetes-related pharmacy costs (1923 USD [95% confidence interval, 1890 USD, 1957 USD]) than those of IG patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with T2D, EQW initiators had lower odds of IP admission and lower medical costs in the 12 months after initiation than IG initiators. Higher total costs in EQW patients were driven by greater pharmacy costs.

Slow Titration and Delayed Intensification of Basal Insulin Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) refers to the failure of clinicians to intensify therapy when indicated. Many T2DM patients remain suboptimally controlled after initiating basal insulin.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of patients treated with basal insulin but in poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [A1c] ≥ 7%) after initiation and subsequent treatment intensification patterns and glycemic outcomes in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with T2DM newly initiating a basal insulin analog (insulin glargine or detemir) from January 2010 to September 2014 were identified in the QuintilesIMS Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims linked to the QuintilesIMS Real-World Data Electronic Medical Records. Patients were previously naive to insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), were persistent on therapy for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment after initiation. First treatment intensification (increase in basal insulin dose [of ≥ 10%], addition of bolus insulin, GLP-1 RA, or a new oral antidiabetic drug [OAD]) was assessed among patients in poor glycemic control at 6 months after initiation over the available (minimum ≥ 12-month) follow-up. Subsequent glycemic outcomes and treatment intensification were assessed. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis evaluated time-to-treatment intensification and time to A1c goal.

RESULTS

Of 427 eligible patients with A1c available at 6 months, 59.3% were male; mean age was 53.9 years; mean follow-up was 29.4 months; and mean dose of the initiated prescription was 29.6 insulin units (U) (median 24U). Six months after initiating basal insulin, 81.0% of patients (n = 346) remained in poor glycemic control, and mean basal insulin dose was 31.0U (median 25U). Most (88.4%; n = 306) of these uncontrolled patients subsequently intensified treatment over the available follow-up. Using KM analysis, these patients intensified treatment in a median of 58 days (range: 17.5 days [GLP-1 RA addition] to 52 days [increase in basal insulin dose]) from the first elevated A1c measurement taken after 6 months, and 72.5% (GLP-1 RA addition) to 91.1% (OAD addition) of patients continued to remain in poor glycemic control at 12 months after intensification. Most patients (66.8%; n = 231/346) first intensified treatment by increasing their basal insulin dose, and mean dose increased to 61.7U (median 38U) at intensification. Six months following basal insulin increase, almost all patients remained on basal insulin therapy and among those with available A1c, 92.1% (140 of 152) were in poor glycemic control. In the subsequent 12 months, only a third (34%) of uncontrolled patients added another antihyperglycemic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients remained uncontrolled in the 6 months following basal insulin initiation. Basal insulin up-titration was slow and insufficient in the 6 months after initiation, indicating treatment inertia. Subsequently, most patients failed to achieve glycemic targets despite intensification with basal insulin. This finding suggests a substantial unmet need for effective treatment intensification among T2DM patients treated with basal insulin who remain uncontrolled. Improved provider education and guidelines on appropriate intensification are warranted.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Mocarski, Guerrero, Langer, and Thorsted are employees and shareholders of Novo Nordisk. Yeaw, Divino, and DeKoven are employed by QuintilesIMS, which received remuneration from Novo Nordisk for work on this study. Study concept and design were contributed by Mocarski, DeKoven, Langer, and Thorsted. Yeaw took the lead in data collection, along with Divino and DeKoven. Data interpretation was performed by Yeaw, Divino, DeKoven, and Guerrero. The manuscript was written by Mocarski and Divino and revised by Guerrero, Langer, and Thorsted, along with Yeaw and DeKoven. Some of the data from this study were presented via poster at the AMCP Annual Meeting in March 2017 and at the 53rd EASD Annual Meeting in September 2017.

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.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness research

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) act by increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and increasing satiety.

OBJECTIVE

Published evidence directly comparing GLP-1RAs with other approved treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) was systematically reviewed.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify papers comparing GLP-1RAs with other classes of glucose-lowering therapy in patients with T2D.

