Effects of variations in access to care for children with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 50% of children in the US are Medicaid-insured. Some of these patients have poor health literacy and limited access to medications and specialty care. These factors affect treatment utilization for pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), the most common inflammatory skin disease in children. This study assesses and compares treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) between large cohorts of Medicaid and commercially insured children with AD. METHODS: Pediatric patients with AD were identified from 2 large US healthcare claims databases (2011-2016). Included patients had continuous health plan eligibility for ≥6 months before and ≥12 months after the first AD diagnosis (index date). Patients with an autoimmune disease diagnosis within 6 months of the index date were excluded. Treatment patterns and all-cause and AD-related HCRU during the observation period were compared between commercially and Medicaid-insured children. RESULTS: A minority of children were evaluated by a dermatology or allergy/immunology specialist. Several significant differences were observed between commercially and Medicaid-insured children with AD. Disparities detected for Medicaid-insured children included: comparatively fewer received specialist care, emergency department and urgent care center utilization was higher, a greater proportion had asthma and non-atopic morbidities, high- potency topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors were less often prescribed, and prescriptions for antihistamines were more than three times higher, despite similar rates of comorbid asthma and allergies among antihistamine users. Treatment patterns also varied substantially across physician specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest barriers in accessing specialty care for all children with AD and significant differences in management between commercially and Medicaid-insured children. These disparities in treatment and access to specialty care may contribute to poor AD control, especially in Medicaid-insured patients.

Treatment patterns of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: A claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence on treatment patterns of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To assess current treatment patterns in pediatric AD patients. METHODS: Retrospective observational analysis of commercial insurance and Medicaid administrative claims data (January 2011-December 2016) for pediatric AD patients, stratified by age and provider type. RESULTS: The analytic sample comprised 607,258 pediatric AD patients. Median observation period was 30.3 months. Overall, 78.6% were prescribed ≥1 AD medication; 86.7% were prescribed topical corticosteroids, and 5.4% were prescribed a calcineurin inhibitor. Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) were prescribed for 24.4% of patients, 51.8% of whom did not have asthma or allergic comorbidities. Of the 46.6% prescribed an antihistamine and 16.2% prescribed montelukast, 62.0% and 41.3%, respectively, did not have asthma or allergic comorbidities. Systemic immunosuppressants were rarely prescribed (<0.5%). Higher potency topical corticosteroid and SCS use increased with age. Treatment patterns varied by provider type; specialists were more likely to prescribe higher potency topicals and/or systemics, regardless of patient age. A minority of patients were treated by or referred to a specialist. LIMITATIONS: Identification of AD patients relied on billing diagnoses; the disease severity was proxied by the treatment prescribed. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that SCSs, despite known risks, and other medications with disproven efficacy in AD are frequently prescribed, suggesting a need for safer and more effective alternatives.

Real-world utilization patterns of systemic immunosuppressants among US adult patients with atopic dermatitis.

