Basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and outcomes after treatment initiation among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the US

Economic Evaluation of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec from Italian NHS Perspective

Background

Icodec, once-weekly basal insulin, aims to simplify therapy management by reducing injection frequency for diabetic patients. The efficacy and safety of icodec were evaluated in the ONWARDS clinical development program. This study evaluates icodec economic and quality of life impact from the Italian National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective.

Materials and Methods

A pharmacoeconomic study was developed to assess the once-weekly insulin icodec value, highlighting its potential to decrease needle use while improving adherence and quality of life. In the base case, a differential cost and cost-utility analysis over one year compared to once-daily insulin degludec were developed. Based on the comparison with degludec, a scenario analysis was planned between icodec and the mix of basal insulins available on the market. Economic evaluations included drug and administration costs, needles, and impact on adherence. The cost-utility analysis measured the utility associated with the weekly injection compared to the daily ones, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured as Δ€/ΔQALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). To assess the robustness of the results, a deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were carried out.

Results

At an annual cost 25% higher than degludec, considering the economic benefits generated by the needle use reduction (-€51.10) and adherence improvement (-€54.85), once-weekly icodec grants no incremental cost and even potential savings per patient. Furthermore, icodec reported a utility advantage (0.023). It achieved a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to degludec. The comparison with the mix of basal insulins also reported a cost-effectiveness profile. Sensitivity tests conducted confirmed the robustness of the findings, highlighting the key drivers of the analysis.

Conclusion

Icodec represents a new therapeutic option to simplify basal insulin treatment. It also improves the patient's management and his quality of life, without increasing the economic burden for the Italian NHS, while guaranteeing an excellent cost-effectiveness profile.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

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.

Persistence to Basal Insulin: Association With Health Outcomes in a Population With Type 2 Diabetes

This study examined the association between persistence to basal insulin and clinical and economic health outcomes. The question of whether a persistence measure for basal insulin could be leveraged in quality measurement was also explored. Using the IBM-Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015, a total of 14,126 subjects were included in the analyses, wherein 9,898 (70.1%) were categorized as persistent with basal insulin therapy. Basal insulin persistence was associated with lower A1C, fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits, and lower health care expenditures. Quality measures based on prescription drug claims for basal insulin are feasible and should be considered for guiding quality improvement efforts.

Adherence and Persistence to Insulin Therapy in People with Diabetes: Impact of Connected Insulin Pen Delivery Ecosystem

Diabetes is an increasing public health problem, and insulin is the mainstay for treatment of type 1 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes treatment, insulin therapy is used after oral or other injectable agents become inadequate to achieve glycemic control. Despite the advances in insulin therapy, management of diabetes remains challenging. Numerous studies have reported low adherence and persistence to insulin therapy, which acts as a barrier to successful glycemic control and diabetes management. The aim of this targeted review article is to provide an overview of adherence and persistence to insulin therapy in people with diabetes and to discuss the impact of the emergence of a new connected ecosystem of increasingly sophisticated insulin pens, glucose monitoring systems, telemedicine, and mHealth on diabetes management. With the emergence of a connected diabetes ecosystem, we have entered an era of advanced personalized insulin delivery, which will have the potential to enhance diabetes self-management and clinical management. Early systems promise to unlock the potential to address missed or late bolus insulin delivery, which should help to address non-adherence and non-persistence. Over time, improvements in this ecosystem have the potential to combine insulin data with previously missing contextualized patient data, including meal, glucose, and activity data to support personalized clinical decisions and ultimately revolutionize insulin therapy.

Adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medications and associations with clinical and economic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic literature review

We designed a systematic literature review to identify available evidence on adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medication in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Electronic screening and congress searches identified real-world noninterventional studies (published between 2010 and October 2020) reporting estimates of adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medication in adults with T2D, and associations with glycaemic control, microvascular and/or macrovascular complications, hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Ninety-two relevant studies were identified, the majority of which were retrospective and reported US data. The proportions of patients considered adherent (median [range] 51.2% [9.4%-84.3%]) or persistent (median [range] 47.7% [16.9%-94.0%]) varied widely across studies. Multiple studies reported an association between greater adherence/persistence and greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin levels. Better adherence/persistence was associated with fewer microvascular and/or macrovascular outcomes, although there was little consistency across studies in terms of which outcomes were improved. More adherent and more persistent patients were typically less likely to be hospitalized or to have emergency department visits/admissions and spent fewer days in hospital annually than less adherent/persistent patients. Greater adherence and persistence were generally associated with lower hospitalization costs, higher pharmacy costs and lower or budget-neutral total healthcare costs compared with lower adherence/persistence. In conclusion, better adherence and persistence in people with T2D is associated with lower rates of microvascular and/or macrovascular outcomes and inpatient hospitalization, and lower or budget-neutral total healthcare expenditure. Education and treatment strategies to address suboptimal adherence and persistence are needed to improve clinical and economic outcomes.

The role of socioeconomic factors on discontinuation of insulin during pregnancy—methodological challenges from a Swedish register-based study

Aim

Continuous use of antidiabetic medication, especially insulin, is crucial for diabetes management. In pregnancy, adherence to medication is generally low and may also be associated with lower socioeconomic status. However, little is known about discontinuation of insulin in pregnant women and the potential role of socioeconomic factors. Therefore, this study aims to measure the associations between socioeconomic factors and insulin discontinuation during pregnancy in women using insulin prior to the start of pregnancy in Sweden.

Subjects and methods

This cohort study identified pregnancies recorded in the Swedish Medical Birth Register from 2006 to 2016 in women receiving insulin prior to the start of pregnancy (N = 6029). Discontinuation of insulin was defined as not receiving a refill within 120 days from the previous refill. Associations between discontinuation and socioeconomic factors were investigated via logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different definitions of discontinuation.

Results

Women discontinued insulin use in 34.2% of pregnancies. The odds ratios (ORs) of discontinuation of insulin were 1.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01–1.37] for women with lower household disposable incomes and 1.14 (95% CI: 1.01–1.29) for women with lower educational levels. When testing a change in the maximum refill gap from 91 days to 180 days, women with lower educational levels and those born in non-Nordic countries showed greater associations with discontinuation.

Conclusion

The definition of discontinuation affects the level of association of socioeconomic factors with discontinuation. Nevertheless, discontinuation of insulin is common in Sweden, especially in the lower socioeconomic groups. The socioeconomic inequality in insulin use behavior is worth noting.

