Dataset Information

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS:CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices. RESULTS:A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION:Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

SUBMITTER: Kiiskinen U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3713896 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

Kiiskinen Urpo U Matthaei Stephan S Reaney Matthew M Mathieu Chantal C Ostenson Claes-Göran CG Krarup Thure T Theodorakis Michael M Kiljański Jacek J Salaun-Martin Carole C Sapin Hélène H Guerci Bruno B

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR 20130711

<h4>Purpose</h4>CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study.<h4>Methods</h4>CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular i ...[more]

PMID: 23874113

Similar Datasets

Project description:Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study.CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted.There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (? 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (? 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes.These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.

Project description:IntroductionChanges to Treatment and Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Injectable Therapy (CHOICE) is a European prospective, observational cohort study assessing time to, and factors associated with, a significant change in therapy after type 2 diabetes patients initiate their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy, and these patients' clinical outcomes over 24 months. The authors report baseline data and factors associated with the injectable treatment regimen.MethodsDemographic, clinical, and healthcare resource-use data were collected at initiation of injectable therapy and analyzed using univariate tests between cohorts and multivariate logistic regression analysis for treatment.ResultsOverall, 1,177 patients initiated exenatide twice daily (b.i.d.) and 1,315 initiated insulin. Most patients were recruited by secondary-care physicians. Univariate analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the characteristics of patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. and patients who initiated insulin. On multivariate analysis, higher body mass index [BMI; 5 kg/m(2) higher: odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.84-2.40], lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c); 1% higher: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86), and lower age (5 years older: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88) were the variables most strongly associated with increased probability of receiving exenatide b.i.d. (P < 0.0001). Patients initiating exenatide b.i.d. had a mean BMI of 35.3 ± 6.5 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) of 8.4 ± 1.4%, and age of 58 ± 10 years, compared with 29.7 ± 5.4 kg/m(2), 9.2 ± 1.9%, and 64 ± 11 years, respectively, in patients initiating insulin (P < 0.0001). Other characteristics significantly associated with exenatide b.i.d. initiation were "disinhibited eating" (Diabetes Health Profile-18), lower random blood glucose, less blood glucose self-monitoring, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and receipt of diet/exercise advice.ConclusionsPatients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. were on average younger and more obese with lower HbA(1c) than those initiating insulin.

Project description:IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are widely used for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus; however, there have been concerns that GLP-1RA treatment may be associated with an increased incidence of pancreatitis. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of pancreatitis in a pooled population of type 2 diabetes trials from the clinical development program of the GLP-1RA exenatide as well as to describe patient-level data for all reported cases.MethodsThe primary analysis examined pooled data among patients with type 2 diabetes from the controlled arms of 35 trials (ranging from 4 to 234 weeks' duration) in the integrated clinical databases for exenatide twice daily, once weekly, and once-weekly suspension, excluding comparator arms with other incretin-based therapies. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of pancreatitis was calculated for exenatide and non-exenatide (non-incretin-based therapy or placebo) treatment groups. Patient-level data were described for all pancreatitis incidences.ResultsThe primary analysis included 5596 patients who received exenatide and 4462 in the non-exenatide group. The mean duration of study medication exposure for the exenatide and non-exenatide treatment groups was 57.0 and 47.9 weeks, respectively. Pancreatitis was diagnosed in 14 patients (exenatide, n = 8; non-exenatide, n = 6), of whom 13 recovered with or without sequelae. The pancreatitis EAIR was 0.1195 events per 100 patient-years [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.0516-0.2154] in the exenatide group versus 0.1276 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0.0468-0.2482) in the non-exenatide treatment group. The EAIR ratio for the exenatide versus non-exenatide treatment group was 0.761 (95% CI 0.231-2.510).ConclusionIn this pooled analysis of 10,058 patients among studies comparing exenatide with other glucose-lowering medications or placebo, pancreatitis was rare. The EAIRs of pancreatitis were low and similar between exenatide and non-exenatide treatment groups. No evidence of an association between exenatide and pancreatitis was observed.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:Alemtuzumab (Lemtrada™) is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved in more than 50 countries. Within the European Union, alemtuzumab is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) with active disease defined by clinical or imaging features; in the USA, the indication states that alemtuzumab should generally be reserved for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis who have had an inadequate response to two or more disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). In clinical trials, alemtuzumab demonstrated efficacy in treatment-naïve patients with active RRMS and those relapsing on prior DMTs, with a consistent and manageable safety and tolerability profile. The European Union indication provides physicians with significant flexibility regarding treatment decisions, affording the opportunity for individualized treatment. Thus, alemtuzumab may be an appropriate treatment choice across a broad range of patients with RRMS, including, for example, treatment-naïve patients with active disease, patients with highly active disease, or for patients relapsing on prior DMTs. There are several practicalities to consider when using alemtuzumab, including the unique dosing regimen, administered via intravenous infusion on 5 consecutive days at baseline and on 3 consecutive days 12 months later, and as-needed retreatment (3 consecutive days at least 12 months after the last course) in cases of disease recurrence. Additionally, routine monthly monitoring is required for up to 48 months after the last infusion to promptly identify potentially serious autoimmune adverse events. Given these considerations, it is beneficial to gain insight into how alemtuzumab is being used in the real-world clinical setting. Here, we report recommendations from European multiple sclerosis experts regarding best practices for alemtuzumab treatment, including management of adverse events and compliance with ongoing safety monitoring requirements.