At the time of this study, prior to the introduction of biologics in the US, systemic therapies used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis included off-label immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. Immunosuppressant therapy is associated with a substantial risk of side-effects, therefore needing clinical monitoring, and is likely to incur a significant healthcare burden for patients and payers. This retrospective cohort study based on claims data measured immunosuppressant use and its associated burden among US adult patients with atopic dermatitis covered under commercial or Medicare Supplemental insurance from January 01, 2010, to September 30, 2015. Overall, based on age, gender, region, and index year, 4201 control patients with atopic dermatitis without immunosuppressant use were matched with 4204 patients treated with immunosuppressants. The majority (68.5%) of patients using immunosuppressants were non-persistent with immunosuppressant treatment during the 12-month follow-up period after a mean (standard deviation) of 88.1 (70.7) days of immunosuppressant use; 72.3% required systemic steroid rescue treatment. Immunosuppressant users had higher incidence of immunosuppressant-related clinical events than controls; in addition, a larger proportion of immunosuppressant users versus controls developed cancer (0.28% vs 0.14%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Healthcare utilization and costs associated with clinical events and monitoring were also higher for immunosuppressant users compared with controls (total costs, $9516 vs $1630, respectively; P < 0.0001; monitoring costs, $363 vs $54, respectively; P < 0.0001). This study revealed that patients treated with systemic immunosuppressants often require systemic steroids or changes to treatment. The increase in immunosuppressant-related clinical events, including the need for increased monitoring with immunosuppressant treatment, compared with controls demonstrates a substantial treatment burden and highlights the unmet need for more effective long-term therapies for atopic dermatitis with improved safety profiles and reduced monitoring requirements.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving second-line chemotherapy versus an alternative androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) following early progression on a first-line ARTA in a US community oncology setting.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study assessed if second-line chemotherapy vs. androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs; abiraterone/enzalutamide) is associated with improved outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRCaP) patients who experience early progression on first-line ARTAs in a US community setting. METHODS: Patients with mCRCaP (n = 345) who progressed ≤ 12 months after first-line ARTA and received second-line chemotherapy (docetaxel/cabazitaxel; n = 147) or ARTA (n = 198) between May 2011 and October 2014 were identified. Overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and progression, and clinical response were compared for second-line chemotherapy vs. ARTA, using one-sided tests from second-line therapy initiation. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for: year, age, metastases, opioid use, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, PSA, hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and albumin levels. RESULTS: Patients receiving second-line chemotherapy vs. ARTA were younger (median: 74 vs. 79 years) and had a poorer prognosis in terms of PSA, LDH, alkaline phosphatase, albumin and hemoglobin levels, opioid use, and Halabi risk score (P < 0.05). Response rates were higher for chemotherapy vs. ARTA (PSA: adjusted odds ratio = 2.27, P = 0.005; clinical: adjusted odds ratio = 1.78; P = 0.020) and time to PSA progression was longer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.66; P = 0.010). A trend favored chemotherapy vs. ARTA for OS (aHR = 0.81, P = 0.148). Among patients with poor prognostic features, those receiving chemotherapy had significantly improved OS (Halabi intermediate-/high-risk score: aHR = 0.55, P = 0.009; hemoglobin < 11 g/dl: aHR = 0.41, P = 0.002; LDH > upper limit of normal: aHR = 0.18, P = 0.014; albumin < lower limit of normal: aHR = 0.42, P = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Following early progression on first-line ARTA, second-line chemotherapy may be more beneficial in mCRCaP compared with second-line ARTA in patients with a poor prognosis.

Taxane chemotherapy vs antiandrogen agents as first-line therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving first-line chemotherapy or antiandrogen therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients initiating first-line antiandrogen therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide) or chemotherapy (taxane) between October 2012 and September 2014 were retrospectively identified in the US Veterans Health Administration database. The impact of antiandrogen therapy vs chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) duration and available prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 1445 patients were evaluable, of whom 1108 received antiandrogen therapy and 337 received chemotherapy (docetaxel). On multivariable analysis and propensity score analysis, the OS times for antiandrogen therapy vs chemotherapy were not significantly different (hazard ratio [HR] 1.041, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.853-1.270, P = 0.694, and HR 1.047, 95% CI 0.861-1.273, P = 0.644, respectively). Time to discontinuation was shorter for chemotherapy vs antiandrogen therapy (HR 2.339, 95% CI 1.969-2.779; P < 0.001). Prior ADT duration above the median was associated with longer OS (HR 0.566, 95% CI 0.464-0.690; P < 0.001) and time to discontinuation (HR 0.831, 95% CI 0.699-0.988; P = 0.036) in the antiandrogen therapy cohort and not the chemotherapy cohort, while prior ADT duration below the median was associated with higher prostate specific antigen (PSA) response rate in the chemotherapy vs antiandrogen therapy cohort (61.5% vs 51.1%; P = 0.024). The treatment-free interval after discontinuation was longer after first-line chemotherapy vs antiandrogen therapy (mean 53 vs 39 days; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: After adjusting for key prognostic factors in this large mCRPC dataset, the OS was similar for first-line chemotherapy vs antiandrogen therapy despite shorter time to discontinuation with chemotherapy and longer treatment-free interval after first-line chemotherapy. These hypothesis-generating data also suggest that duration of prior ADT may assist in the selection of patients for chemotherapy vs antiandrogen therapy.

Patient characteristics and overall survival in patients with post-docetaxel metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the community setting.