Where to Initiate Basal Insulin Therapy: Inpatient or Outpatient Department? Real-World Observation in China

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of initiating insulin therapy in inpatient and outpatient settings during a 6-month follow-up period among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real-world settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was based on the ORBIT study, a real-world observational study which recruited patients with inadequate glycemic control by oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) and initiated basal insulin (BI). We compare difference in initiation and evolution of insulin therapy and glycemic control after six months were compared between patients initiating basal insulin in the inpatient department (inpatient initiators) and those starting in outpatient (outpatient initiators) among participants without rehospitalization during the six months follow-up.

RESULTS

Among all 18,995 participants in the ORBIT study, 56.0% were inpatient initiators and 44.0% outpatient. We conducted in-depth analysis among 14,860 patients without rehospitalization, 8129 inpatient initiators and 6731 outpatient initiators. (1) Inpatient initiators had lower insulin therapy persistence during six months (64.2%) than outpatient ones (78.6%) (p<0.001), which was mainly explained by more therapy switches from basal-bolus regimen to other therapies among inpatient initiators (50.1%) than that among outpatient initiators (37.5%) (p<0.001). (2) Inpatient initiation had a higher proportion of people achieving glucose targets (HbA1c <7%) than outpatient initiation. However, the benefit of inpatient initiation versus outpatient initiation was mainly observed among patients persisting with the initial insulin therapies (46.3% vs 39.5% p<0.001), rather than those nonpersistent (37.3% vs 36.2%, p=0.723). (3) Among patients with HbA1c <9%, taking only one OAD and without complications at baseline, inpatient insulin initiation did not show a higher proportion of people achieving glucose target than outpatient initiation (adjusted odds ratio=0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.21).

CONCLUSION

For patients with HbA1c ≥9%, who were taking more than one OAD and had complications at baseline, initiating insulin treatment during hospitalization has a higher proportion of people achieving glucose target than that in the outpatient department, but the premise is that the initial therapy is acceptable and can be maintained after discharge. Patient-centered approach with co-agreed decision-making to select a suitable insulin regimen should be strengthened.

Overcoming Barriers to Injectable Therapies: Development of the ORBIT Intervention Within a Behavioural Change Framework

It is estimated among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) requiring injectable therapies to achieve optimal glycaemic control, one-third are reluctant to initiate therapies, with approximately 80% choosing to discontinue or interrupt injectable regimens soon after commencement. Initiation of injectables is a complex issue, with effectiveness of such treatments undermined by non-adherence or poor engagement. Poor engagement and adherence are attributed to psychological aspects such as individuals’ negative perceptions of injectables, depression, anxiety, feelings of shame, distress and perceived lack of control over their condition. The aim of this study was to describe the development of a structured diabetes intervention to address psychological barriers to injectable treatments among a cohort of those with T2D; conducted within a behavioural change framework. An evidence base was developed to inform on key psychological barriers to injectable therapies. A systematic review highlighted the need for theory-based, structured diabetes education focussed on associated psychological constructs to inform effective, patient-centric provisions to improve injectable initiation and persistence. Findings from the focus groups with individuals who had recently commenced injectable therapies, identified patient-centric barriers to initiation and persistence with injectables. Findings from the systematic review and focus groups were translated via Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) framework to develop an intervention for people with T2D transitioning to injectable therapies: Overcoming and Removing Barriers to Injectable Treatment in T2D (ORBIT). This article describes how psychological barriers informed the intervention with these mapped onto relevant components, intervention functions and selected behaviour change techniques, and finally aligned with behaviour change techniques. This article outlines the systematic approach to intervention development within the BCW framework; guiding readers through the practical application of each stage. The use of the BCW framework has ensured the development of the intervention is theory driven, with the research able to be evaluated and validated through replication due to the clarity around processes and tasks completed at each stage.

Moderating the relationship between diabetes distress and mastery: the role of depression and empowerment

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition primarily self-managed by the individual. Mastery is a protective factor linked to better control of chronic conditions, effective self-management and improved medication adherence. Mastery appears increasingly important as treatment regimens and self-management demands become more complex and burdensome. Diabetes distress negatively impacts self-management, glycaemic control and treatment adherence. Understanding the relationship between diabetes distress and mastery may provide opportunities to improve condition management and adherence . This relationship may be impacted by other factors affecting the individual's perceived sense of control over their condition. This study examined the role of diabetes empowerment and depression in the relationship between diabetes distress and mastery. Data were drawn from a randomised controlled trial of 131 adults with type 2 diabetes transitioning to injection therapy. Participants completed measures of diabetes distress , mastery , depression and empowerment . Diabetes distress and depression were negatively associated with mastery, whilst diabetes empowerment was positively associated . A significant interaction effect (b = .024, t(112) = 3.79, p = <.005) confirmed the relationship between diabetes distress and mastery was moderated by depression. Findings highlight the additive deleterious effects of depression. Interventions to improve mastery among those living with type 2 diabetes should address diabetes distress and depression to optimise outcomes.

Persons with type 2 diabetes and high insulin persistence were associated with a lower risk of mortality: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Studies assessing the long-term outcomes of insulin persistence are scant. We compared the risk of all-cause mortality among patients with different degrees of insulin persistence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 293,210 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing insulin therapy were enrolled during 2002-2014. Insulin persistence was defined as continual insulin treatment without a 90-day gap of discontinuation in the 2-year observation period. Mortality rates were compared between 111,220 patients with ≥90% insulin persistence and 111,220 matched patients with <90% insulin persistence during the observational period.

RESULTS

During the mean 5.37-year follow-up period, the mortality rates were 58.26 and 73.21 per 1,000 person-years for patients with ≥90% and <90% of insulin persistence. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.81, P < 0.001). Patients with high insulin persistence had significantly lower risks than did those with low insulin persistence of death due to hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, sepsis and cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that patients with ≥90% insulin persistence were associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality than did patients with <90% insulin persistence.

