Antidiabetic Treatment Patterns in a Medicare Advantage Population in the United States

Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry

OBJECTIVE

Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

Preventing Unnecessary Costs of Drug-Induced Hypoglycemia in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States and Canada

BACKGROUND

The costs of drug-induced hypoglycemia are a critical but often neglected component of value-based arguments to reduce tight glycemic control in older adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

An economic (decision-tree) analysis compared rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained associated with mild, moderate and severe hypoglycemic events for 6 glucose-lowering medication classes in type 2 diabetic adults aged 65-79 versus those 80 years and older. The national U.S. (Center for Medicare Services) and Canadian public health payer perspectives were adopted.

FINDINGS

Incidence rates of drug-induced hypoglycemia were the highest for basal insulin and sulfonylureas: 8.64 and 4.32 events per person-year in 65-79 year olds, and 12.06 and 6.03 events per person-year for 80 years and older. In both the U.S. and Canada, metformin dominated sulfonylureas, basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide1 receptor agonists. Relative to sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the U.S. and dominated sulfonylureas in Canada for adults 80 years and older. Relative to sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase4 inhibitors were cost-effective for adults 80 years and older in both countries, and for 65-79 year olds in Canada. Annual costs of hypoglycemia for older adults attaining very tight glycemic control with the use of insulin or sulfonylureas were estimated at U.S.$509,214,473 in the U.S. and CAN$65,497,849 in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing drug therapy for older type 2 diabetic adults through the avoidance of drug-induced hypoglycemia will dramatically improve patient health while also generating millions of dollars by saving unnecessary medical costs.

Non-Persistence and Non-Adherence of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Therapy with GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Our main aim was to assess the level of persistence and adherence to therapy with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany, also by comparing once- (OD) with twice-a-day (BID) therapy.

METHODS

We used two large retrospective datasets: a German claims dataset and the UK General Practitioner (GP)-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) dataset (2010-2012). All continuously insured T2DM patients with at least one outpatient/inpatient T2DM diagnosis were observed starting with the first prescription of a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Non-persistence (NP) was defined as treatment gap >90 days. Non-adherence (NA) was defined as medication possession ratio <80%, calculated during a period in which a patient continued therapy (no treatment gap >90 days) only.

RESULTS

In the UK sample, 1905 T2DM patients started a treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists (mean age: 55.5 years, 47.2% female). In the German sample, 1627 T2DM patients started a treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists (mean age: 56.6 years, 51.4% female). Percentage of NP patients after 12 months was 29.5% in the UK and 36.4% in the German sample. In both countries, a BID treatment was associated with a higher probability to discontinue a treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists earlier than an OD treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.431 in UK and HR = 1.314 in Germany). The percentages of patients considered NA were 20.2%/20.0%/20.5% (all/OD/BID) for the UK sample, and 19.9%/19.2%/21.8% (all/OD/BID) for the German sample.

CONCLUSION

NP and NA to treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists in both UK and Germany appear to be similar. Persistence to OD treatment is higher than to BID treatment in both the UK and Germany.