It is unclear how treatment sequencing for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) affects real-world patient outcomes. We assessed treatment sequences, patient characteristics and overall survival (OS) in post-docetaxel mCRPC patients. mCRPC patients receiving second-line cabazitaxel or androgen receptor-targeted therapy (ART; abiraterone/enzalutamide) post-docetaxel were identified using electronic medical records. OS was assessed from second-line therapy initiation using Cox regressions adjusting for: metastases; prostate-specific antigen (PSA); hemoglobin; alkaline phosphatase (ALP); albumin; second-line therapy initiation year. Following docetaxel (n = 629), 123 (19.6%) and 506 (80.4%) patients received cabazitaxel and ART, respectively. One hundred and ninety-five patients received additional treatments thereafter (54 following cabazitaxel; 141 following ART). Although patients receiving second-line cabazitaxel versus ART had similar disease characteristics at first-line therapy initiation, at second-line therapy initiation they had higher mean PSA (386.6 vs. 233.9 ng/mL) and ALP (182.0 vs. 167.3 u/L), lower mean hemoglobin (10.8 vs. 11.5 g/dL), and more frequently had intermediate/high-risk Halabi scores (61.8 vs. 48.4%); all p < 0.05. Overall, crude survival was not significantly different. Among Halabi high-risk patients, adjusted median OS was significantly longer in patients receiving cabazitaxel versus ART (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.24-0.93; p = 0.030). Low albumin and hemoglobin led to similar findings (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.80; p = 0.0077; HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.90; p = 0.014). Most post-docetaxel patients received second-line ART. Patients receiving second-line cabazitaxel had more high-risk features; however, second-line cabazitaxel administered after docetaxel may improve OS in patients with Halabi high-risk scores or low albumin/hemoglobin.

Burden of Atopic Dermatitis in the United States: Analysis of Healthcare Claims Data in the Commercial, Medicare, and Medi-Cal Databases.

INTRODUCTION: Comparative data on the burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults relative to the general population are limited. We performed a large-scale evaluation of the burden of disease among US adults with AD relative to matched non-AD controls, encompassing comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs, using healthcare claims data. The impact of AD disease severity on these outcomes was also evaluated. METHODS: Adult AD patients in the Commercial (n = 83,106), Medicare (n = 31,060), and Medi-Cal (n = 5550) databases were matched (1:1) to non-AD controls by demographic characteristics. AD patients were stratified by disease severity (higher, lower) using treatment as a surrogate measure of severity. The comorbidity burden, HCRU, and costs were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: In the Commercial, Medicare, and Medi-Cal populations, patients with AD had a significantly higher overall comorbidity burden (P < 0.0001), an increased risk of asthma and allergic rhinitis (both P < 0.0001), higher HCRU (P < 0.05), and higher mean total per patient costs (Commercial: US$10,461 versus US$7187; Medicare: US$16,914 versus US$13,714; Medi-Cal; US$19,462 versus US$10,408; all P < 0.0001), compared with matched non-AD controls. Higher disease severity was associated with an increased comorbidity burden (P < 0.0001), HCRU (P < 0.05), and total costs (Commercial: US$14,580 versus US$7192; Medicare: US$21,779 versus US$12,490; Medi-Cal; US$22,123 versus US$16,639; all P < 0.0001) relative to lower severity disease. CONCLUSION: In this large-scale, healthcare claims database analysis, AD patients had a significantly higher comorbidity burden, HCRU, and costs compared with matched non-AD controls. Higher disease severity was associated with an even greater comorbidity and economic burden. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Real-world Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy Versus Androgen Receptor-targeted Therapy After Failure of First-line Androgen Receptor-targeted Therapy in the Community Setting.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), optimal treatment sequences are unknown. We assessed second-line taxane (TT) versus androgen receptor-targeted therapy (ART), after initial ART failure, in United States oncology community practices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using electronic medical records, patients with mCRPC receiving first-line ART and second-line therapy (TT, ART) were identified. Response and overall survival (OS) were evaluated from second-line therapy initiation. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for year, age, metastases, opioid use, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. RESULTS: Of 546 patients receiving first-line ART, 206 and 340 received second-line TT and ART. Compared with patients receiving second-line ART, patients receiving TT were younger (median, 74 vs. 79 years), more had intermediate-high Halabi risk scores (59% vs. 35%), had higher opioid use (42% vs. 22%), median PSA (116 vs. 48 ng/mL), alkaline phosphatase (112 vs. 87 U/L), and lactate dehydrogenase (254 vs. 201 U/L), and had lower hemoglobin (11.2 vs. 12.3 g/dL) and albumin levels (3.8 vs. 4.0 g/dL); all P < .001. Response rates were higher with second-line TT versus ART (clinical response, 44.2% vs. 24.7%; P = .006; PSA response, 44.5% vs. 28.7%; P = .004). OS did not differ between cohorts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .511). Among patients with a poor prognosis (hemoglobin < 11 g/d; albumin < lower limit of normal), those receiving second-line TT versus ART showed improved OS (HR, 0.52; P = .004 and HR, 0.36; P = .003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite more severe disease profiles, patients with mCRPC receiving second-line TT versus ART achieved higher response rates after initial ART. Poor prognosis patients had improved OS with second-line TT versus ART.