Reasons for discontinuing insulin and factors associated with insulin discontinuation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a real-world evidence study

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that insulin therapy of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is frequently discontinued. However, the reasons for discontinuing insulin and factors associated with insulin discontinuation in this patient population are not well understood.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with T2DM prescribed insulin between 2010 and 2017 at Partners HealthCare. Reasons for discontinuing insulin and factors associated with insulin discontinuation were studied using electronic medical records (EMR) data. Natural language processing (NLP) was applied to identify reasons from unstructured clinical notes. Factors associated with insulin discontinuation were extracted from structured EMR data and evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 7009 study patients, 2957 (42.2%) discontinued insulin within 12 months after study entry. Most patients who discontinued insulin (2121 / 71.7%) had reasons for discontinuation documented. The most common reasons were improving blood glucose control (33.2%), achieved weight loss (18.5%) and initiation of non-insulin diabetes medications (16.7%). In multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, patients were more likely to discontinue either basal or bolus insulin if they were on a basal-bolus regimen (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.8; p <  0.001) or were being seen by an endocrinologist (OR 2.6; 95% CI 2.2 to 3.0; p <  0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large real-world evidence study conducted in an area with a high penetration of health insurance, insulin discontinuation countenanced by healthcare providers was common. In most cases it was linked to achievement of glycemic control, achieved weight loss and initiation of other diabetes medications. Factors associated with and stated reasons for insulin discontinuation were different from those previously described for non-adherence to insulin therapy, identifying it as a distinct clinical phenomenon.

The factors associated with insulin nonpersistence in persons with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Implementation of insulin therapy among those with diabetes is often suboptimal as a result of non-adherence or non-persistence. Studies regarding factors leading to insulin nonpersistence are limited. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective cohort study to determine the factors affecting insulin nonpersistence.

METHODS

A total of 274,852 persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus under insulin therapy during the period 2000-2014 were enrolled. Persons who stopped insulin therapy for >90 days were defined as having insulin nonpersistence. We searched for factors associated with insulin nonpersistence during the long-term follow-up period.

RESULTS

According to the multiple Cox regression model with a mean follow-up of 13.9 years, the factors associated with higher risk of insulin nonpersistence were age <40 years, men, residing in a rural area, Charlson comorbidity index score = 4, use of two or more oral antidiabetic drugs, and hypoglycemia during follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier graph showed that patients aged <40 years had significantly less insulin persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide cohort study indicated that persons with young-onset type 2 diabetes, less medical resources, and more comorbidities are at risk of insulin nonpersistence. Healthcare providers should regularly assess insulin persistence and help patients who are having difficulty with insulin-taking.

Treatment Patterns and Characteristics of Individuals Initiating High-Dose Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined patient characteristics and treatment patterns of high-dose insulin therapy (> 200 units/day) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

OBJECTIVE

To understand patient characteristics, dosing, adherence, and persistence related to high-dose insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study that used administrative claims from a large national health plan. Patients were identified who had been diagnosed with T2DM and who were aged 18-89 years, enrolled in a commercial or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan, newly initiated on a total daily dose (TDD) > 200 units of insulin between January 2011 and August 2015. Patients were required to be enrolled 6 months before and 12 months after the index date. Patients were categorized to Regimen-100 if treated with U-100 insulin only or Regimen-500 if treated with U-500R with or without U-100. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. An adjustment factor for the days supply was calculated as the ratio of median time between insulin claims, and median pharmacy reported days supply for each insulin prescription. Adjusted days supply, quantity, and concentration were used to calculate TDD for each quarter after the index date. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) for each regimen. Persistence was measured in 2 ways: the percentage of patients remaining on index medications in each quarter and the proportion of patients who maintained TDD > 200 units during all 4 quarters of the 12-month post-index period.

RESULTS

We identified 2,339 patients newly titrated up to TDD > 200 units on either Regimen-100 (2,062, 88.2%) or Regimen-500 (277, 11.8%). Patients on Regimen-500 were slightly younger with higher prevalence of comorbidities. The mean TDD (SD) for Regimen-100 decreased from 228.6 (36.0) units during the first quarter to 194.2 (181.4) units during the last quarter. The mean TDD (SD) for Regimen-500 increased from 294.2 (102.2) units in the first quarter to 304.8 (281.6) units in last quarter. The average adherence to the high-dose insulin regimen was 68.2% (30.7; median 72.6%) for the Regimen-100 cohort and 75.5% (27.0; median 85.2%) for the Regimen-500 cohort. In the Regimen-100 and Regimen-500 cohorts, 45.3% and 55.2% had a PDC ≥ 80%, respectively. Only 23.0% and 51.6% of patients maintained TDD > 200 units for the Regimen-100 and Regimen-500 cohorts, respectively, throughout the 4 quarters after the index date.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that many patients did not maintain high-dose insulin use over time, especially those on standard U-100 insulin only. This dosing pattern appears to reflect the differences in patient characteristics, insulin needs, and adherence/persistence behavior between those on Regimen-100 and those on Regimen-500.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly and Company to Humana as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Chen, Brown, Fan, Taylor, and He are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Nair and Meah are employees of Humana, which received funding to complete this research. Siadaty was an employee of Humana at the time of this study.

Factors and outcomes associated with discontinuation of basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

To assess treatment discontinuation, associated factors and outcomes after initiating basal insulin (BI) among Chinese insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had previously uncontrolled hyperglycaemia on OADs.

PATIENTS

Insulin-naïve patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled hyperglycaemia (HbA1c ≥7%) by OADs and were willing to initiate BI treatment were enrolled from 209 secondary and tertiary hospitals in eight geographical regions in China.

DESIGN

Each participant was interviewed at baseline, 3 and 6 months to collect study information. Patients with at least one visit during follow-up were included in the analyses. BI discontinuation was defined by a question asking whether the patient discontinued BI therapy at 3 or 6 months. Analyses were conducted to identify baseline factors associated with BI discontinuation and to estimate the association between insulin treatment discontinuation and patients' clinical outcomes at 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 17 858 patients, 25.8% discontinued basal insulin therapy within 6 months after initiation, and nearly two-thirds doing so within the first 3 months. Among patients discontinued basal insulin, 70.2% stopped all insulin therapy; 25.9% switched to premixed insulin and 3.8% switched to bolus only. Three most common reasons for BI discontinuation reported by patients were being unwilling to persist basal insulin without specific reasons (46.8%), reducing the frequency of daily injection (23.5%) and medical affordability (15.1%). Factors significantly associated with BI discontinuation were hospital level, patient recruitment setting, age, education level, out-of-pocket ratio, BMI, diabetes duration, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), numbers of OADs, BI type and insulin regimen. Compared with discontinuers, patients continued BI therapy had higher FPG (46.4% vs 28.8%) and HbA1c (42.3% vs 36.5%) control rate.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with T2DM who initiated BI therapy due to uncontrolled hyperglycaemia by OADs, the proportion of insulin discontinuation was high within 6 months. Further study is needed to understand the reason behind the BI discontinuation.

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.

Psychosocial aspects and contributions of behavioural science to medication-taking for adults with type 2 diabetes

The aim of this narrative review was to determine the contribution of behavioural and psychosocial research to the field of medication-taking for adults with type 2 diabetes over the past 25 years. We review the behavioural and psychosocial literature relevant to adults with type 2 diabetes who are treated with oral antidiabetes agents, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and insulin. Delayed uptake of, omission of and non-persistence with medications are significant problems among adults with type 2 diabetes. At each stage of the course of diabetes, during which medication to lower blood glucose is initiated or intensified, ~50% of people take less medication than prescribed. Research aimed at increasing optimal medication-taking behaviour has targeted 'forgetfulness', developing interventions which aid medication-taking, such as reminder devices, with limited success. In parallel, investigation of beliefs about medication has provided insights into the perceived necessity of and concerns about medication and how these inform medication-taking decisions. Guidance is available for health professionals to facilitate shared decision-making, particularly with insulin therapy; however, interventions addressing medication beliefs are limited. Optimal medication-taking behaviour is essential to prevent hyperglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes. Evidence from the past 25 years has demonstrated the association between medication beliefs and medication-taking behaviour. Health professionals need to address medication concerns, and establish and demonstrate the utility of diabetes medication with the individual within the clinical consultation. There are interventions that may assist diabetes health professionals in the shared decision-making process, but further development and more robust evaluation of these tools and techniques is required.

Basal Insulin Initiation and Maintenance in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States

OBJECTIVE

A survey of US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus was conducted to better understand patients' insulin initiation experiences and treatment persistence behaviors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were recruited from consumer panels and grouped by basal insulin treatment pattern: continuers (no gap of ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation); interrupters (gap ≥7 days, resumed treatment); discontinuers (stopped for ≥7 days, not resumed). A quota of approximately 50 respondents per persistence category was set.

RESULTS

A total of 154 respondents (52 continuers, 52 interrupters, 50 discontinuers) completed the survey. Mean age was 51.4 years; 51.9% male. Continuers were more likely to report their views being considered during initiation, and less likely to report a sense of failure. Concerns included insulin dependence (64.3% agree/strongly agree), frequent blood glucose monitoring (55.2%), costs/ability to pay (53.9%), fears of or mistakes during self-injection (52.6%), and weight gain (52.6%). Continuers were motivated by benefits of insulin therapy; experienced or potential side effects were notable factors for interruption/discontinuation. Healthcare provider instruction was indicated as a reason for continuing, stopping, and restarting therapy.

CONCLUSION

Benefits of basal insulin therapy motivated continuers while side effects impacted interruption/discontinuation. Persistence on basal insulin is often influenced by provider actions. Earlier provider intervention upon signs of treatment discontinuation may promote persistence.

Basal insulin persistence in Brazilian participants with T2DM

OBJECTIVE

Real-world effectiveness of basal insulin therapy is affected by poor treatment persistence, often occurring soon after initiation. This analysis is part of an international cross-sectional study conducted in T2DM patients and is intended to describe the reasons behind non-persistence to insulin therapy in Brasil.

METHODS

Responders to an online survey in seven countries were classified as continuers (no gap of ≥7 days), interrupters (interrupted therapy for ≥7 days within first 6 months, then restarted), and discontinuers (terminated therapy for ≥7 days within first 6 months, and did not start it again before the survey). We present the results from the Brazilian cohort.

RESULTS

Of 942 global respondents, 156 were from Brasil, with a mean age of 34 years and a mean of 5.8 years since T2DM diagnosis. Reasons contributing to insulin continuation (n=50) were improved glycemic control (82%) and improved physical feeling (50%). Common reasons for interruption (n=51) or discontinuation (n=55) were, respectively, weight gain (47.1%, 43.6%), hypoglycemia (45.1%, 38.2%), and pain from injections (39.2%, 49.1%). However, not all patients who reported weight gain and hypoglycemia as a reason for interruption or discontinuation experienced these: 16/24 (66.7%) and 22/24 (91.7%) participants had weight gain, and 13/23 (56.5%) and 15/21 (71.4%) had hypoglycemia, respectively. The most important reason for possible re-initiation for interrupters and discontinuers, respectively, was persuasion by the physician/HCP (80.4%, 72.7%).

CONCLUSION

The benefits of basal insulin therapy motivated continuers to persist with the treatment; experienced or anticipated side effects contributed to interruption and discontinuation. Physician and patient training is key in the treatment of diabetes.

Descriptive Analysis of Long- and Intermediate-Acting Insulin and Key Safety Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

As new biosimilar and follow-on insulins enter the market, more data are needed on safety, effectiveness, and patterns of use for these products to inform prescriber and patient decision-making regarding treatment. Additionally, data are needed regarding real-world patterns of use to inform future studies comparing the safety and effectiveness of bio-similars to already approved agents for diabetes treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the medication use patterns, adverse events, and availability of glycated hemoglobin (A1c) values for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who use long-acting insulin (LAI) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), an intermediate-acting insulin.

METHODS

We used the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium's (BBCIC) distributed research network (DRN) for this descriptive analysis. The analysis time frame was January 1, 2011, to September 30, 2015, and included patients continuously insured for at least 183 days before the first date of a filled prescription for LAI or NPH insulin alone or with rapid- or short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, whether newly starting insulin or switching to a different product. Insulin exposure episodes were the unit of analysis, and patients were classified in cohorts according to treatment. We followed patients until end of health plan enrollment or the end of the study period. We used occurrence of a study outcome, switch to another medication regimen, discontinuation of the current medication, or study end date to mark the end of an insulin episode. We describe demographics and availability of A1c values for analysis. Study outcomes included severe hypoglycemic events and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

We identified 103,951 patients with T2DM from a database of 39.1 million patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage pharmacy and medical benefits, who contributed 279,533 unique insulin exposure episodes. Most episodes (89%) included patients using LAI, and 52% of patients contributed data to 2 or more exposure cohorts. Insulin episodes lasted an average of 3.5 months, and patients had an average follow-up of 8.6 months. The unadjusted rate of severe hypoglycemic events requiring medical attention was 96.9 per 10,000 patient-years at risk (10kPYR). The unadjusted incident MACE rate was 676.9 events per 10kPYR. 38,330 T2DM patients in the BBCIC DRN had a baseline A1c available, and of those, less than 50% had a follow-up A1c result.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with T2DM, our observed insulin patterns of use and rates of severe hypoglycemic outcomes and MACE are consistent with other studies. We noted a paucity of A1c results available, which implies that additional data sources may be needed to augment the BBCIC DRN.

