Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Wei W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5347924 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression often results in treatment intensification with injectable therapy to maintain glycemic control. Using pilot data from the Initiation of New Injectable Treatment Introduced after Anti-diabetic Therapy with Oral-only Regimens study, real-world treatment patterns among T2DM patients initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine or liraglutide were assessed.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of claims from the OptumInsight™ (OI; January 1, 2010 to July 30, 2010) and HealthCore(®) (HC; January 1, 2010 to June 1, 2010) health insurance databases. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and costs were compared between adults with T2DM initiating injectable therapy with insulin glargine pen versus liraglutide. Follow-up outcomes, including glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, health care utilization, and costs, were assessed.ResultsAt baseline, almost one in three liraglutide patients (OI, n = 363; HC, n = 521) had A1C <7.0%, while insulin glargine patients (OI, n = 498; HC, n = 1,188) had poorer health status, higher A1C (insulin glargine: 9.8% and 9.1% versus liraglutide: 7.9% and 7.7%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.001), and were less likely to be obese (insulin glargine: 10.8% and 9.2% versus liraglutide: 17.4% and 18.8%, OI and HC, respectively, both P < 0.01). The percentage of patients experiencing a hypoglycemic event was numerically higher for insulin pen use for both cohorts (OI 4.4% versus 3.0%; HC 6.2% versus 2.3%). During follow-up, in the insulin glargine cohort, annualized diabetes-related costs remained unchanged ($8,344 versus $7,749 OI, and $7,094 versus $7,731 HC), despite a significant increase in pharmacy costs, due to non-significant decreases in medical costs, while the liraglutide cohort had a significant increase in annualized diabetes-related costs ($4,510 versus $7,731 OI, and $4,136 versus $7,111 HC; both P < 0.001) due to a non-significant increase in medical costs coupled with a significant increase in pharmacy costs.ConclusionThese descriptive data identified differences in demographic and baseline clinical characteristics among patients initiating injectable therapies. The different health care utilization and cost patterns warrant further cost-effectiveness analysis.

Project description:This study describes how health care providers approach canagliflozin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the real world.An Internet-based questionnaire was completed by 101 endocrinologists, 101 primary care physicians, and 100 nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NP/PAs). Health care providers were required to have experience prescribing or managing patients using canagliflozin to be included in the study. Health care providers compared canagliflozin with other T2DM medication classes on clinical characteristics, costs, and patient satisfaction. Confidence in canagliflozin was also measured. Health care providers reported their canagliflozin prescribing experience and good candidate characteristics for treatment. Finally, providers reported on patient outcomes among those receiving canagliflozin. All variables were compared across provider type.Health care providers reported higher favorability for canagliflozin for blood pressure and body weight compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and higher favorability for effect on blood pressure, body weight, treatment satisfaction, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) compared with sulfonylureas (SUs), with differences observed for effect on blood pressure. Health care providers reported being very/extremely confident (55%-74%) with canagliflozin as a second-to fourth-line treatment. The top 3 characteristics reported by the providers, in terms of describing a good candidate for canagliflozin, include those concerned about their weight, insurance coverage/affordability, and avoiding injectable treatments. Finally, providers reported often/always observing patients' lowering or controlling HbA1c (82%-88%) and improvement in overall quality of life (QoL; 50%-53%) with canagliflozin treatment. No differences were observed across provider type for confidence, good candidate characteristics, or patient outcomes.Health care providers reported favorable experiences with canagliflozin and witnessed improvements in patients' clinical outcomes and QoL.

Project description:BackgroundManaging diagnostic uncertainty is a major challenge in primary care due to factors such as the absence of definitive tests, variable symptom presentations and disease evolution. Maintaining patient trust during a period of investigative uncertainty, whilst minimising scope for diagnostic error is a challenge. Mismanagement can lead to diagnostic errors, treatment delays, and suboptimal patient outcomes.ObjectiveOur aim was to explore how UK primary care physicians (GPs) address and communicate diagnostic uncertainty in practice.DesignThis qualitative study used video and audio-recordings. Verbatim transcripts were coded with a modified, validated tool to capture GPs' actions and communication in primary care consultations that included diagnostic uncertainty. The tool includes items relating to advice regarding new symptoms or symptom deterioration (sometimes called 'safety netting'). Video data was analysed to identify GP and patient body postures during and after the delivery of the management plan.ParticipantsAll patient participants had a consultation with a GP, were over the age of 50 and had (1) at least one new presenting problem or (2) one persistent problem that was undiagnosed.ApproachData collection occurred in GP-patient consultations during 2017-2018 across 7 practices in UK during 2017-2018.Key resultsGPs used various management strategies to address diagnostic uncertainty, including (1) symptom monitoring without treatment, (2) prescribed treatment with symptom monitoring, and (3) addressing risks that could arise from administrative tasks. GPs did not make management plans for potential treatment side effects. Specificity of uncertainty management plans varied among GPs, with only some offering detailed actions and timescales. The transfer of responsibility for the management plan to patients was usually delivered rather than negotiated, with most patients confirming acceptance before concluding the discussion.ConclusionsWe offer guidance to healthcare professionals, improving awareness of using and communicating management plans for diagnostic uncertainty.

Project description:IntroductionPneumonia is among the most prevalent complications of influenza. The purpose of this study is to quantify the burden of pneumonia among hospitalized patients with influenza.MethodsReal-world retrospective data from 01JAN2014-30JUN2019 (study period) were obtained from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (2007-2020) for patients who had ≥ 1 diagnosis for influenza during the identification period and ≥ 1 all-cause inpatient visit within 1 day of diagnosis. Cases had ≥ 1 diagnosis claim for an influenza-related pneumonia within the 30 days after the initial influenza diagnosis date. Controls had no evidence of influenza-related pneumonia in the 30 days following the initial influenza diagnosis. Final 1:1 matching was determined using propensity score matching (PSM). Statistical significance between the cohorts was tested.ResultsAfter PSM, there were 4878 hospitalized patients with influenza in each of the case and control groups. During the index hospitalization, cases vs. controls had longer length of stay [Mean (standard deviation): 6.5 (8.3) vs. 1.9 (3.7)], greater intensive care unit (ICU) use (38.4 vs. 16.8%), and greater mechanical ventilation use (invasive: 11.4 vs. 2.3%; non-invasive: 6.8 vs. 2.6%) (all p < 0.001). Cases also had higher readmission rates than controls (12.3 vs. 3.5% within 30 days; 20.0 vs. 6.1% within 90 days; p < 0.001 for both). Post-index date direct all-cause healthcare costs were higher for cases than for controls (median total cost: $18,428 vs. $621 for 30 days; $21,774 vs. $3312 for 90 days; $25,960 vs. $8699 for 6 months; $35,875 vs. $21,619 for 1 year; all p < 0.001).ConclusionsPneumonia as a complication of influenza increases risk of mortality and leads to greater healthcare resource use and direct medical costs among patients hospitalized with influenza. These effects are seen early during the index hospitalization and within the first 30 days after diagnosis, but their impact continues throughout a year of follow-up.