Resource use and outcomes associated with initiation of injectable therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Healthcare resource utilization and related financial costs associated with glucose lowering with either exenatide or basal insulin: A retrospective cohort study

AIMS

Type 2 diabetes is a major health problem placing increasing demands on healthcare systems. Our objective was to estimate healthcare resource use and related financial costs following treatment with exenatide-based regimens prescribed as once-weekly (EQW) or twice-daily (EBID) formulations, compared with regimens based on basal insulin (BI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients with type 2 diabetes who received exenatide or BI between 2009 and 2014 as their first recorded exposure to injectable therapy were selected. Costs were attributed to primary care contacts, diabetes-related prescriptions and inpatient admissions using standard UK healthcare costing methods (2014 prices). Frequency and costs were compared between cohorts before and after matching by propensity score using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Groups of 8723, 218 and 2180 patients receiving BI, EQW and EBID, respectively, were identified; 188 and 1486 patients receiving EQW and EBID, respectively, were matched 1:1 to patients receiving BI by propensity score. Among unmatched cohorts, total crude mean costs per patient-year were £2765 for EQW, £2549 for EBID and £4080 for BI. Compared with BI, the adjusted annual cost ratio (aACR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.92) for EQW and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.82-0.82) for EBID. Corresponding costs for the propensity-matched subgroups were £2646 vs £3283 (aACR, 0.80, 0.80-0.81) for EQW vs BI and £2532 vs £3070 (aACR, 0.84, 0.84-0.84) for EBID vs BI.

CONCLUSION

Overall, exenatide once-weekly and twice-daily-based regimens were associated with reduced healthcare resource use and costs compared with basal-insulin-based regimens.

Perceptions of general practitioners on initiation and intensification of type 2 diabetes injectable therapies. A quantitative study in the United Kingdom

Most diabetes care is done by general practitioners (GPs) in the UK. This study aimed to determine GPs' comfort level in initiating and intensifying injectable therapies, identifying any associated barriers, and assessing reasons for referral to specialists. This web-interview included 128 general practitioners (GPs) experienced in type 2 diabetes (T2D) management, as well as 57 specialists and 30 nurses who were studied for secondary objectives. GPs felt more comfortable initiating the 1st injectable therapy - typically the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) - than the 2nd. The main barriers to initiating injectables were related to the complexity of injectable therapies and the lack of comfort with complex patient profiles, namely patients with difficultly achieving glycaemic control or those with significant comorbidities who GPs would rather refer to specialists. The main attributes that would increase their comfort level with initiation of injectables are improved glycaemic control, weight control and low risk of hypoglycaemia. An injectable therapy with these attributes could help to overcome barriers to initiating injectable therapies among GPs other healthcare professionals in primary care.