DISCLOSURES

This study was coordinated and funded by the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) and represents the independent findings of the BBCIC Insulins Principal Investigator and the BBCIC Insulins Research Team. Lockhart is employed by the BBCIC and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP). Eichelberger was employed by the BBCIC and AMCP at the time of this study. McMahill-Walraven is employed by Aetna, a CVS Health business. Panozzo, Marshall, and Brown are employed by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute. Aetna was reimbursed for data and analytic support from Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute and the Reagan Udall Foundation for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aetna receives external funding through research grants and subcontracts with Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, which are funded by the FDA, NIH, PCORI, BBCIC, Pfizer, and GSK; the Reagan-Udall Foundation for IMEDS; and PCORI for the ADAPTABLE Study. This work was previously presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 22-25, 2018; in Orlando, FL.

Persistence with Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Effect on Clinical and Economic Outcomes: A Retrospective Claims Database Study

BACKGROUND

Persistence with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) may be challenging for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). However, limited information is available regarding the effect of persistence with MDI on outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate persistence with basal and bolus insulin therapy and assess its relationship with clinical and economic outcomes in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study used 2012-2015 data from multiple U.S. commercial health plans (IBM MarketScan). Patients with T2DM aged 18-64 years with ≥ 2 basal and ≥ 2 bolus insulin claims during a 12-month period were eligible for inclusion if they had 18 months of continuous health plan enrollment (6-month baseline and 12-month post-index). Persistence during 12 months post-index was defined using 2 methods: (a) method 1, ≤ 90-day gaps in both basal and bolus insulin claims and (b) method 2, ≥ 1 basal and ≥ 1 bolus insulin claim every quarter (every 90 days) for 4 consecutive quarters after index bolus claim. Propensity score matching was used to match persistent and nonpersistent method 2 cohorts. Mean per-patient all-cause and diabetes-related medical costs (2015 U.S. dollars, excluding outpatient drugs) and health care resource use (HCRU) were calculated. For patients with hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values during baseline and post-index months 10-12, treatment success was defined as (a) A1c decrease from baseline of ≥ 1% and/or (b) baseline A1c ≥ 7% with post-index A1c < 7%. Baseline characteristics of matched cohorts were compared using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Outcome variables were compared using t-tests, chi-square tests, and generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Characteristics of 12,882 eligible patients and 12-month persistence rates were similar as defined by method 1 (22.4%) and method 2 (21.1%). After matching, the method 2 cohorts included 2,723 and 8,169 persistent and nonpersistent patients, respectively, with well-balanced baseline characteristics (mean age 53 years; 58% men; all SMDs < 0.1). All-cause annual medical costs were lower for the persistent cohort (mean $13,499 vs. $17,362; P < 0.0001), as were annual diabetes-related costs (mean $6,392 vs. $8,376; P < 0.0001). In persistent versus nonpersistent cohorts, 11% versus 15% of patients, respectively, experienced ≥ 1 hospitalization; 21% versus 24%, respectively, had ≥ 1 ED visit; 9% versus 12%, respectively, experienced ≥ 1 diabetes-related hospitalization; and 13% versus 15%, respectively, had ≥ 1 diabetes-related ED visit (P ≤ 0.005 for all). Mean baseline A1c was similar in persistent and nonpersistent cohorts (9.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively; P = 0.63). Persistence with MDI was associated with greater mean reduction in A1c (-1.3% vs. -0.8%, respectively; P = 0.006) and greater percentages of patients achieving treatment success (55% vs. 39%, respectively, for nonpersistent; P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor persistence with basal-bolus insulin therapy over 12 months of follow-up was prevalent and was associated with greater medical costs, greater HCRU, and poorer glycemic control than for patients who were persistent. Interventions are needed to improve persistence with insulin therapy and aid patients with T2DM to achieve glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD). All authors except Edelman are employees and stockholders of BD. Edelman reports board membership at Senseonics and participation in advisory board/speakers bureau at Lilly USA, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Merck, and AstraZeneca, all unrelated to this study. A poster for this study was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2018; April 23-26, 2018; Boston MA.

Real-world insulin therapy in German type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and insulin dosage

BACKGROUND

A substantial share of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients receive insulin. However, little is known about the real-world treatment patterns around insulin initiation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims data analysis. T2DM patients who initiated an insulin therapy between 01/01/2013 and 31/12/2015 were identified in the German AOK PLUS dataset. For validation of results, additional data on a similar T2DM patient population were collected in a Germany-wide medical chart review.

RESULTS

A total of 284,878 T2DM patients were identified. Of these, 27,340 (9.6%) initiated an insulin treatment during the inclusion period (mean age: 72.2 years; 51.4% female). Mean/median weight and BMI of patients with available clinical data was 85.8/84.0 kg (SD:18.9) and 30.6/29.8 kg/m2 (SD:6.1), respectively at baseline. Mean/median HbA1c-value at baseline was 8.4/8.0% (SD: 1.8). Most commonly prescribed antidiabetic drugs (AD) within 6 months before insulin initiation were metformin (MET; 54.0%), DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i; 37.6%), and sulfonylureas (SU; 29.5%). As high as 23.2% of the patients did not receive any AD prescription within 6 months before insulin initiation. A total of 10,953 of above 27,340 insulin starters (40.1%) initiated their insulin therapy without concomitant ADs (insulin monotherapy); 43% of these patients did not receive any AD before insulin initiation. Of the remaining 16,387 patients (59.9%), 4070 patients (14.9%) received MET only as concomitant AD, 6385 (23.4%) received MET plus at least one further AD, and 5932 (21.7%) received at least one further AD excluding MET. Throughout the first year of treatment, prescribed insulin dosage increased over time, resulting in approximately 43.3-77.9 IUs per observed patient day after 12 months of insulin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of German T2DM patients initiating insulin deviate substantially from the average German population, especially in terms of weight. We identified an unexpectedly high number of patients without previous AD therapy receiving insulin monotherapy, which is not in line with the clinical guidelines.