RESULTS

Of the 1303 papers identified, 57 met the prespecified criteria for a high-quality clinical trial or retrospective study. The efficacy and tolerability of approved GLP-1RAs (exenatide twice daily or once weekly, dulaglutide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and albiglutide) were compared with insulin products (23 prospective studies + seven retrospective studies), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (11 prospective studies + three retrospective studies), sulfonylureas (nine prospective studies + one retrospective study), thiazolidinediones (five prospective studies), and metformin (two prospective studies). GLP-1RAs are effective as a second-line therapy in improving glycemic parameters in patients with T2D. Reductions in glycated hemoglobin from baseline with GLP-1RAs tended to be greater or similar compared with insulin therapy. GLP-1RAs were consistently more effective in reducing body weight than most oral glucose-lowering drugs and insulin and were associated with lower hypoglycemia risk versus insulin or sulfonylureas. GLP-1RAs improved cardiovascular risk factors, and preliminary data suggest they improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with T2D compared with oral glucose-lowering drugs. However, results from ongoing studies are awaited to confirm these early findings.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review found that GLP-1RAs are an effective class of glucose-lowering drugs for T2D.

Real-world insulin treatment persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate real-world treatment persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating treatment with insulin.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 3 previously published observational retrospective studies evaluating patients with T2DM who were previously on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and initiated with a basal analog insulin (insulin glargine or insulin detemir). Treatment persistence was defined as remaining on the study drug during the 1-year follow-up period without discontinuation or switching after study drug initiation. Analyses were conducted to identify baseline factors associated with persistence with insulin therapy and to estimate the association between insulin treatment persistence and patients' clinical and economic outcomes during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 4,804 patients with T2DM (insulin glargine: n = 4,172, insulin detemir: n = 632) were included. The average insulin persistence rate over the 1-year follow-up period was 65.0%. A significantly higher persistence rate was associated with older age, initiation with insulin glargine using either disposable pens or vial-and-syringe, and with baseline exenatide or sitagliptin use. Higher insulin treatment persistence was also associated with lower hemoglobin A1c (A1C) at follow-up, a greater reduction in A1C from baseline, and lower health care utilization.

CONCLUSION

In real-world settings, treatment persistence among patients with T2DM initiating basal insulin is influenced by the type of insulin and patient factors. Greater insulin treatment persistence is linked to improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization.

Health Outcomes Associated with Initiation of Basal Insulin After 1, 2, or ≥ 3 Oral Antidiabetes Drug(s) Among Managed Care Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease. Despite starting with single oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) therapy and then adding OAD(s), most patients eventually require insulin therapy to achieve and maintain glycemic control. The timely initiation of insulin therapy could help patients with T2DM whose glycemic control is not adequately maintained using OADs alone.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare baseline characteristics and assess real-world health outcomes associated with initiating basal insulin after 1 OAD, 2 OADs, or ≥ 3 OADs among T2DM patients.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from adult T2DM patients in a U.S. managed care claims database (IMPACT) who initiated a basal insulin (from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2011) with continuous health plan enrollment for 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after (follow-up) insulin initiation and who had at least 1 OAD prescription. Outcome measures according to the number of OADs used were (a) treatment discontinuation, (b) glycated hemoglobin (A1c) levels, (c) proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycemia, (d) health care resource utilization, and (e) costs.

RESULTS

Data from 71,988 patients were included (1 OAD: 19,168 patients [26.6%]; 2 OADs: 29,112 [40.4%]; and ≥ 3 OADs: 23,708 [32.9%]). All baseline characteristics, except nephropathy, were significantly different across the 3 groups. At baseline, when compared with the 1 OAD or 2 OADs groups, the ≥3 OADs group was less likely to be female or have macrovascular disease and had experienced fewer hypoglycemic events and hospitalization as well as lower costs. At follow-up, treatment discontinuation rates were 36.0%, 27.6%, and 21.4% for the 1 OAD, 2 OADs, and ≥ 3 OADs groups, respectively. A1c reduction was -1.33%, -1.05%, and -0.86%, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing any hypoglycemia was 4.7%, 3.8%, and 3.3% at baseline; and 3.7%, 3.5%, and 3.1% at follow-up for the 1 OAD, 2 OADs, and ≥3 OADs groups, respectively. In all 3 groups, health care costs decreased compared with baseline, particularly in the 1 OAD and 2 OADs groups, with decreased inpatient costs offsetting increased drug costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world analysis shows that there are significant baseline differences in patients with T2DM on 1 OAD, 2 OADs, or ≥3 OADs when adding insulin therapy. All 3 groups had significant improvements in clinical and economic outcomes compared with baseline, yet at different magnitudes. These data contribute to a growing body of evidence supporting the timely initiation of insulin therapy for T2DM patients not maintaining glycemic control with OADs.

Exenatide twice daily: a review of its use in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Exenatide, administered subcutaneously twice daily (Byetta(®)), is a synthetic version of the natural peptide exendin-4, which is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (incretin mimetic). Exenatide binds to the GLP-1 receptor with the same affinity as GLP-1, but has a much longer half-life, since it is not degraded by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4. Exenatide twice daily enhances glucose-dependent insulin secretion, suppresses inappropriately elevated glucagon secretion, slows gastric emptying and reduces caloric intake. In well-designed clinical trials, adjunctive subcutaneous exenatide 5 or 10 μg twice daily for 16-52 weeks significantly and dose-dependently improved glycaemic control and reduced mean body weight compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) and/or basal insulin. The improvements in glycaemic control and reductions in body weight were stably maintained during long-term therapy (up to 3.5 years). The efficacy of adjunctive exenatide twice daily was generally similar to that of basal, prandial or biphasic insulin, sulfonylureas, rosiglitazone and lixisenatide, and less than that of liraglutide, taspoglutide or exenatide once weekly with respect to reductions in glycated haemoglobin. Exenatide twice daily was generally well tolerated; mild to moderate nausea and vomiting, which decreased with time on therapy, were the most common adverse events. In patients not receiving concomitant sulfonylureas or insulin, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was low; when it did occur, it was generally mild in severity. Thus, adjunctive exenatide twice daily is a valuable option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with OADs and/or basal insulin.

The dynamic relationship between current and previous severe hypoglycemic events: a lagged dependent variable analysis among patients with type 2 diabetes who have initiated basal insulin

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Past studies have found episodes of severe hypoglycemia (SH) to be serially dependent. Those studies, however, only considered the impact of a single (index) event on future risk; few have analyzed SH risk as it evolves over time in the presence (or absence) of continuing events. The objective of this study was to determine the dynamic risks of SH events conditional on preceding SH events among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who have initiated basal insulin.

METHODS

We used an electronic health records database from the United States that included encounter and laboratory data and clinical notes on T2D patients who initiated basal insulin therapy between 2008 and 2011 and to identify SH events. We used a repeated-measures lagged dependent variable logistic regression model to estimate the impact of SH in one quarter on the risk of SH in the next quarter.

RESULTS

We identified 7235 patients with T2D who initiated basal insulin. Patients who experienced ≥1 SH event during any quarter were more likely to have ≥1 SH event during the subsequent quarter than those who did not (predicted probabilities of 7.4% and 1.0%, respectively; p < 0.01). This effect was stronger than the impact of history of SH before starting basal insulin (predicted probabilities of 1.0% and 3.2%, respectively; p < 0.01) or of a history of SH during the titration period (predicted probabilities of 1.1% and 2.8%, respectively; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of experiencing a SH event is highly dependent on a patient's immediate history of SH events and therefore the value of preventing one SH event may be substantial. These results can inform patient care by providing clinicians with dynamic data on a patient's risk of SH, which in turn can facilitate appropriate adjustment of the risk-benefit ratio for individualized patient care. These results should, however, be interpreted in light of the key limitations of our study: not all SH events may have been captured or coded in the database, data on filled prescriptions were not available, we were unable to adjust for basal insulin dose, and the post-titration follow-up period could have divided into time units other than quarters (3 month blocks) resulting in potentially different conclusions. Further real-world studies on how to best to identify patients at risk for SH events based on the presence of recent SH events, rather than on more distant 'prior' events, can help healthcare providers to better manage patients starting basal insulin.

Severe hypoglycemia rates and associated costs among type 2 diabetics starting basal insulin therapy in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To derive current real-world data on the rates and costs of severe hypoglycemia (SH) for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) who have initiated basal insulin therapy and to examine differences in SH rates and costs stratified by history of prior SH events.

