Real-world persistence, adherence, health care resource utilization, and costs in people with type 2 diabetes switching from a first-generation basal insulin to a second-generation (insulin glargine 300 U/mL) vs an alternative first-generation basal insulin.

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who change their basal insulin (BI) may have variable persistence with therapy. Compared with first-generation (long-acting) BI analogs (insulin glargine 100U/mL [Gla-100]; insulin detemir [IDet]), second-generation (longer-acting) BI analogs (insulin glargine 300U/mL [Gla-300]; insulin degludec) have similar glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) attainment and lowered hypoglycemia risk, which could impact treatment persistence. OBJECTIVE: To compare persistence, adherence, health care resource utilization (HRU), and costs for individuals switching from neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or a first-generation BI analog with either the second-generation BI, Gla-300, or an alternative first-generation BI analog (Gla-100 or IDet). METHODS: We used Optum Clinformatics claims data from adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with T2D who had received BI (neutral protamine Hagedorn, Gla-100, IDet) in the 6-month baseline period, and switched to either Gla-300 or an alternative first-generation BI (Gla-100 or IDet; treatment switch = index date) between April 1, 2015, and August 31, 2019. Participants were followed for 12 months, until plan disenrollment, or until death, whichever occurred first. Cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) on baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the proportion who were persistent with therapy at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were adherence (proportion of days covered); change in HbA1c; and all-cause, diabetes-related, and hypoglycemia-related HRU and costs. RESULTS: PSM generated 3,077 participants/group (mean age: 68 years, 52% female). Cohorts were well balanced except for hospitalization, which was adjusted in models as a covariate. During the 12-month follow-up period, participants who received Gla-300 vs first-generation BI had greater persistence with (45.5% vs 42.1%; adjusted P = 0.0001), and adherence to (42.8% vs 38.2%; adjusted P = 0.0006), BI therapy and a statistically larger reduction in HbA1c at 12 months (-0.65% vs -0.45%; adjusted P = 0.0040). The proportion of participants achieving HbA1c less than 8% (47.2% vs 40.9%; P < 0.0001), but not less than 7% (21.2% vs 20.8%), was significantly higher for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI. All-cause (45.3 vs 65.9 per 100 patient-years [P100PY]) and diabetes-related (21.5 vs 29.1 P100PY), but not hypoglycemia-related, hospitalizations (1.0 vs 1.5 P100PY) were significantly (P < 0.0001) lower for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI. Similarly, all-cause (111.9 vs 148.8 P100PY), diabetes-related (54.8 vs 74.2 P100PY), and hypoglycemia-related (2.9 vs 5.7 P100PY) emergency department (ED) visits were significantly lower for Gla-300 (all P < 0.0001). Costs for all-cause hospitalizations and hypoglycemia-related ED visits were significantly lower for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI. Although pharmacy costs were significantly higher for Gla-300 vs first-generation BI, all-cause total health care costs were not significantly different: $41,255 vs $45,316 per person per year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this claims-based analysis of people with T2D receiving BI, switching to Gla-300 was associated with significantly better persistence, adherence, and HbA1c reduction compared with switching to an alternative first-generation BI analog. All-cause HRU was significantly lower; despite significantly higher pharmacy costs, total health care costs were similar. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi US. Medical writing support was provided by Helen Jones, PhD, CMPP, of Evidence Scientific Solutions and funded by Sanofi US. Dr Wright is on the speakers' bureau and sits on the advisory boards for Abbot Diabetes, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi; sits on the advisory board for Medtronic; and is a consultant for Abbot Diabetes, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr Malone is on advisory boards for Novartis and Avalere and consults for Pear Therapeutics, Sarepta, and Strategic Therapeutics. Dr Trujillo sits on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Drs Gill, Zhou, and Preblick and Mr Li are employees and stockholders of Sanofi. Mr Huse is an employee of Evidera and a contractor for Sanofi. Dr Reid is a speaker and consultant for Novo Nordisk and Sanofi-Aventis and is a consultant for AstraZeneca and Intarcia.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of rFVIIIFc Versus Contemporary rFVIII Treatments for Patients with Severe Hemophilia A Without Inhibitors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A range of treatments for patients with severe hemophilia A (HA) have been developed over the last decade, allowing for reduced frequency of administration and improved outcomes (joint health and breakthrough bleeding rates). While clinically effective, the cost effectiveness of these treatments has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This study presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of contemporary rFVIII treatments for severe HA patients without inhibitors. METHODS: A published semi-Markov model was used to compare three different prophylaxis regimens: (1) extended half-life (EHL) recombinant Factor VIII (rFVIII) Fc-fusion protein (rFVIIIFc, Eloctate®, Sanofi), (2) EHL PEGylated rFVIII (PEG-rFVIII, Adynovate®, Takeda), and (3) standard half-life (SHL) rFVIII (antihemophilic factor [recombinant], Advate®, Takeda), used as a proxy for all SHL rFVIII treatments. Acquisition costs were included based on published dosing and weight data. Benefits were incorporated through published annualized bleeding rates, rates of target joint development/resolution, and improvements in the modified hemophilia joint health score. Results were presented as total, discounted costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: rFVIIIFc was shown to provide the most QALYs (27.922) compared with both PEG-rFVIII (27.454) and SHL rFVIII (27.071), at lower costs. Discounted lifetime costs were estimated at US$18.235m (rFVIIIFc), US$20.198m (PEG-rFVIII), and US$18.285m (SHL rFVIII), and were predominantly affected by model settings related to acquisition costs, patient weight, and dosing. CONCLUSIONS: rFVIIIFc may offer a cost-effective option for severe HA patients. Uncertainties owing to the limited evidence base is the main limitation of the study.