Injectable Antihyperglycemics: A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature on Adherence, Persistence, and Health Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Improving real-world medication adherence to injectable antihyperglycemics in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a clinical challenge. Quantification of the level of adherence required to achieve a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in glycemic control would assist in meeting this goal. The study objective was to review the literature regarding the relationships of medication adherence and persistence with health outcomes in adult T2DM patients using injectable antihyperglycemics.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using electronic databases to identify publications over the last decade. Publications were screened against established eligibility criteria. Study data were extracted, evaluated, and used to identify strengths, limitations, and gaps in current evidence.

RESULTS

Eligibility criteria were met by 38 studies, and this report analyzed 34 studies related to glycemic control (n = 25), healthcare resource use (n = 9), and healthcare costs (n = 14). Eight of these studies examined adherence to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), including 1 study regarding adherence to GLP-1 RA or to insulin, and 1 study investigating a GLP-1 RA/insulin combination; the remaining studies involved insulin. Studies used a broad range of measures to classify adherence and persistence, and most measures were unable to reliably evaluate the complexities of patient behavior over time. Better adherence to injectable antihyperglycemic medications was generally found to be associated with improved glycemic control, although no studies attempted to identify a MCID. Although higher diabetes-related pharmacy and total healthcare costs were reported for adherent or persistent patients, these patients tended to have lower diabetes-related and all-cause medical costs.

CONCLUSION

Results of this review confirmed the effectiveness of injectable antihyperglycemic medications for glycemic control, suggesting that there are clinical and financial consequences to nonadherence. Although attempts were made to quantify the effects of nonadherence, the interpretation of study results was limited by the lack of a MCID and inadequate study design.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk, Inc., Plainsboro Township, NJ, USA. Plain language summary available for this article.

Associated factors that influenced persistence with basal analog insulin therapy among people with type 2 diabetes: An exploratory analysis from a UK real-world sample

AIM

Real-world effectiveness of insulin therapy is affected by poor treatment persistence, often occurring soon after initiation. An international cross-sectional survey of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been conducted to describe reasons for non-persistence with insulin therapy.

METHODS

Responders to an online survey in 7 countries were classified as continuers (no gap of ≥7days), interrupters (interrupted therapy for ≥7days within first 6 months, then restarted), and discontinuers (terminated therapy for ≥7days within first 6 months, no restart before survey). We present the results from the United Kingdom (UK) cohort.

RESULTS

Of 942 global respondents, 131 were from the UK, having a mean age of 37years and a mean of 7years since first T2DM diagnosis. Reasons contributing to insulin continuation (n=50) were improved physical feeling (52.0%) and improved glycemic control (48.0%). Common reasons for interruption (n=50) or discontinuation (n=31), respectively were weight gain (50.0%, 48.4%) and hypoglycemia (38.0%, 25.8%). Most important reason for possible re-initiation for interrupters and discontinuers, respectively was persuasion by physician/healthcare professional (74.0%, 64.5%).

CONCLUSION

The benefits of basal insulin therapy motivated continuers to persist with the treatment; experienced or anticipated side effects contributed to interruption and discontinuation.

Improved Treatment Engagement Among Patients with Diabetes Treated with Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Who Participated in the COACH Support Program

INTRODUCTION

Persistence with basal insulin therapy can be suboptimal, despite recent improvements in insulin formulations and delivery systems. Patient support programs may help increase adherence. This study evaluated the impact of the Toujeo® COACH support program, which provides patients with continuing and individualized education and advice on lifestyle changes, by assessing its effect on number of refills and days on therapy.

METHODS

The study population included 1724 patients with diabetes who filled a first prescription for insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) between April and December 2015 and received a welcome call from a Guide, and 1724 matched control patients from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse® prescription claims database. Control patients received Gla-300 but did not enroll in the program. These patients were matched based on age, gender, location, prior use of insulin, insulin dose, number of concomitant drugs, and copay tier.

RESULTS

The COACH and control groups comprised 52% men and 48% women; 22% were aged 18-47 years, 23% were 48-55 years, 27% 56-61 years, and 28% ≥ 62 years. Most (99%) had used insulin in the year before receiving the welcome call. At 6 months, patients in the COACH group had refilled their prescription 3.2 times on average, compared with 2.4 times for control patients (P < 0.0001); at 9 months, the average number of refills was 4.7 and 3.6, respectively (P < 0.0001). The average number of days on therapy at 6 months was 102.2 days in the COACH group and 81.5 days in the control group (P < 0.0001); at 9 months, the average number of days on therapy was 151.9 and 121.6, respectively (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients in the COACH program were significantly more likely to refill their prescriptions and stay on therapy. Patient support programs such as the COACH program could be an effective way to help improve diabetes care.

FUNDING

Sanofi US, Inc. and McKesson Corporation.

The impact of non-medical switch on type 2 diabetes patients treated with canagliflozin in the commercially insured US population

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of non-medical switch (NMS) from canagliflozin on antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) medication taking behavior.

METHODS

This retrospective real-world database analysis included patients with type 2 diabetes with a prescription claim for canagliflozin (CANA) between August 2015 and January 2016 using administrative claims and longitudinal prescription data. Patients with NMS from canagliflozin were identified as those with discontinuation or switch of canagliflozin and enrolled in a pharmacy benefit manager that removed CANA from formulary in 2016. Patients with NMS were propensity score matched to patients without NMS. Patients had a 6 month baseline period and a 4 month follow-up period.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised 668 patients with NMS matched to 668 patients without NMS (52.4% and 49.9% male, mean age 55.6 and 55.7, respectively). Among patients with NMS, half (52.8%) did not switch to a new AHA medication (i.e. abandoned therapy) after discontinuation of CANA, while the remaining 47.2% switched to a new AHA medication. Over the 4 month follow-up, patients with NMS used significantly fewer unique AHA products compared to patients without NMS (mean [SD] 2.13 [1.40] vs. 2.66 [1.02], p < .0001). Over the 4 month follow-up, 16.5% of patients with NMS had no use of any AHA; by definition, patients without NMS used at least 1 AHA (i.e. canagliflozin).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with NMS, therapy abandonment was a major unintended consequence. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of NMS on clinical outcomes as well as the impact of NMS over a longer follow-up.

Adherence to Basal Insulin Therapy Among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Costs and Patient Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

This research compares costs, resource utilization, and complications between adherent and nonadherent patients over the 3-year period post initiation on basal insulin therapy.

