Dataset Information

Characteristics Relating to Adherence and Persistence to Basal Insulin Regimens Among Elderly Insulin-Naive Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Pre-Filled Pens versus Vials/Syringes.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Previous studies have found higher rates of adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using insulin pens compared to vial and syringe administration; however, little evidence is available to support this observation in elderly patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective claims database analysis of a predominantly elderly Medicare Advantage with Prescription Drug (MAPD) insurance population consisting of 3172 insulin-naïve patients with T2DM who initiated basal insulin using pre-filled pens or vial and syringe ('vial'). The index date was defined by the first pharmacy claim for basal insulin. Adherence, measured as proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence were evaluated in a 12-month follow-up period using an adjusted days' supply. Multivariate regression analyses and a Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify characteristics associated with adherence and non-persistence, respectively, and compare findings between the pen and vial groups.

Results

The pen cohort was slightly younger than the vial cohort (69.4 vs. 70.1 years, respectively; P = 0.0338). Similar proportions of male patients (53.3% vs. 56.8%; P = 0.0529) occurred in both cohorts, and lower Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (4.4 vs. 5.0; P < 0.0001) was found for the pen cohort. Adjusted mean PDC was significantly higher in the pen cohort than the vial cohort (0.67 vs. 0.50; P < 0.001), as was mean MPR (0.75 vs. 0.57; P < 0.0001). Adjusted odds for adherence (PDC ≥ 80%) showed a positive association with use of an insulin pen (odds ratio = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.86-2.59). The adjusted risk of non-persistence (discontinuation) was significantly lower (58%) in the pen cohort relative to the vial cohort (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.38-0.45). Key limitations include assumptions related to accuracy and comprehensiveness of claims data, and specifically days' supply data used to measure insulin adherence.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that pen devices improved insulin therapy adherence in a primarily elderly MAPD population with T2DM.

Funding

Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

SUBMITTER: Slabaugh SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4679781 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have been the standard treatment for retinal diseases for almost two decades. These treatments are administered via intravitreal injection using single-use vials or prefilled syringes (PFS). In this systematic review, we evaluate health care resource use and clinical outcomes and experiences with PFS for intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF treatments.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2015 to February 8, 2024 to identify literature reporting outcomes regarding procedural efficiency, health care resource use, patient and clinician experiences, and safety for currently approved anti-VEGFs (ranibizumab, aflibercept, brolucizumab) administered using PFS. Comparators were vial-based injections of the same anti-VEGFs.ResultsA total of 36 publications met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic literature review; the majority were non-randomized studies, with a small number of reviews, case series, survey studies, and opinion articles. Publications reported that preparation times were significantly shorter for PFS (40.3-57.9 s) versus vials (ranibizumab, 62.8-98.0 s; aflibercept, 71.9-79.5 s), with no differences in product stability between PFS and vials. Clinicians expressed a preference for PFS and thought PFS were faster, easier to use, and had increased safety versus vials. Publications consistently reported significantly lower rates of endophthalmitis per injection with PFS versus vials (ranibizumab PFS, 0-0.02%; aflibercept PFS, 0.01-0.02%; ranibizumab vial, 0.02-0.05%; aflibercept vial, 0.02-0.06%). Four publications reported increased rates of transient vision loss after aflibercept PFS injection versus vial-based injection. No publications reported outcomes regarding health care resource use or patient experiences.ConclusionThe available literature supports the increased procedural efficiency of PFS versus vial-based intravitreal injection of anti-VEGFs. PFS are positively perceived by clinicians and have a safety benefit in the form of a decreased risk of endophthalmitis versus vials.

Project description:PurposeThis multicenter, randomized, crossover study compared preference, ease of use, acceptability, satisfaction, and safety of repeated subcutaneous (SC) self-administrations with prefilled pens and prefilled syringes delivering methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Patients and methodsThe study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01793259) enrolled 120 patients requiring initiation or intensification of MTX therapy for RA. Patients were randomized to receive the test drug, a prefilled pen (Metex(®) PEN/Metoject(®) PEN), or the reference drug, a prefilled syringe (Metex(®)/Metoject(®)), at doses of 15, 17.5, or 20 mg MTX SC once a week for 3 weeks. This was followed by receipt of the reference drug (prefilled syringe) or the test drug (prefilled pen) in a crossover design, with each patient serving as his/her own control. Questionnaires regarding patient preference, the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), and diaries regarding local tolerability were used to document outcomes.ResultsOverall patient preference for the MTX prefilled pen was 75% (P<0.0001). In a six-item questionnaire, 73% to 76% of the patients preferred the prefilled pen in relation to use, acceptability, and satisfaction, and 67% of the patients confirmed that it did not take much effort to overcome SC self-injection with the pen. The SIAQ showed no clinical differences, in any domain scores, between both devices. Overall patient attitude towards self-injection at baseline was positive, as was patient experience with both devices during the study. As well, 92% of physicians and study nurses indicated that they would recommend the MTX prefilled pen to patients for future MTX treatment. The formulations were generally well tolerated.ConclusionSC self-injection of MTX with a prefilled pen was generally preferred, by patients with RA, over a prefilled syringe with regard to use, acceptability, and satisfaction. This is supported by the strong appreciation of their attending study nurses and physicians, for its convenience.

Project description:IntroductionIdentification of subgroups of patients that may benefit most from certain treatment is important because individual treatment response varies due to multiple contributing factors. The present study used the subgroup identification based on the differential effect search (SIDES) algorithm to identify subgroups with different treatment responses to insulin intensification therapies.MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel study comparing prandial premixed therapy (PPT) to basal-bolus therapy (BBT). Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to PPT (insulin lispro mix 50/50 thrice daily with meals) or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime insulin lispro) insulin intensification therapies. The SIDES algorithm was used to identify the subgroups from at-goal patients [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) at the end of 24 weeks; n = 182] who could have benefitted from insulin intensification therapies.ResultsBaseline characteristics of overall at-goal patients were comparable between PPT and BBT groups. The SIDES algorithm identified patients with race other than Caucasian (i.e., African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) and baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) <8.89 mmol/L as a subgroup that could respond better to PPT relative to BBT than the overall at-goal patient population. In this identified subgroup population, the HbA1c mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline to endpoint in PPT and BBT groups were -2.27 (0.88)% versus -2.05 (0.75)%; p = 0.40, respectively; while in the overall at-goal patients, the HbA1c changes were -2.17 (0.79)% versus -2.34 (1.00)%; p = 0.19, respectively.ConclusionsThe preliminary results showed that the subgroup of patients with race other than Caucasian and FBG <8.89 mmol/L may respond better to premixed intensification therapy. This result provides some preliminary information for further investigation in prospective studies.FundingEli Lilly and Company.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT00110370.