Impact of Simultaneous Versus Sequential Initiation of Basal Insulin and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Observational Study

The association of disparities in neighborhood median household income and mortality in patients admitted to the hospital with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Lower neighborhood median household income (nMHI) is associated with increased adverse outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its effect on mortality is yet unknown.

METHODS

Data from the regional United States (U.S.) electronic medical records database, Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet), was extracted for adult patients with AF at Tulane Medical Center over 10 years. Annual nMHI & neighborhood high school graduation (HSG) data was collected from the US Census bureau. Only African Americans (AA) and Caucasians (CC) who had socioeconomic data were included. Low nMHI and low HSG were defined as ≤$25,000 & <90% respectively. High nMHI and HSG were defined as >$50,000 & ≥90% respectively. Primary endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Cox-proportional hazard ratios were used to evaluate the endpoints.

RESULTS

We included 4616 patients diagnosed with AF. During a median follow up of 4.6 years, 434 patients died of which 32.7% patients had CV mortality. There was a stepwise decrease in incidence of both all-cause and CV mortality as nMHI increased. Patients with low nMHI had the greatest risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.9, C.I. 1.2-3.2, P 0.004). The association between low nMHI and all-cause mortality persisted after adjusting for age, sex, race, HSG and stroke risk factors using CHA₂DS₂VASC, delta CHA₂DS₂VASC scores and oral anticoagulant use. CV mortality followed a similar trend as all-cause mortality, however, this association was not significant after adjusting for the above variables. Apart from low nMHI, CHA₂DS₂VASC delta CHA₂DS₂VASC were statistically significant independent predictors of both all-cause and CV mortality.

CONCLUSION

Low nMHI is an independent risk factor for all cause and CV mortality in AF. Higher burden of co-morbidities is the driving force behind this disparity. Future studies should evaluate the role of educational and therapeutic intervention in these populations to reduce mortality.

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

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

Efficacy and safety benefits of iGlarLixi versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL or lixisenatide in Asian Pacific people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes on oral agents: The LixiLan-O-AP randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi with insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi), in Asian Pacific people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on metformin with or without a second oral antihyperglycaemic drug (OAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LixiLan-O-AP (NCT03798054) was a 24-week multicentre study in adults (n = 878, mean age 56.0 years, mean body mass index 26.0 kg/m² ) with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤97 mmol/mol (11%) on OAD(s), randomized (2:2:1) to open-label once-daily iGlarLixi, iGlar or Lixi while on continued metformin ± sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline (67 mmol/mol; 8.3%) were seen with iGlarLixi (-21 mmol/mol; -1.9%) compared with iGlar (-16 mmol/mol; -1.4%; P < 0.0001) and Lixi (-10 mmol/mol; -0.9%; P < 0.0001). Greater proportions of participants achieved HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%) with iGlarLixi versus iGlar or Lixi (79%, 60% and 30%, respectively), overall and as composite endpoints including weight and hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi improved 2-hour postprandial glucose versus iGlar and Lixi and mitigated the weight gain seen with iGlar (least squares mean difference -1.1 kg; P < 0.0001). Documented ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL) hypoglycaemia was similar between iGlarLixi and iGlar (both 3.38 events per participant-year). The incidence rates of nausea and vomiting were lower with iGlarLixi (14% and 6%) than Lixi (21% and 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi achieved significant HbA1c reductions, to near-normoglycaemic levels, compared with iGlar or Lixi, with no meaningful additional risk of hypoglycaemia and mitigated body weight gain versus iGlar, with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events versus Lixi. iGlarLixi with specifically adapted ratios may provide an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for Asian Pacific people with T2D.

Simultaneous Versus Sequential Initiation of Lixisenatide and Basal Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes: Subgroup Analysis of a Japanese Post-Marketing Surveillance Study of Lixisenatide (PRANDIAL)

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide and basal insulin (BI) according to timing of treatment initiation, treatment compliance, and number of concomitant daily injections in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Each substudy analyzed subgroup data from the 3-year post-marketing surveillance PRANDIAL study. Endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial glucose, treatment response (HbA1c < 7.0% at week 24 and 156), and safety. Changes in HbA1c levels were analyzed using paired t tests; between-group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Of 2679 participants, 46.5% initiated BI before lixisenatide, 12.0% the same day, 2.7% between 1 and 90 days, and 2.8% at 91 or more days after lixisenatide; 36.0% did not receive BI. Overall, 85.4% of patients were compliant with lixisenatide treatment. The majority of patients (52.4%) received two injections/day (one was lixisenatide). Compared with other subgroups taking BI and lixisenatide, the subgroup starting them simultaneously had a mean change in HbA1c of - 0.69% [8 mmol/mol] (vs + 0.07% [0.8 mmol/mol] to - 0.79% [9 mmol/mol]) and numerically higher treatment response (21.0% vs 8.3-18.7%), but more hypoglycemia (8.1% vs 2.3-2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese people with T2D achieved better glycemic control by simultaneous as opposed to sequential initiation of lixisenatide and BI.

Importance of diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic

Uncontrolled diabetes and/or hyperglycemia is associated with severe COVID-19 disease and increased mortality. It is now known that poor glucose control before hospital admission can be associated with a high risk of in-hospital death. By achieving and maintaining glycemic control, primary care physicians (PCPs) play a critical role in limiting this potentially devastating outcome. Further, despite the hope that mass vaccination will help control the pandemic, genetic variants of the virus are causing surges in some countries. As such, PCPs will treat an increasing number of patients with diabetes who have symptoms of post-COVID-19 infection, or even have new-onset type 2 diabetes as a result of COVID-19 infection. However, much of the literature published focuses on the effects of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, with few publications providing information and advice to those caring for people with diabetes in the primary care setting. This manuscript reviews the current knowledge of the risk and outcomes of individuals with diabetes who are infected with COVID-19 and provides information for PCPs on the importance of glucose control, appropriate treatment, and use of telemedicine and online prescription delivery systems to limit the potentially devastating effects of COVID-19 in people with hyperglycemia.

From glucose lowering agents to disease/diabetes modifying drugs: a "SIMPLE" approach for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

During the last decade we experienced a surge in the number of glucose lowering agents that can be used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes. Especially important are the discoveries that sodium glucose co-transporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve patients’ cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Accordingly, various medical associations have updated their guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in this new era. Though not agreeing on every issue, these position-statements generally share a detailed and often complex workflow that may be too complicated for the busy and overworked primary care setting, where the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in many countries. Other guidelines, generally those from the cardiology associations focus primarily on the population of patients with high risk for or pre-existing cardiovascular disease, which represent only the minority of patients with type 2 diabetes. We believe that we should re-define SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA as diabetes/disease modifying drugs (DMDs) given the recent evidence of their cardiovascular and renal benefits. Based on this definition we have designed a SIMPLE approach in order to assist primary care teams in selecting the most appropriate therapy for their patients. We believe that most subjects newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes should initiate early combination therapy with metformin and a prognosis changing DMD. The decision whether to use GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i should be made based on specific patient’s risk factors and preferences. Importantly, DMDs are known to have a generally safe side-effect profile, with lower risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, further promoting their wider usage. Early combination therapy with DMDs may improve the multiple pathophysiological abnormalities responsible for type 2 diabetes and its complications, thus resulting in the greatest long term benefits.

Real-world clinical outcomes following treatment intensification with GLP-1 RA, OADs or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes on two oral agents (PATHWAY 2-OADs)

INTRODUCTION

Most patients with type 2 diabetes require sequential addition of glucose-lowering agents to maintain long-term glycemic control. In this retrospective, observational study, we compared intensification with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and insulin in patients receiving two OADs, using US electronic health records and claims data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

For inclusion, patients in the IBM MarketScan Explorys database were required to have claims for two different OADs in the 180-day baseline period and ≥1 claim for a different OAD/GLP-1 RA/insulin at index date (treatment intensification). Changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) and weight from baseline were assessed at 180 days postindex. Patients were propensity score-matched by baseline characteristics and exact-matched by HbA_1c category (HbA_1c cohort and weight/composite outcomes cohort) and body mass index (BMI) category (weight/composite outcomes cohort only) to obtain balanced treatment arms. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients reaching target HbA_1c <7% (53 mmol/mol).

RESULTS

Significantly more patients intensifying with a GLP-1 RA achieved HbA_1c <7% than those receiving OAD(s) (OR: 1.35; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; p=0.032) or insulin (OR: 1.77; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.47; p<0.001). GLP-1 RAs were also associated with a significantly greater chance of not gaining weight; significantly greater HbA_1c and weight decreases from baseline; and a significantly greater chance of HbA_1c <7%, no weight gain and discontinuation of ≥1 baseline OAD (composite outcome), compared with OAD(s) or insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

In propensity score-matched cohorts, GLP-1 RAs demonstrated significant benefits for both glycemic control and weight management over additional OAD(s) or insulin, respectively, indicating that they may represent the optimal choice at these points in the treatment pathway.

Real-world evidence of the effectiveness on glycaemic control of early simultaneous versus later sequential initiation of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

AIM

To assess the impact of the timing of initiating both basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on reaching glycaemic control targets over 6 and 12 months in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antihyperglycaemic drugs with an HbA1c of 9% or higher.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study assessed the impact of the timing of initiating both basal insulin and GLP-1 RA therapies on reaching glycaemic targets (HbA1c < 7% and <8%, and ≥1% and ≥2% HbA1c reduction) over 12 months in people with markedly uncontrolled T2D (HbA1c ≥ 9%) on oral antihyperglycaemic drugs identified on the Optum Humedica database (electronic medical records; 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2017). Study cohorts were defined by the days between initiating each injectable: cohort A, 30 days or less (simultaneous initiation) and cohorts B, 31-90, C, 91-180, D, 181-270 and E, 271-360 days (sequential initiation).

RESULTS

Cohort A had the best glycaemic outcomes at 6 and 12 months for all four endpoints, followed by cohort B. The likelihood of achieving an HbA1c of less than 7% did not significantly differ between cohorts A and B (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.76-1.01]); cohorts C, D and E were significantly less likely to achieve an HbA1c of less than 7% than cohort A (0.62 [0.53-0.72]; 0.62 [0.53-0.72]; 0.63 [0.54-0.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

In people with uncontrolled T2D requiring treatment with a GLP-1 RA and basal insulin, greater improvements in glycaemic control were observed when both therapies were initiated within close proximity of one another (≤90 days) compared with initiation 91-360 days apart.