METHODS

The study utilized the US-based Truven Health MarketScan^® Research Databases from 2011 through 2015. Adults aged 18 years or older and identified with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated therapy on basal insulin in 2012 were included. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, filled their index basal insulin prescription via mail order, or were not continuously insured from 1 year before through 3 years following initiation of treatment with basal insulin. Instrumental variables were used to control for selection bias, and multivariable analyses were used to examine the associations between adherence to basal insulin therapy and costs, resource utilization, and acute complications.

RESULTS

A total of 21,363 individuals were included in the study. Three years after initiating therapy on basal insulin, patients who were adherent over time to basal insulin treatment therapy (33.8% of patients) had significantly higher diabetes-related drug costs. However, patients' adherence was associated with significantly lower diabetes-related outpatient, acute care, and total costs. Results for all-cause costs were similar. Adherent patients also had significantly fewer all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits and were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with an acute complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study illustrate that despite higher drug costs, there are disease-specific and all-cause cost offsets and improved patient outcomes associated with adherence to basal insulin therapy for people with T2D.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Insulin non-persistence among people with type 2 diabetes: how to get your patients to stay on insulin therapy

Continuing use of medication is key to effective treatment and positive health outcomes, particularly in chronic conditions such as diabetes. However, in primary care, non-persistence (i.e. discontinuing or interrupting treatment) with insulin therapy is a common problem among patients with type 2 diabetes. To help primary care physicians manage patients who are non-persistent or likely not to be persistent, this review aimed to provide an overview of modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with insulin non-persistence as well as practical strategies to address them. Data were extracted from published studies evaluating factors associated with non-persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes. A targeted literature review was performed using PubMed to identify recent studies (2000-2016) reporting measures of non-persistence with insulin therapy. Practical strategies to identify and prevent non-persistence were based on the authors' direct experience in primary care. Non-modifiable factors associated with non-persistence included gender, age, prior treatments, and cost of therapy. Before/at insulin initiation, modifiable factors included patients' perception of diabetes, preference for oral medication, and concerns/expectations about treatment complexity, inconvenience, or side effects. After initiation, modifiable factors included syringe use, difficulties during the first week of therapy, side effects, and insufficient glycemic control. Open-ended and patient-centered questions and a blame-free environment can help physicians identify, prevent, and reduce non-persistence behaviors. Possible questions to start a conversation with patients are provided. Effective physician-patient communication is essential to the management of diabetes. Primary care physicians should be familiar with the most common reasons for insulin non-persistence.

Primary care physician perspectives on basal insulin initiation and maintenance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To describe primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of patient reactions and concerns about insulin initiation and identify opportunities for increased support.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, online survey of PCPs prescribing basal insulin to adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). PCPs were identified from administrative claims of a large commercial health plan and descriptive results of PCP responses were reported.

RESULTS

PCPs (N=100) treated an average of 17 patients receiving insulin during a typical week. More than 85% of insulin initiation recommendations originated with PCPs. Most offered glucose monitoring instructions (96%) and advice on diet, exercise, and diabetes management (96%); 35% provided insulin titration algorithms; 93% reported that patients often or always took their insulin daily within 3 months of initiation; 31% of PCPs reported monthly office contacts with patients for the first 3 months; 16% reported no outreach efforts; fewer than 20% connected patients with support groups. When starting basal insulin, PCPs reported patients feeling personal failure regarding their diabetes treatment (33% often/always) and lacking confidence in their ability to manage insulin therapy (38% often/always).

CONCLUSIONS

Study results identify additional opportunities for assisting patients in making the transition to insulin, including more frequent direct outreach to monitor insulin usage.

Insulin/Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Are Two Agents Better Than One?

IN BRIEF Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, treatment intensification is usually necessary to maintain glycemic control. However, for a variety of reasons, treatment is often not intensified in a timely manner. The combined use of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist is recognized to provide a complementary approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of two co-formulation products, insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine/lixisenatide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on either component agent alone. We consider the benefits and limitations of these medications based on data from randomized clinical trials and discuss how they may address barriers to treatment intensification.

Correlates of basal insulin persistence among insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: results from a multinational survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

People with T2DM who initiate basal insulin therapy often stop therapy temporarily or permanently soon after initiation. This study analyzes the reasons for and correlates of stopping and restarting basal insulin therapy among people with T2DM.

METHODS

An online survey was completed by 942 insulin-naïve adults with self-reported T2DM from Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, UK, and US. Respondents had initiated basal insulin therapy within the 3-24 months before survey participation and met criteria for one of three persistence groups: continuers had no gaps of ≥7 days in basal insulin treatment; interrupters had at least one gap in insulin therapy of ≥7 days within the first 6 months after initiation and had since restarted basal insulin; and discontinuers stopped using basal insulin within the first 6 months after initiation and had not restarted.

RESULTS

Physician recommendations and cost were strongly implicated in patients stopping and not resuming insulin therapy. Continuous persistence was lower for patients with more worries about insulin initiation, greater difficulties and weight gain while using insulin, and higher for those using pens and perceiving their diabetes as severe. Repeated interruption of insulin therapy was associated with hyperglycemia and treatment burden while using insulin. Resumption and perceived likelihood of resumption were associated with hyperglycemia upon insulin cessation. Perceived likelihood of resumption among discontinuers was associated with perceived benefits of insulin.

CONCLUSION

Better understanding of the risk factors for patient cessation and resumption of basal insulin therapy may help healthcare providers improve persistence with therapy.

Basal insulin initiation use and experience among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with different patterns of persistence: results from a multi-national survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often interrupt basal insulin treatment soon after initiation. This study aimed to describe the experiences during and after basal insulin initiation among people with T2DM with different persistence patterns.

METHODS

Adults with T2DM from France, Germany, Spain, UK, US, Brazil, and Japan were identified from consumer panels for an online survey. Respondents who initiated basal insulin 3-24 months prior to survey date were categorized as continuers (no gaps of ≥7 days in insulin treatment); interrupters (first gap ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation and restarted insulin); and discontinuers (stopped insulin for ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation without restarting).

RESULTS

Among 942 participants, continuers were older than interrupters and discontinuers (46, 37, and 38 years, respectively, p < .01). Continuers reported having fewer concerns before and after insulin initiation than interrupters and discontinuers, while interrupters had the most concerns. Continuers also reported fewer challenges during the first week of insulin use. Continuers were more likely to respond that insulin use had a positive impact on specific aspects of life than interrupters and discontinuers, for example on glycemic control (73.0%, 63.0%, and 61.8%, respectively; p < .01 vs. continuers).