Budgetary Impact of Cabazitaxel Use After Docetaxel Treatment for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With the approval of several new treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), budgetary impact is a concern for health plan decision makers. Budget impact models (BIMs) are becoming a requirement in many countries as part of formulary approval or reimbursement decisions. Cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane developed to overcome resistance to docetaxel and is approved for the treatment of patients with mCRPC previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. OBJECTIVE: To estimate a 1-year projected budget impact of varying utilization rates of cabazitaxel as a second-line treatment for mCRPC following docetaxel, using a hypothetical U.S. private managed care plan with 1 million members. METHODS: A BIM was developed to evaluate costs for currently available treatment options for patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel. Treatments included in the model were cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and radium-223, with utilization rates derived from market research data. Medication costs were calculated according to published pricing benchmarks factored by dosing and duration of therapy as stated in the prescribing information for each agent. Published rates and costs of grade 3-4 adverse events were also factored into the model. In addition, the model reports budget impact under 2 scenarios. In the first base-case scenario, patient out-of-pocket costs were subtracted from the total cost of treatment. In the second scenario, all treatment costs were assumed to be paid by the plan. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1 million-member health plan population, 100 patients were estimated to receive second-line treatment for mCRPC after treatment with docetaxel. Using current utilization rates for the 4 agents of interest, the base-case scenario estimated the cost of second-line treatment after docetaxel to be $6,331,704, or $0.528 per member per month (PMPM). In a scenario where cabazitaxel use increases from the base-rate case of 24% to a hypothetical rate of 33%, the PMPM cost would decrease to $0.524, reflecting a cost saving of $0.004 PMPM and equating to incremental savings of $49,546, or $497 per patient per year (PPPY). In the second scenario, when out-of-pocket costs were not considered, the cost of second-line treatment after docetaxel was estimated as $6,733,594, or $0.561 PMPM. With a hypothetical increase in cabazitaxel use (24%-33%), the PMPM cost would decrease to $0.554, reflecting savings of $0.007 PMPM and equating to incremental savings of $86,136, or $864 PPPY. The primary driver of cost savings with increased cabazitaxel use was lower acquisition cost. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model results were robust over a wide range of input values (utilization, prevalence, and population parameters). CONCLUSIONS: In the presented BIM, an increase in cabazitaxel use is expected to result in modest cost savings to the health plan. Patient coinsurance savings may also be realized based on applicable Medicare Part B and Part D calculations. This BIM presents an objective, comprehensive, robust, and user-adaptable tool that health plans and medical decision makers may use to evaluate potential economic impact of formulary and reimbursement decisions. DISCLOSURES: Research and analysis were funded by Sanofi US. The sponsor had the opportunity to review the final draft; however, the authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions. Flannery, Drea, Hudspeth, and Miao are employees of Sanofi. Miao is an owner of stock in Sanofi. Corman, Gao, and Xue are employees of Pharmerit International and served as consultants to Sanofi during this study. All authors contributed to study design and data collection and analysis. The manuscript was written by Flannery, along with the other authors, and revised by all the authors.

A common data model to assess cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality in atrial fibrillation patients using administrative claims and medical records.

PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) is frequently associated with cardiovascular comorbidities. Observational health care databases are commonly used for research purposes in studies of quality of care, health economics, outcomes research, drug safety, and epidemiology. This retrospective cohort study applied a common data model to administrative claims data (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan(®) claims databases [MS-Claims]) and electronic medical records data (Geisinger Health System's MedMining electronic medical record database [MG-EMR]) to examine the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality in relation to clinical risk factors in recent-onset AF and to assess the consistency of analyses for each data source. METHODS: Cohorts of patients with newly diagnosed AF (n=105,262 [MS-Claims] and n=3,919 [MG-EMR]) and demographically similar patients without AF (n=105,262 [MS-Claims] and n=3,872 [MG-EMR]) were followed from the qualifying AF diagnosis until cardiovascular hospitalization, death, database disenrollment, or study completion. A common data model standardized the data in structure, format, content, and nomenclature to allow for systematic assessment and comparison of outcomes from two disparate data sets. RESULTS: In both databases, AF patients had greater overall baseline comorbidity and higher incidence rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (threefold higher) and all-cause mortality (46% higher) than non-AF patients. For AF patients, incidence rates of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality were increased by the concomitant presence of coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke at baseline. Overall, the pattern of cardiovascular hospitalization in the MS-Claims database was similar to that in the MG-EMR database. Compared with the MS-Claims database, the use of cardiovascular medications and the capture of certain comorbidities among AF patients appeared to be higher in the MG-EMR data set. CONCLUSION: Similar standardized analyses across EMR and Claims databases were consistent in the association of AF with acute morbidity and an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Areas of inconsistency were due to differences in underlying population demographics and cardiovascular risks and completeness of certain data fields.

30-Day Readmission Among Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries with Type 2 Diabetes.

This study retrospectively assessed rates and risk factors for all-cause hospital readmission among elderly Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) aged ≥65 years. Associations between 30-day readmission and patients' demographic, insurance, index hospital, and clinical characteristics; patient complexities specific to the elderly; and health care utilization were examined using multivariable logistic regressions. Of 202,496 elderly Medicare beneficiaries, 52% were female, 76% were white, the mean age was 75.8 years, and 13.2% had all-cause 30-day readmissions. Elderly patients with cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01-1.12), falls and falls risk (aOR=1.15, 95% CI=1.08-1.22), polypharmacy (aOR=1.20, 95% CI=1.14-1.27), and urinary incontinence (aOR=1.08, 95% CI=1.01-1.15) were at higher risk for all-cause 30-day readmission than their counterparts without these complexities. As elderly-specific complexities are associated with greater risk for readmission, intervention programs to reduce readmission risk among elderly patients with T2DM should be tailored to suit the needs of elderly patients with extensive complexities.

Does Device Make Any Difference? A Real-world Retrospective Study of Insulin Treatment Among Elderly Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

We compared real-world clinical and economic outcomes for insulin glargine treatment administered by disposable pen and traditional vial-and-syringe injections among elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Using a large database of US retirees, this retrospective longitudinal study examined 1-year follow-up outcomes in patients with T2DM aged 65 years or older who were either insulin naïve and initiated insulin glargine via disposable pen (pen initiators [PI]) or vial (vial initiators [VI]) or were already insulin glargine users but either continued with a vial (vial continuers [VC]) or switched to a disposable pen (pen switchers [PS]). There were 7856 propensity-score-matched patients, including 2930 each in the PI and VI cohorts, and 998 each in the VC and PS cohorts. Compared with vial-and-syringe users, the disposable pen users had significantly greater treatment persistence (P < .0001 for both comparisons), duration of persistence (P < .0001 for both), and adherence (P < .01 for both) and lower insulin daily average consumption (P < .05 for both). Compared with the VI cohort, the PI cohort had significantly fewer hypoglycemia-related events (P = .0164). Total health care costs were comparable for the respective matched cohorts. In elderly patients with T2DM receiving insulin glargine therapy, initiating or switching to a disposable pen was associated with better treatment persistence and adherence than initiating or continuing with vial-and-syringe, without increased total health care costs. Among insulin-naïve patients, initiating insulin glargine by disposable pen was also associated with significantly reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with vial-and-syringe patients.

Much ado about nothing? A real-world study of patients with type 2 diabetes switching Basal insulin analogs.

INTRODUCTION: Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease, and many patients eventually require insulin therapy. This study examined real-world outcomes of switching basal insulin analogs among patients with T2DM. METHODS: Using two large United States administrative claims databases (IMPACT(®) and Humana(®)), this longitudinal retrospective study examined two cohorts of adult patients with T2DM. Previously on insulin glargine, Cohort 1 either continued insulin glargine (GLA-C) or switched to insulin detemir (DET-S), while Cohort 2 was previously on insulin detemir, and either continued insulin detemir (DET-C) or switched to insulin glargine (GLA-S). One-year follow-up treatment persistence and adherence, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia events, healthcare utilization and costs were assessed. Selection bias was minimized by propensity score matching between treatment groups within each cohort. RESULTS: A total of 5,921 patients (mean age 60 years, female 50.0%, HbA1c 8.6%) were included in the analysis (Cohort 1: IMPACT(®): n = 536 DET-S matched to n = 2,668 GLA-C; Humana(®): n = 256 DET-S matched to n = 1,262 GLA-C; Cohort 2: n = 419 GLA-S matched to n = 780 DET-C), with similar baseline characteristics between treatment groups in each cohort. During 1-year follow-up, in Cohort 1, DET-S patients, when compared with GLA-C patients, had lower treatment persistence/adherence with 33-40% restarting insulin glargine, higher rapid-acting insulin use, worse HbA1c outcomes, significantly higher diabetes drug costs, and similar hypoglycemia rates, health care utilization and total costs. However, in Cohort 2 overall opposite outcomes were observed and only 19.8% GLA-S patients restarted insulin detemir. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed contrasting clinical and economic outcomes when patients with T2DM switched basal insulin analogs, with worse outcomes observed for patients switching from insulin glargine to insulin detemir and improved outcomes when switching from insulin detemir to insulin glargine. Further investigation into the therapeutic interchangeability of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in the real-world setting is needed.

Real world outcomes of adding rapid-acting insulin versus switching to analog premix insulin among US patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often require intensification of basal insulin therapy. This retrospective, observational study compared real-world outcomes in US patients with T2DM treated with insulin glargine who added a rapid-acting insulin (RAI) (basal-bolus approach) with those who switched to premixed insulin (PMX). METHODS: The national US IMPACT® database was used to identify data from adult patients (≥18 years of age) with T2DM who added bolus RAI to insulin glargine (GLA + RAI) or who switched from GLA to PMX between 2001 and 2009. A stringent 1:1 propensity score-matching method was used to address the selection bias by matching GLA + RAI patients and PMX patients. Clinical and economic outcomes were determined for 1 year after the initial pharmacy claim for RAI or for PMX. Outcomes included treatment persistence and adherence, average insulin doses, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, the prevalence and incidence of hypoglycemia, and health care costs/utilization. Analysis was carried out using an intent-to-treat approach. RESULTS: The study included data from 746 propensity-matched patients (n = 373 in each cohort). Treatment persistence and adherence were higher in the GLA + RAI cohort. There was no significant difference in A1C reduction from baseline and the number of patients achieving target A1C levels of <7% in each cohort. The incidence of hypoglycemic events was also similar in both groups. However, during follow-up, many patients (48.8%) who initially switched from insulin glargine to PMX crossed back over to use GLA and/or RAI as part of their regimen. Health care costs and utilization levels were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Clinical and economic outcomes were similar in T2DM patients who added RAI to GLA and in those who switched to PMX, but a basal-bolus strategy appears to be associated with better treatment persistence and adherence.

Real-world outcomes of US employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin: a comparative retrospective database study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare real-world outcomes of initiating insulin glargine (GLA) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had both employer-sponsored health insurance and short-tem-disability coverages. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters/Health and Productivity Management Databases 2003-2009. PARTICIPANTS: Adult employees with T2DM who were previously treated with oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists and initiated GLA or NPH were included if they were continuously enrolled in healthcare and short-term-disability coverages for 3 months before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) initiation. Treatment selection bias was addressed by 2:1 propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different matching ratios. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes during 1-year follow-up were measured and compared: insulin treatment persistence and adherence; hypoglycaemia rates and daily average consumption of insulin; total and diabetes-specific healthcare resource utilisation and costs and loss in productivity, as measured by short-term disability, and the associated costs. RESULTS: A total of 534 patients were matched and analysed (GLA: 356; NPH 178) with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. GLA patients were more persistent and adherent (both p<0.05), had lower rates of hospitalisation (23% vs 31.4%; p=0.036) and endocrinologist visits (19.1% vs 26.9%; p=0.038), similar hypoglycaemia rates (both 4.4%; p=1.0), higher diabetes drug costs ($2031 vs $1522; p<0.001), but similar total healthcare costs ($14 550 vs $16 093; p=0.448) and total diabetes-related healthcare costs ($4686 vs $5604; p=0.416). Short-term disability days and costs were numerically lower in the GLA cohort (16.0 vs 24.5 days; p=0.086 and $2824 vs $4363; p=0.081, respectively). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin GLA results in better persistence and adherence, compared with NPH insulin, with no overall cost disadvantages. Better persistence and adherence may lead to long-term health benefits for employees with T2DM.