Association of hypoglycaemia severity with clinical, patient-reported and economic outcomes in US patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin.

AIMS: To evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization and costs associated with patient-reported hypoglycaemia in US adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional, survey-based study of adults with T2D on basal insulin ± oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) or rapid-acting/premixed insulin, who had in the past ever experienced hypoglycaemia, using US data from the National Health and Wellness Survey. Eligible patients were categorized as having no hypoglycaemia (38.7%), non-severe hypoglycaemia (55.1%), or severe hypoglycaemia (6.2%) in the preceding 3 months. Outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity and activity impairment, healthcare resource utilization, and estimated direct and indirect costs. Multivariable regression models were performed to control for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia had significantly (P < .05) lower HRQoL scores, greater overall impairment of work productivity and activity, greater healthcare resource utilization, and higher costs compared with those who experienced non-severe or no hypoglycaemia. Patients with non-severe hypoglycaemia also reported an impact on the number of provider visits, indirect costs, and HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2D using basal insulin ± OADs or rapid-acting/premixed insulin in the United States who experienced severe hypoglycaemia had greater impairment of activity and work productivity, utilized more healthcare resources, and incurred higher associated costs than those with non-severe or no hypoglycaemia. The study also demonstrated the impact that non-severe hypoglycaemic events have on economic and HRQoL outcomes. Reducing the incidence and severity of hypoglycaemia could lead to clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL and may result in lower healthcare utilization and associated costs.

Is Adherence to the American College of Chest Physicians Recommended Anticoagulation Treatment Duration Associated With Different Outcomes Among Patients With Venous Thromboembolism?

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) patient adherence to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) anticoagulant (AC) treatment guidelines are incompletely understood. Patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 separate outpatient claims for deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism, based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes, were identified from the IMS PharMetrics Plus database. Patients had continuous insurance coverage for 12 months before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the index event (first VTE claim) but no baseline VTE claims. The ACCP recommends minimum AC treatment durations (3 or ≥6 months) dependent upon patient risk profiles. Patients were grouped into study cohorts based on their adherence status (adherent vs nonadherent) to the recommended minimum treatment durations. Patient baseline characteristics, health-care resource utilization, and associated costs were evaluated. The VTE recurrence and bleed-related hospitalization were measured during follow-up. Multivariate regression analysis was utilized to compare clinical and economic outcomes of cohorts. Of the 81 827 study patients, 74% (n = 60 550) were AC adherent. After controlling for key patient characteristics, risks for all-cause hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.85, P < .0001), VTE recurrence (AOR = 0.92, P = .0014), and bleeding-related hospitalization (AOR = 0.74, P < .0001) were lower among adherent patients, as were all-cause health-care cost (-US$2121, P = .0003) and VTE-related (-US$2294, P < .0001) and bleed-related (-US$248, P < .0001) medical costs during the follow-up period. Approximately one-quarter of the study population was AC nonadherent; these nonadherent patients had more VTE recurrences, utilized more inpatient services, and had higher health-care costs.