METHODS

We used a nation-wide electronic health records database that included encounter and laboratory data, as well as clinical notes, to estimate the rates and costs of SH events among adults with T2D who initiated basal insulin between 2008 and 2011. Unadjusted and regression-adjusted rates and quarterly costs were calculated for all patients as well as stratified by history of a SH event before starting basal insulin and history of a SH event during the basal insulin titration period.

RESULTS

We identified 7235 incident cases of basal insulin use among patients with T2D who did not use insulin during the previous 12 months. Regression-adjusted incidence and total event rates were 10.36 and 11.21 per 100 patient-years, respectively. A history of SH events during the pre-index baseline and post-index titration periods were statistically significantly associated with both the incidence and total event rates (p < 0.01). Regression-adjusted total healthcare and diabetes-related costs were statistically significantly (p < 0.01) higher in those quarters when a SH event occurred than in those quarters without any SH events ($3591 vs. $487 and $3311 vs. $406, respectively). A history of previous SH or SH events during the titration period were not statistically significantly associated with costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the real-world burden of SH is high among people with T2D who start using basal insulin and that history of previous SH events, both before starting insulin and during the insulin titration period, influences future SH. These results can also provide insights into interventions that can prevent or delay SH. These results should, however, be interpreted in light of the key limitations of our study: not all SH events may have been captured or coded in the database, data on filled prescriptions were not available, and the post-titration follow-up period could have been divided into time units other than quarters (3 month blocks) resulting in potentially different conclusions. Further real-world studies on the frequency and costs of SH, using methods to identify as many SH events as possible, can allow healthcare providers to make more informed decisions on the risks and benefits of basal insulin therapy in T2D patients.

Much ado about nothing? A real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes switching Basal insulin analogs

Introduction

Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease, and many patients eventually require insulin therapy. This study examined real-world outcomes of switching basal insulin analogs among patients with T2DM.

Methods

Using two large United States administrative claims databases (IMPACT^® and Humana^®), this longitudinal retrospective study examined two cohorts of adult patients with T2DM. Previously on insulin glargine, Cohort 1 either continued insulin glargine (GLA-C) or switched to insulin detemir (DET-S), while Cohort 2 was previously on insulin detemir, and either continued insulin detemir (DET-C) or switched to insulin glargine (GLA-S). One-year follow-up treatment persistence and adherence, glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), hypoglycemia events, healthcare utilization and costs were assessed. Selection bias was minimized by propensity score matching between treatment groups within each cohort.

Results

A total of 5,921 patients (mean age 60 years, female 50.0%, HbA_1c 8.6%) were included in the analysis (Cohort 1: IMPACT^®: n = 536 DET-S matched to n = 2,668 GLA-C; Humana^®: n = 256 DET-S matched to n = 1,262 GLA-C; Cohort 2: n = 419 GLA-S matched to n = 780 DET-C), with similar baseline characteristics between treatment groups in each cohort. During 1-year follow-up, in Cohort 1, DET-S patients, when compared with GLA-C patients, had lower treatment persistence/adherence with 33–40% restarting insulin glargine, higher rapid-acting insulin use, worse HbA_1c outcomes, significantly higher diabetes drug costs, and similar hypoglycemia rates, health care utilization and total costs. However, in Cohort 2 overall opposite outcomes were observed and only 19.8% GLA-S patients restarted insulin detemir.

Conclusions

This study showed contrasting clinical and economic outcomes when patients with T2DM switched basal insulin analogs, with worse outcomes observed for patients switching from insulin glargine to insulin detemir and improved outcomes when switching from insulin detemir to insulin glargine. Further investigation into the therapeutic interchangeability of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in the real-world setting is needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0120-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does Device Make Any Difference? A Real-world Retrospective Study of Insulin Treatment Among Elderly Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

We compared real-world clinical and economic outcomes for insulin glargine treatment administered by disposable pen and traditional vial-and-syringe injections among elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Using a large database of US retirees, this retrospective longitudinal study examined 1-year follow-up outcomes in patients with T2DM aged 65 years or older who were either insulin naïve and initiated insulin glargine via disposable pen (pen initiators [PI]) or vial (vial initiators [VI]) or were already insulin glargine users but either continued with a vial (vial continuers [VC]) or switched to a disposable pen (pen switchers [PS]). There were 7856 propensity-score-matched patients, including 2930 each in the PI and VI cohorts, and 998 each in the VC and PS cohorts. Compared with vial-and-syringe users, the disposable pen users had significantly greater treatment persistence (P < .0001 for both comparisons), duration of persistence (P < .0001 for both), and adherence (P < .01 for both) and lower insulin daily average consumption (P < .05 for both). Compared with the VI cohort, the PI cohort had significantly fewer hypoglycemia-related events (P = .0164). Total health care costs were comparable for the respective matched cohorts. In elderly patients with T2DM receiving insulin glargine therapy, initiating or switching to a disposable pen was associated with better treatment persistence and adherence than initiating or continuing with vial-and-syringe, without increased total health care costs. Among insulin-naïve patients, initiating insulin glargine by disposable pen was also associated with significantly reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with vial-and-syringe patients.

The INITIATOR study: pilot data on real-world clinical and economic outcomes in US patients with type 2 diabetes initiating injectable therapy

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression often results in treatment intensification with injectable therapy to maintain glycemic control. Using pilot data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Anti-diabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens study, real-world treatment patterns among T2DM patients initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine or liraglutide were assessed.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of claims from the OptumInsight™ (OI; January 1, 2010 to July 30, 2010) and HealthCore(®) (HC; January 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010) health insurance databases. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs were compared between adults with T2DM initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine pen versus liraglutide. Follow-up outcomes, including glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, health care utilization, and costs, were assessed.

RESULTS

At baseline, almost one in three liraglutide patients (OI, n = 363; HC, n = 521) had A1C <7.0%, while insulin glargine patients (OI, n = 498; HC, n = 1,188) had poorer health status, higher A1C (insulin glargine: 9.8% and 9.1% versus liraglutide: 7.9% and 7.7%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.001), and were less likely to be obese (insulin glargine: 10.8% and 9.2% versus liraglutide: 17.4% and 18.8%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.01). The percentage of patients experiencing a hypoglycemic event was numerically higher for insulin pen use for both cohorts (OI 4.4% versus 3.0%; HC 6.2% versus 2.3%). During follow-up, in the insulin glargine cohort, annualized diabetes-related costs remained unchanged ($8,344 versus $7,749 OI, and $7,094 versus $7,731 HC), despite a significant increase in pharmacy costs, due to non-significant decreases in medical costs, while the liraglutide cohort had a significant increase in annualized diabetes-related costs ($4,510 versus $7,731 OI, and $4,136 versus $7,111 HC; both P < 0.001) due to a non-significant increase in medical costs coupled with a significant increase in pharmacy costs.

CONCLUSION

These descriptive data identified differences in demographic and baseline clinical characteristics among patients initiating injectable therapies. The different health care utilization and cost patterns warrant further cost-effectiveness analysis.

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

BACKGROUND

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, basal-bolus strategies can improve treatment by offering dosing flexibility, and improved satisfaction, adherence, and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare real-world outcomes between US patients initiating analog insulin therapy with insulin glargine and those initiating with a premixed analog insulin (PMX).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of data from patients (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the IMPACT® database who initiated insulin treatment with insulin glargine (GLA) or a PMX. Clinical and economic outcomes were measured over one year, including persistence and adherence, consumption of insulin, glycemic outcomes, incident hypoglycemia, and health care resource utilization and cost.

RESULTS

Data from 2,502 patients were included in the analyses (n = 834 for PMX, n = 1,668 for GLA). Compared with PMX, persistence was higher and consumption of insulin was lower for GLA (both P < 0.0001). Adherence, glycemic outcomes, and hypoglycemia-related events were similar between groups, as were health care utilization and total health care costs. Diabetes-related drug and supply costs were lower for GLA than for PMX (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.046, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In US patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, initiating insulin with once-daily GLA, rather than a PMX, is associated with increased treatment persistence and similar clinical and hypoglycemic outcomes, but lower diabetes pharmacy and supply costs. GLA may be a more flexible option than PMX. However, these results also show suboptimal glycemic control in the real-world setting despite change in treatment regimens and call for optimization in management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Real-world rates, predictors, and associated costs of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine: results of a pooled analysis of six retrospective observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the real-world rates of hypoglycemia and related costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated insulin glargine with either a disposable pen or vial-and-syringe.