CONCLUSION

Among people with T2DM with different persistence patterns after basal insulin initiation there were significant differences in patient characteristics and experience during and after insulin initiation. Interrupters and discontinuers more frequently reported having concerns and challenges during the initiation process, negative impacts after initiation, and less improvement in glycemic control than continuers.

Cost of medication adherence and persistence in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a literature review

PURPOSE

To explore published evidence on health care costs associated with adherence or persistence to antidiabetes medications in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Primary research studies published between January 2006 and December 2015 on compliance, adherence, or persistence and treatment in patients with T2DM that document a link with health care costs were identified through literature searches in bibliographic databases and 2015 abstract books for relevant DM congresses. Results were assessed for relevance by two reviewers. The review was part of a larger overview evaluating the impact of adherence and persistence on a range of clinical and economic outcomes; only findings from the cost element are reported herein.

RESULTS

A total of 4,662 de-duplicated abstracts were identified and 110 studies included in the wider review. Of these, 19 reported an association between adherence (n=13), persistence (n=5), or adherence and persistence (n=1), and health care costs. All studies were retrospective, with sample sizes ranging from 301 to 740,195. Medication possession ratio was the most commonly employed adherence measure (n=11). The majority of adherence studies (n=9) reported that medication adherence was associated with lower total health care costs. Pharmacy costs were often increased in adherent patients but this was offset by beneficial effects on other costs. Findings were more variable in persistence studies; three reported that higher pharmacy costs in persistent patients were not sufficiently offset by savings in other areas to result in a reduction in total health care costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have evaluated the relationship between adherence, persistence, and health care costs in T2DM. However, it has been consistently shown that medication nonadherence increases health care costs, suggesting that cost savings from better adherence could be substantial. Available data support the economic case for identification of strategies that facilitate improved medication adherence in patients with T2DM.

Economic Impact of Treatment Duration and Persistence with Basal Insulin in Previously Insulin-Naive Users

BACKGROUND

Although insulin is a well-established therapy that is associated with improved clinical outcomes, adherence and persistence with insulin regimens are poor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes-related health care costs and the impact of insulin persistence patterns on these health care costs have been previously studied; however, these aspects of insulin therapy have limited data beyond the first year of use and have not been characterized among patients previously naive to basal insulin.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe and compare medical- and pharmacy-related costs, health care resource utilization, and comorbidities and complications during the initial year and second (experienced) year of basal insulin therapy, and (b) describe and compare the impact of continuous versus interrupted basal insulin use during each year.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational database analysis using claims from multiple U.S. commercial health plans (Truven Health MarketScan) in previously insulin-naive patients with T2DM who were initiated on basal insulin. Data collected included all-cause and diabetes-related medical and pharmacy costs, health care resource utilization (i.e., number and type of outpatient visits, hospitalization, emergency department [ED] visits), medication use, and preselected comorbidities and complications. This cost analysis described and compared health care costs and resource use between the initial and experienced years and further compared health care costs and resource use between continuers and interrupters within each of those years.

RESULTS

A total of 23,645 patients were included in the analysis; 12,224 were classified as continuers and 11,421 were classified as interrupters. Among all patients, mean increases from the initial year to the experienced year were observed for all-cause medical costs ($12,690-$13,408; P = 0.048), all-cause pharmacy costs ($6,253-$6,559; P < 0.001), and all-cause health care costs ($18,943-$19,967; P = 0.006), after adjusting for inflation. All-cause pharmacy costs were significantly higher for continuers versus interrupters, but total diabetes-related medical care costs, all-cause ED costs, and all-cause medical costs were significantly lower, resulting in similar all-cause health care costs between continuers and interrupters in both the initial and experienced years. Among all patients, diabetes-related inpatient visits and outpatient primary care physician (PCP) visits, total medical inpatient visits, and total medical outpatient PCP visits were significantly higher in the initial year than in the experienced year; however, there were fewer diabetes-related ED visits in the initial year.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of basal insulin appears to be associated with increased health care costs, and treatment persistence pattern (continuers vs. interrupters) is further correlated with health care expenditures. Although associated with decreased pharmacy costs, interruption of therapy increases medical costs, underscoring the importance of addressing persistence to therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer Ingelheim. Eli Lilly reviewed and approved this manuscript for submission. All the authors are employees and minor shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Study concept and design were contributed by Kalirai, Duan, and Reed. Duan and Liu collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Kalirai. The manuscript was written by all the authors and revised by Kalirai.

Basal Insulin Persistence, Associated Factors, and Outcomes After Treatment Initiation: A Retrospective Database Study Among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Japan

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and economic outcomes for insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.

METHODS

People aged at least 18 years with T2DM with first claim for basal insulin between May 2006 and April 2013 (index date), no insulin use before index date, and continuous insurance coverage for 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after index date were selected from the Japan Medical Center Database. On the basis of whether there were at least 30-day gaps in basal insulin treatment, patients were classified as continuers (no gap), interrupters (at least one prescription after gap), and discontinuers (no prescription after gap). A multinomial logistic regression model identified factors associated with persistence. Annual healthcare resource use and costs in the year after initiation were compared between continuers and interrupters and between continuers and discontinuers using propensity score-based inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences.

RESULTS

Of the 827 people included (mean age 50 years, ca. 71% male), 36% continued, 42% interrupted, and 22% discontinued basal insulin therapy in the year after initiation. Having at least one inpatient visit and using fewer classes of non-insulin antihyperglycemic medications during baseline were associated with lower likelihoods of continuing therapy. Relative to interrupters and discontinuers, continuers had lower hospitalization rates [continuers, 12.7%; interrupters, 25.4% (p < 0.001); discontinuers, 28.4% (p < 0.001)] and lower inpatient costs [continuers, ¥132,013; interrupters, ¥225,745 (p = 0.054); discontinuers, ¥320,582 (p = 0.036)], but higher pharmacy costs [continuers, ¥158,403; interrupters, ¥134,301 (p = 0.039); discontinuers, ¥121,593 (p = 0.002)] in the year after insulin initiation. Total healthcare costs were similar for the three cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial proportions of people with T2DM in Japan interrupt or discontinue basal insulin within the year after initiation, and they have higher rates and costs of hospitalizations than patients who continue with their insulin therapy. Further research is needed to understand reasons behind basal insulin persistence and the implications thereof to help clinicians manage T2DM more effectively.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim.