Patient-reported outcome results in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD phase III clinical trial programme.

We evaluated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures from the Assessment of Weekly AdministRation of LY2189265 (dulaglutide) in Diabetes (AWARD) clinical trial programme for dulaglutide (1.5 mg and 0.75 mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP), Impact of Weight on Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL), Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite, EQ-5D, Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised and Adult Low Blood Sugar Survey were administered and analysed for changes from baseline in one or more AWARD studies. Significant within-group changes from baseline to the primary time point were observed for several PRO measures across all studies. Compared with insulin glargine, significantly greater improvements in the IW-SP score were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with both dulaglutide doses in the APPADL score. Both dulaglutide doses resulted in significantly greater improvement in DTSQ scores (all subscales) compared with exenatide. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg also resulted in significantly greater improvement on the DTSQ hyperglycaemia subscale compared with metformin. Overall, these PRO results suggest that dulaglutide is beneficial in the treatment of T2D.

Treatment satisfaction in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD-1 and AWARD-3 clinical trials.

AIMS: To compare treatment satisfaction among people with type 2 diabetes receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (a once-weekly, long-acting, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) with those receiving either exenatide or placebo (AWARD-1 study) or metformin (AWARD-3 study) over 52 weeks. METHODS: The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) were used to evaluate total treatment satisfaction and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: In the AWARD-1 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed in total DTSQs score for both dulaglutide doses (26 and 52 weeks) and exenatide (26 weeks). The improvement was significantly greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with placebo (26 weeks) and exenatide (26 and 52 weeks). The perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline. The improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses and exenatide compared with placebo at 26 weeks, and was also greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with exenatide at 26 and 52 weeks. The exenatide group had an increase in perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia at 26 and 52 weeks. In the AWARD-3 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed for total DTSQs scores in all groups at 26 and 52 weeks. Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline, and this improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with metformin at 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide was associated with improvements in treatment satisfaction and a decrease in perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia.

Is the current standard of care leading to cost-effective outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin? A long-term health economic analysis for the UK.

AIMS: The aim of the analysis was to investigate whether insulin intensification, based on the use of intensive insulin regimens as recommended by the current standard of care in routine clinical practice, would be cost-effective for patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: Clinical data were derived from a retrospective analysis of 3185 patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) general practice database. In total, 48% (614 patients) intensified insulin therapy, defined by adding bolus or premix insulin to a basal regimen, which was associated with a reduction in HbA1c and an increase in body mass index. Projections of clinical outcomes and costs (2011 GBP) over patients' lifetimes were made using a recently validated type 2 diabetes model. RESULTS: Immediate insulin intensification was associated with improvements in life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and time to onset of complications versus no intensification or delaying intensification by 2, 4, 6, or 8 years. Direct costs were higher with the insulin intensification strategy (due to the acquisition costs of insulin). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for insulin intensification were GBP 32,560, GBP 35,187, GBP 40,006, GBP 48,187 and GBP 55,431 per QALY gained versus delaying intensification 2, 4, 6 and 8 years, and no intensification, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with improved clinical outcomes, insulin intensification as practiced in the UK has a relatively high cost per QALY and may not lead to cost-effective outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes as currently defined by UK cost-effectiveness thresholds.