METHODS

Pooled data were evaluated from six previously published, retrospective, observational studies using US health plan insurance claims databases to investigate adults with T2DM who initiated insulin glargine. The current study evaluated baseline characteristics, hypoglycemic events, and costs during the 6 months prior to and 12 months following insulin glargine initiation. Comparisons were made between patients initiating treatment with a disposable pen (GLA-P) and vial-and-syringe (GLA-V). Multivariate analyses using baseline characteristics as covariates determined predictors of hypoglycemia after initiating insulin glargine.

RESULTS

This study included 23,098 patients (GLA-P: 14,911; GLA-V: 8187). Overall annual prevalence of hypoglycemia was low (6.3% overall, 2.2% related to hospital admission or emergency department visit). Prevalence was significantly lower with GLA-P (5.5% vs 7.7%; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, average glycated hemoglobin HbA1c reduction was higher with GLA-P (-1.22% vs -0.86%; p = 0.0012). The average annual hypoglycemia-related cost associated with initiating insulin glargine was $293, with GLA-P being 46% lower than GLA-V ($225 vs $417; p = 0.001). Patients who had already developed microvascular complications at the time of initiating insulin therapy were at higher risk for developing hypoglycemia.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by the use of retrospective data and ICD-9-CM codes, which are subject to coding error. In addition, this pooled analysis used unmatched cohorts, with multivariate regression analyses employed to adjust for between-group differences. Finally, results describe a managed care sample and cannot be generalized to all patients with T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T2DM initiating insulin glargine treatment showed low rates of hypoglycemia, especially when using a disposable pen device. Hypoglycemia-related costs were low, contributing a very small proportion to overall diabetes-related healthcare costs.

Real-world comparative outcomes of US type 2 diabetes patients initiating analog basal insulin therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated insulin glargine or insulin detemir.

METHODS

Retrospective data were analyzed from the US General Electric Centricity electronic medical records (EMR) database from patients (≥18 years old) with T2DM initiating insulin glargine or detemir between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Included patients had EMR data for ≥6 months prior to (baseline) and ≥12 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first insulin prescription), and at least one OAD and/or GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription order during baseline, but no previous insulin prescription. Patients were matched on baseline characteristics 5:1, insulin glargine to detemir, to ameliorate selection bias. Outcomes assessed were persistence with insulin therapy, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, body weight, and body mass index over follow-up.

RESULTS

Insulin glargine and detemir groups were similar in terms of gender (51.0% and 51.5% female, P = 0.7356), age (57.8 and 57.4 years, P = 0.3368), A1C (9.4% and 9.4%, P = 0.6642), and body weight (101.9 kg and 102.4 kg, P = 0.4920) at baseline. During follow-up, patients initiating insulin glargine were more persistent (80.1% vs 67.8%, P < 0.0001) and had a greater change in A1C (-1.11% vs -0.96%, P = 0.0479). Percentage change in weight (0.91% and 0.65%, P = 0.2734) and hypoglycemia prevalence (3.6% vs 4.1%, P = 0.4338) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this real-world EMR analysis suggest that among T2DM patients, initiating insulin treatment with insulin glargine may be associated with better treatment persistence and glycemic control, with similar prevalence of hypoglycemia and weight change, compared with initiating with insulin detemir. This study is limited by the retrospective nature of the data collection using EMRs and inability to confirm accuracy and completeness of data by secondary chart review.

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study

Purpose

CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study.

Methods

CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices.

Results

A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients’ and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

Comparative efficacy of exenatide versus insulin glargine on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients inadequately treated with metformin monotherapy

PURPOSE

Comparative efficacy of exenatide versus insulin glargine primarily on glucemic control, and secondarily on body mass index (BMI), lipid profile and blood pressure, in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients suboptimally treated with metformin monotherapy.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Forty-seven inadequately treated T2DM patients on metformin assigned to exenatide (n=18) or insulin glargine (n=29) for 26 weeks. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), serum lipids, BMI, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and adverse events, including episodes of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal symptoms, were recorded.

RESULTS

Either treatment had a similar favorable mean reduction in HbA1c. However, more patients in exenatide group achieved HbA1c ≤ 7% at the 26th week compared with insulin glargine group (p=0.036). Insulin glargine group had significantly more episodes of hypoglycemia compared with exenatide group (p=0.039). Gastrointestinal adverse events were non-significantly higher in the exenatide group. A significantly greater BMI reduction was observed in exenatide group, whereas ΒΜΙ was not altered in insulin glargine group. Total and LDL cholesterol (p=0.012), and triglycerides (p=0.016) significantly decreased, whereas HDL cholesterol increased (p=0.021) in the exenatide group, whereas only total cholesterol decreased in insulin glargine group. Changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were insignificant in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide provided similar reduction in HbA1c, but fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin glargine. Exenatide had also a favorable effect on weight loss, although more gastrointestinal adverse events. Exenatide may provide a justified alternative in second line treatment of T2DM, but more trials are required to elucidate its long-term safety and cost-effectiveness.

Does pen help? A real-world outcomes study of switching from vial to disposable pen among insulin glargine-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The study was designed to evaluate real-world data on clinical and economic outcome differences between patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who use insulin glargine with vial-and-syringe delivery and those who switch to pen administration.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims information from the national managed-care IMPACT(®) database (Ingenix Inc., Salt Lake City, UT). Adults with T2DM treated with insulin glargine were evaluated. Clinical and economic outcomes over 1 year were compared between individuals who had converted from administering glargine via vial-and-syringe to the SoloSTAR(®) (sanofi-aventis U.S., Bridgewater, NJ) pen (Switchers) and patients who continued to use vial-and-syringe administration (Continuers). Patients from each cohort were matched using propensity score matching for a comparison sample.

RESULTS

In total, 3,893 eligible patients were identified (665 Switchers and 3,228 Continuers), with a matched cohort with 603 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. One-year treatment persistence was significantly higher with Switchers versus Continuers (65.3% vs. 49.8%; P<0.0001). Medication possession ratio was also significantly higher among Switchers (0.79 vs. 0.76; P=0.0173). Insulin use and glycemic control were similar between groups. Healthcare utilization and total costs were also similar between groups. Higher prescription costs among Switchers were offset by lower overall and diabetes-related outpatient and inpatient costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from insulin glargine vial-and-syringe administration to pen delivery resulted in improved treatment adherence and persistence, with comparable clinical and economic outcomes.

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

INTRODUCTION

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often require intensification of basal insulin therapy. This retrospective, observational study compared real-world outcomes in US patients with T2DM treated with insulin glargine who added a rapid-acting insulin (RAI) (basal-bolus approach) with those who switched to premixed insulin (PMX).

METHODS

The national US IMPACT® database was used to identify data from adult patients (≥18 years of age) with T2DM who added bolus RAI to insulin glargine (GLA + RAI) or who switched from GLA to PMX between 2001 and 2009. A stringent 1:1 propensity score-matching method was used to address the selection bias by matching GLA + RAI patients and PMX patients. Clinical and economic outcomes were determined for 1 year after the initial pharmacy claim for RAI or for PMX. Outcomes included treatment persistence and adherence, average insulin doses, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, the prevalence and incidence of hypoglycemia, and health care costs/utilization. Analysis was carried out using an intent-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

The study included data from 746 propensity-matched patients (n = 373 in each cohort). Treatment persistence and adherence were higher in the GLA + RAI cohort. There was no significant difference in A1C reduction from baseline and the number of patients achieving target A1C levels of <7% in each cohort. The incidence of hypoglycemic events was also similar in both groups. However, during follow-up, many patients (48.8%) who initially switched from insulin glargine to PMX crossed back over to use GLA and/or RAI as part of their regimen. Health care costs and utilization levels were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Clinical and economic outcomes were similar in T2DM patients who added RAI to GLA and in those who switched to PMX, but a basal-bolus strategy appears to be associated with better treatment persistence and adherence.