Real-world data of in-hospital administration of alglucosidase alfa in French patients with Pompe disease: results from the National Claims Database.

INTRODUCTION: Pompe disease is caused by a rare biallelic mutation in the GAA gene resulting in acid α-glucosidase deficiency and glycogen accumulation. AIM: We analyzed hospital admissions associated with the administration of Myozyme®, utilizing the French hospital discharge database, known in France as the Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information (PMSI), which comprehensively captures all hospital activity within the country. METHODS: In this observational study, we examined hospitalization records from April 4, 2012, to December 31, 2019, within the PMSI database, focusing on admissions where Myozyme® was administered. We particularly investigated the incidence of critical care admissions and adverse events (AEs) related to Myozyme®. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2019, approximately 26,714 hospital stays involving Myozyme® administration were recorded for 239 patients. Most (96.6%) of these were outpatient stays, with only 3.2% in critical care. Furthermore, hospitalizations without critical care needs increased from 96% in 2012 to 99% in 2019. Of the patients receiving at least one infusion, 997 critical care admissions were recorded, with 781 (78.3%) occurring concurrent with or the day after the Myozyme® treatment without directly correlating to adverse effects of enzyme therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the French hospital discharge database indicated that Myozyme® was associated with a low incidence of AEs and complications in a hospital context, supporting the consideration of its safe use in home-infusion settings.

Patient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia treatments: A discrete-choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: An evolving haemophilia treatment landscape provides new possibilities for previously unattainable lifestyles. AIM: We sought to understand how people with haemophilia (PwH) and their caregivers value the potential benefits of novel prophylactic treatments. We conducted a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to quantify preferences for features of haemophilia treatments among adults and caregivers of children with haemophilia. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise measured the perceived burden of treatment administration features. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was administered to male adults (≥18 years) and caregivers of male children (≤17 years) living with haemophilia in the United States. Respondents evaluated eight pairs of hypothetical haemophilia treatment profiles defined by six attributes in the DCE and 15 features in the BWS. RESULTS: In the DCE, both adults with haemophilia (n = 151) and caregivers (n = 151) prioritised avoiding the risk of developing inhibitor/ anti-drug antibodies and treatments that allowed for a more active life. They placed a lower priority on reducing the number of spontaneous bleeding episodes, route and frequency of administration, and avoiding the risk of hospitalisation due to adverse events. The BWS documented the burdensomeness of IV infusions and medications that require mixing and refrigeration. CONCLUSION: PwH and caregivers prefer treatments that enable a more active lifestyle with a lower risk of inhibitor development. Both groups valued the ability to lead an active life over reducing spontaneous bleeding, with caregivers placing the most weight on this attribute. As new treatments expand possibilities, healthcare professionals and PwH should continue to share decision-making, incorporating clinical judgment and individual preferences.

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Sotagliflozin plus Insulin Versus Insulin Alone.

Background: Diabetes-related distress is common among persons affected by diabetes and is associated with suboptimal glycemic control and complications, thus constituting a relevant patient-report outcome (PRO). Improving glycemic control may reduce diabetes distress and improve treatment satisfaction. This post hoc analysis evaluated PRO data for a pooled cohort of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) receiving sotagliflozin as adjunct to optimized insulin in the inTandem1 and inTandem2 studies. Methods: Clinically meaningful changes in the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and the two-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS2) total and individual scores were examined in the pooled data from the first 24 weeks of the studies. Results: In the cohort of patients with a baseline DTSQs total score ≤32 (∼76% of entire cohort), nearly twice as many patients treated with sotagliflozin 200 (45.9%) or 400 mg (42.3%) experienced a >3-point improvement from baseline versus those treated with placebo (24%). Treatment with sotagliflozin led to statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvements across all DTSQs items. Approximately 42% of all patients were considered to have a high risk of diabetes distress (total DDS2 score ≥6) at baseline following insulin optimization. More patients shifted from high to low risk with sotagliflozin compared with placebo (∼40% vs. 23%; P ≤ 0.0002). The baseline-adjusted difference in DDS2 from placebo was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced by -0.5 and -0.6 for sotagliflozin 200 and 400 mg, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with T1D treated with sotagliflozin in addition to optimized insulin therapy reported meaningful improvements in treatment satisfaction and diabetes distress. NCT02384941 and NCT02421510.

Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain. METHODS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP = 1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders. RESULTS: Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.