Project description:IntroductionPatients in intensive care units (ICUs) often receive sedation for prolonged periods. In order to better understand the impact of sub-optimal sedation practice on outcomes, we performed a systematic review, including observational studies and controlled trials which were conducted in sedated patients in the ICU and which compared the impact of changes in or different protocols for sedation management on economic and patient safety outcomes.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase and CINAHL online literature databases from 1988 to 15th May 2008 and hand searched conferences. English-language studies set in the ICU, in sedated adult humans on mechanical ventilation, which reported the impact of sedation practice on cost and resource use and patient safety outcomes, were included. All abstracts were reviewed twice by two independent reviewers, with all conflicts resolved by a third reviewer, to check that they met the review inclusion criteria. Full-text papers of all included studies were retrieved and again reviewed twice against inclusion criteria. Data were doubly extracted from studies. Study aims, design, population, and outcomes including duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, costs and rates of mortality and adverse events were extracted. Due to heterogeneity between study designs and outcomes reported, no quantitative data synthesis such as meta-analysis was possible.ResultsIncluded studies varied in design, patient population and aim, with the majority being before-after studies. Overall, studies showed that improvements in sedation practice, such as the introduction of guidelines and protocols, or daily interruption of sedation, were associated with improvements in outcomes including ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and costs. Mortality and the incidence of nosocomial infections were also reduced.ConclusionsSystematic interventions to improve sedation practice and maintain patients at an optimal sedation level in the ICU may improve patient outcomes and optimize resource usage.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the benefits biosimilars offer in terms of cost savings and patient access, healthcare professionals and patients have been reluctant to use them. Next to insufficient understanding of and trust in biosimilars, healthcare professionals and patients have questions about switching and the nocebo effect when using biosimilars in clinical practice. In addition, clear motivation to use biosimilars may be lacking among these stakeholders.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar use on both a clinical and a practical level based on insights from healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patients (or their representatives), and regulators across Europe.MethodsWe conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with experts from five stakeholder groups across Europe: physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, regulators, and patients/representatives. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and transcripts analysed according to the thematic framework method.ResultsBased on the insights and considerations of the experts interviewed, we identified a number of recommendations to improve the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Regarding switch implementation, the experts voiced support for the following actions: (1) disseminate evidence from and experience with (multiple) switching; (2) provide clear, one-voice regulatory guidance about the interchangeability of biosimilars and their reference product; (3) apply a multi-stakeholder implementation and communication protocol to guide switching in clinical practice; (4) apply a pragmatic approach when taking switch decisions; and (5) avoid mandated switching, allowing stakeholder communication and alignment. When discussing approaches to increase the willingness of stakeholders to use biosimilars, we concluded that actions should be centred on (1) communicating the benefits provided by biosimilars and the introduction of market competition, (2) increasing awareness among stakeholders about medicine prices and their societal responsibility to use medicines in a cost-effective manner, (3) transparent reporting about the allocation of savings, (4) sharing biosimilar usage data among hospitals and prescribers to allow peer-to-peer benchmarking, and (5) applying a balanced combination of tangible and non-tangible incentives that can be tailored to offset the time and effort expended by stakeholders when switching to a biosimilar.ConclusionsThis study proposes a number of strategic, practical, and overarching recommendations to support healthcare professionals and inform decision makers to improve the clinical use of biosimilars and the willingness of stakeholders to use them. The proposed solutions to fully realise the potential of biosimilars for healthcare systems and patients include developing practical switch guidance, being transparent about the gains from biosimilar use (and how savings are allocated), and developing a combination of non-tangible and tangible incentives for involved stakeholders.

Dataset Information

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

Publications

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets