Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Treatment Intensification in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in a Real-World Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To understand factors associated with intensification of basal insulin therapy and treatment impact on clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study of the Practice Fusion electronic health record database, eligible patients were adults with T2D, ≥1 basal insulin prescription and office visit in the 6 months before a glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) test >7.0% (index date), and no other injectable prescriptions in the 12 months before the index date. Patients were categorized to intensifiers with injectables (rapid-acting insulin [RAI], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1 RA], or other injectables) or nonintensifiers with injectables (including no change, adding an oral antidiabetes drug, or changing basal insulin dose). Principal outcomes were A1C change, hypoglycemia incidence, and change in body weight. RESULTS: Among 14,653 patients, 2,121 (14.5%) and 12,532 (85.5%) were categorized as intensifiers and nonintensifiers with injectables, respectively. Compared with nonintensifiers, intensifiers were more likely to have an endocrinologist as the prescribing physician (odds ratio [OR], 2.52 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.16 to 2.94]), hypertension (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.47]), higher baseline A1C (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.17 to 1.26]), obesity (OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.36]), and higher body mass index (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.03]). In GLP-1 RA intensifiers, the baseline use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the likelihood of intensification. GLP-1 RA intensifiers had equivalent glycemic control to RAI or other injectables, with a nonsignificantly lower risk of hypoglycemia and reduction in body weight. CONCLUSION: Addition of GLP-1 RA to basal insulin may be an effective strategy for overcoming clinical inertia with injectable therapy in patients with T2D. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1c; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DCSI = Diabetes Complications Severity Index; DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4; EHR = electronic health record; GLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification; ICD-10-CM = International Classification of Diseases-Tenth Revision-Clinical Modification; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; OR = odds ratio; RAI = rapid-acting insulin; SGLT-2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness research.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) act by increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and increasing satiety. OBJECTIVE: Published evidence directly comparing GLP-1RAs with other approved treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) was systematically reviewed. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify papers comparing GLP-1RAs with other classes of glucose-lowering therapy in patients with T2D. RESULTS: Of the 1303 papers identified, 57 met the prespecified criteria for a high-quality clinical trial or retrospective study. The efficacy and tolerability of approved GLP-1RAs (exenatide twice daily or once weekly, dulaglutide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and albiglutide) were compared with insulin products (23 prospective studies + seven retrospective studies), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (11 prospective studies + three retrospective studies), sulfonylureas (nine prospective studies + one retrospective study), thiazolidinediones (five prospective studies), and metformin (two prospective studies). GLP-1RAs are effective as a second-line therapy in improving glycemic parameters in patients with T2D. Reductions in glycated hemoglobin from baseline with GLP-1RAs tended to be greater or similar compared with insulin therapy. GLP-1RAs were consistently more effective in reducing body weight than most oral glucose-lowering drugs and insulin and were associated with lower hypoglycemia risk versus insulin or sulfonylureas. GLP-1RAs improved cardiovascular risk factors, and preliminary data suggest they improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with T2D compared with oral glucose-lowering drugs. However, results from ongoing studies are awaited to confirm these early findings. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that GLP-1RAs are an effective class of glucose-lowering drugs for T2D.

A real-world study of treatment patterns and outcomes in US managed-care patients with type 2 Diabetes initiating injectable therapies.

AIMS: Examine real-world outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating injectable therapy as part of the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Antidiabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens (INITIATOR) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Linked insurance claims and medical record data were collected from 2 large US health insurers (April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012) of T2DM adults initiating treatment with glargine (GLA) or liraglutide (LIRA). Baseline characteristics were examined and changes in 12-month follow-up outcomes were described for both treatment groups: HbA1c, weight change, hypoglycaemia, persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs. RESULTS: A total of 4490 patients were included (GLA, 2116; LIRA, 2374). At baseline, GLA patients had significantly higher HbA1c vs LIRA patients (9.72% vs 8.19%; P < .001), lower likelihood of having HbA1c < 7% (7.1% vs 23.8%; P < .001), lower bodyweight (100.9 kg vs 110.9 kg, P < .001), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (0.88 vs 0.63; P < .001), and higher diabetes-related costs ($3492 vs $2089; P < .001), respectively. During 12-months of follow-up, treatment persistence was 64%, mean HbA1c reduction was -1.24% and weight change was + 1.17 among GLA patients, and was 49%, -0.51% and -2.74 kg, respectively, among LIRA patients. Diabetes-related costs increased significantly from baseline to follow-up for LIRA patients ($2089 vs $3258, P < .001) but not for GLA patients ($3492 vs $3550, P = .890). CONCLUSIONS: There were clinically relevant baseline differences in both groups, suggesting that GLA and LIRA are prescribed for different patient groups, and highlighting that efficacy results from clinical trials do not always translate into real-world practice. Significant increases in healthcare costs were observed in the LIRA group, warranting further cost-effectiveness analysis.

Practical combination therapy based on pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is a complex, chronic, and progressive condition that often necessitates the use of multiple medications to achieve glycemic goals. Clinical guidelines generally recommend intensifying pharmacotherapy if glycemic goals are not achieved after 3 months of treatment. However, for many patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment intensification is delayed or does not occur. Initiating combination therapy early in the disease course has the potential to delay disease progression and improve patient outcomes. Guidelines generally provide a list of agents that may be used in combination regimens and emphasize individualization of treatment. The purpose of this review is to discuss the rationale for combination therapy, considering treatment effects on pathophysiologic aspects of type 2 diabetes and individual drug profiles. The combination of newer antidiabetes therapies with complementary mechanisms of action provides the opportunity to target multiple sites of tissue, organ, and cellular dysfunction.

Impact of symptomatic upper respiratory tract infections on insulin absorption and action of Technosphere inhaled insulin.

OBJECTIVE: Uncomplicated, acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) occur in patients with diabetes at a similar frequency to the general population. This study (NCT00642681) investigated the effect of URTIs on the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of Technosphere inhaled insulin (TI) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a phase 2 study conducted in patients who developed a URTI while being treated with TI in a phase 3 study (N=20, mean age 50 years, 60% men). Patients underwent two 4-hour meal challenges, during which blood samples were drawn to measure serum fumaryl diketopiperazine (FDKP; the excipient representing an essential part of TI), serum insulin, serum C-peptide, and plasma glucose. The primary outcome was the ratio of serum FDKP area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 240 min (AUC0-240 min) during URTI and after clinical resolution of URTI symptoms (≥15 to ≤45 days). RESULTS: No significant differences in PK parameters were seen during URTI versus post-URTI for FDKP. The ratio of serum FDKP AUC0-240 min during URTI and post-URTI was 1.1 (SD 0.6), p=0.4462. Plasma glucose concentrations during each 4-hour meal challenge were similar, showing small non-significant differences. No adverse events, including hypoglycemia, occurred during meal challenge visits. CONCLUSIONS: Development of an active, symptomatic URTI during treatment with TI had no significant impact on the PK/PD properties of TI, suggesting that no adjustment in prandial insulin dosing is needed. However, if patients are unable to conduct proper inhalation, they should administer their prandial insulin subcutaneously. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00642681; Results.

Health Outcomes Associated with Initiation of Basal Insulin After 1, 2, or ≥ 3 Oral Antidiabetes Drug(s) Among Managed Care Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease. Despite starting with single oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) therapy and then adding OAD(s), most patients eventually require insulin therapy to achieve and maintain glycemic control. The timely initiation of insulin therapy could help patients with T2DM whose glycemic control is not adequately maintained using OADs alone. OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare baseline characteristics and assess real-world health outcomes associated with initiating basal insulin after 1 OAD, 2 OADs, or ≥ 3 OADs among T2DM patients. METHODS: Data were analyzed from adult T2DM patients in a U.S. managed care claims database (IMPACT) who initiated a basal insulin (from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2011) with continuous health plan enrollment for 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after (follow-up) insulin initiation and who had at least 1 OAD prescription. Outcome measures according to the number of OADs used were (a) treatment discontinuation, (b) glycated hemoglobin (A1c) levels, (c) proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycemia, (d) health care resource utilization, and (e) costs. RESULTS: Data from 71,988 patients were included (1 OAD: 19,168 patients [26.6%]; 2 OADs: 29,112 [40.4%]; and ≥ 3 OADs: 23,708 [32.9%]). All baseline characteristics, except nephropathy, were significantly different across the 3 groups. At baseline, when compared with the 1 OAD or 2 OADs groups, the ≥3 OADs group was less likely to be female or have macrovascular disease and had experienced fewer hypoglycemic events and hospitalization as well as lower costs. At follow-up, treatment discontinuation rates were 36.0%, 27.6%, and 21.4% for the 1 OAD, 2 OADs, and ≥ 3 OADs groups, respectively. A1c reduction was -1.33%, -1.05%, and -0.86%, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing any hypoglycemia was 4.7%, 3.8%, and 3.3% at baseline; and 3.7%, 3.5%, and 3.1% at follow-up for the 1 OAD, 2 OADs, and ≥3 OADs groups, respectively. In all 3 groups, health care costs decreased compared with baseline, particularly in the 1 OAD and 2 OADs groups, with decreased inpatient costs offsetting increased drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis shows that there are significant baseline differences in patients with T2DM on 1 OAD, 2 OADs, or ≥3 OADs when adding insulin therapy. All 3 groups had significant improvements in clinical and economic outcomes compared with baseline, yet at different magnitudes. These data contribute to a growing body of evidence supporting the timely initiation of insulin therapy for T2DM patients not maintaining glycemic control with OADs.

Outcomes and treatment patterns of adding a third agent to 2 OADs in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), despite therapy with 2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), may add a third OAD or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1) or initiate insulin therapy. The transition to insulin has been shown to be delayed in current practice, potentially through clinical inertia--the failure of health care providers to initiate or advance therapy when indicated. Patients and physicians may be resistant to insulin therapy because of beliefs about side effects and limitations to patients' lifestyle, while patients may consider that starting injectable therapy signifies a considerable worsening of their disease and may feel they have "failed" to manage it effectively. OBJECTIVE: To describe current treatment patterns and outcomes among adult patients with T2DM in the United States who were treated with 2 OADs and added a third antidiabetic drug. METHODS: This retrospective study followed patients with T2DM who added a third OAD (the "3OAD" cohort), insulin ("+Insulin"), or a GLP-1 ("+GLP-1") between July 2000 and March 2009. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Baseline characteristics and follow-up outcomes--including blood glucose level (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, and health care costs--were examined. Treatment persistence was assessed to determine how long patients continued with their prescribed medications without discontinuing or switching. RESULTS: A total of 51,771 patients adding a third agent to their 2OAD regimen were included in this study. Most patients added a third OAD (n = 41,052) over insulin (n = 6,904) or GLP-1 (n = 3,815). At baseline, +Insulin patients were older, with higher comorbidity burden and higher HbA1c. During follow-up, 3OAD patients were more likely to be persistent with their treatment than +Insulin or +GLP-1 patients, but +Insulin patients had the greatest HbA1c reduction from baseline, while continuing with insulin treatment was associated with higher HbA1c reduction. Among 3OAD patients, most of those who switched a third agent initiated insulin, and those who switched early during the follow-up period had greater HbA1c reduction than those who continued with the 3OAD treatment regimen. Average annual health care costs declined in +Insulin patients but increased among 3OAD and +GLP-1 patients. Treatment persistence and HbA1c reduction in +GLP-1 patients were low. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that in current practice, physicians seem to be reluctant to prescribe injectable agents for patients with uncontrolled T2DM despite combination OAD therapy. Despite higher treatment persistence among patients adding a third OAD, this persistence did not translate into better glycemic control and may not necessarily be a long-term cost-saving solution. These data indicate a need for more evidence-based and patient-centered treatment decisions for patients unable to achieve and maintain glycemic targets on multiple OADs.

Clinical outcomes using long-term combination therapy with insulin glargine and exenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term effects of combination insulin glargine/exenatide treatment on glycemic control. METHODS: We conducted a 24-month retrospective US chart review of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels >7.0% for whom glargine and exenatide were coprescribed in differing order (glargine added after exenatide [exenatide/glargine]; exenatide added after glargine [glargine/exenatide]). Treatment order groups were combined to form a pooled treatment group. Changes from baseline in A1C, patients with A1C ≤7.0%, body weight, glargine/exenatide daily dose, oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use, and hypoglycemia were evaluated. RESULTS: Treatment groups were similar at baseline; however, patients in the glargine/exenatide group (n = 121) (vs exenatide/glargine group [n = 44]) had longer disease duration (11.8 vs 8.0 years) and took fewer OADs (1.7 vs 2.3). Overall, baseline A1C was 8.8 ± 1.3% and weight was 109.5 ± 25.3 kg. Significant A1C reductions emerged at month 6 and persisted throughout 24 months (vs baseline) in both treatment groups (pooled: -0.7 ± 1.6; P<.001), and 33.0% of patients achieved an A1C level ≤7.0%. After 24 months of exenatide/glargine, body weight remained unchanged (0.7 ± 8.3 kg; P = .640). With glargine/exenatide, body weight decreased (-2.5 ± 6.7 kg; P = .001). At month 24, daily glargine dose was 0.40 ± 0.23 units/kg for the exenatide/glargine group and 0.47 ± 0.30 units/kg for the glargine/exenatide group. Hypoglycemia frequency was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of treatment order, long-term combined therapy with glargine and exenatide for up to 24 months in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM suggests reduction of A1C without significant weight gain or increased hypoglycemia risk.

Glycemic control with insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine versus premixed insulin analogues in real-world practices: a cost-effectiveness study with a randomized pragmatic trial design.

BACKGROUND: Cost can be an important consideration, along with safety and efficacy, in deciding the most appropriate treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes. Both basal-bolus and premixed insulin analogue regimens are widely used in clinical practice; however, limited information is available regarding cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare glycemic control, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life effects of insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine (glargine/glulisine) versus premixed insulin analogues in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] ≥7.0%) at 3 US endocrinology centers were randomly assigned to receive either glargine/glulisine or premixed insulin analogues and continued treatment following the centers' usual practice. HbA(1c), weight, insulin dose, concomitant oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) usage, and hypoglycemia were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. Medication costs, including costs for all insulin or OAD regimens, were estimated using published wholesale acquisition costs. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were randomized to receive glargine/glulisine therapy (n = 106) or premixed analogue therapy (n = 91). Overall, the mean age was 56 years, the mean duration of diabetes was 13 years, with a mean HbA(1c) of 9.25% and mean BMI of 35.8 kg/m(2) at baseline. Patients randomized to receive glargine/glulisine had a greater mean HbA(1c) reduction from baseline (-2.3%) than patients receiving a premixed analogue regimen (-1.7%). Adjusted mean follow-up HbA(1c) was 6.9% versus 7.5%, respectively (difference, -0.59%; P < 0.01). The glargine/glulisine group also used a lower mean number of OADs (0.86 vs 1.14; difference, -0.28; P = 0.04) but had a higher weight (240 vs 235 lb; difference, 4.55 lb; P = 0.03) than the premixed analogue group at follow-up. There were no significant differences in daily insulin dose and rates of hypoglycemia. Overall medication costs per 1.0% reduction in HbA(1c) were $841 with glargine/glulisine and $1308 with premixed analogues. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, treatment with glargine/glulisine provided greater improvement in glycemic control and may represent a more cost-effective treatment option than premixed regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world clinical practice. However, due to the pragmatic trial design, the study concluded before follow-up assessments were available for all randomized patients.