The Impact of Hypoglycemia on Productivity Loss and Utility in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Insulin in Real-world Canadian Practice: Protocol for a Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) imposes a substantial burden owing to its increasing prevalence and life-threatening complications. In patients who do not achieve glycemic targets with oral antidiabetic drugs, the initiation of insulin is recommended. However, a serious concern regarding insulin is drug-induced hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia is known to affect quality of life and the use of health care resources. However, health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) data for economic modelling are limited, particularly regarding utility values and productivity losses. OBJECTIVE: This real-world prospective study aims to assess the impact of hypoglycemia on productivity and utility in insulin-treated adults with T2DM from Ontario and Quebec, Canada. METHODS: This noninterventional, multicenter, 3-month prospective study will recruit patients from 4 medical clinics and 2 endocrinology or diabetes clinics. Patients will be identified using appointment lists and enrolled through consecutive sampling during routinely scheduled consultations. To be eligible, patients must be aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with T2DM, and treated with insulin. Utility and productivity will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire, respectively. Questionnaires will be completed 4, 8, and 12 weeks after recruitment. Generalized estimating equation models will be used to investigate productivity losses and utility decrements associated with incident hypoglycemic events while controlling for individual patient characteristics. A total of 500 patients will be enrolled to ensure the precision of HEOR estimates. RESULTS: This study is designed to fill a gap in the Canadian evidence on the impact of hypoglycemia on HEOR outcomes. More specifically, it will generate productivity and utility inputs for the economic modeling of T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin therapy is expensive, and hypoglycemia is a significant component of economic evaluation. Robust HEOR data may help health technology assessment agencies in future reimbursement decision-making. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/35461.

Real-world evidence: a practical toolbox for collecting health state utilities.

Health state utilities (HSU) data collected in real-world evidence studies are at risk of bias. Although numerous guidance documents are available, practical advice to avoid bias in HSU studies is limited. Thus, the objective of this article was to develop a concise toolbox intended for investigators seeking to collect HSU in a real-world setting. The proposed toolbox builds on existing guidance and provides practical steps to help investigators perform good quality research. The toolbox aims at increasing the credibility of HSU data for future reimbursement decision making.

Review of real-world evidence studies in type 2 diabetes mellitus: Lack of good practices.

OBJECTIVES: Unlike randomized controlled trials, lack of methodological rigor is a concern about real-world evidence (RWE) studies. The objective of this study was to characterize methodological practices of studies collecting pharmacoeconomic data in a real-world setting for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using the PICO framework: population consisted of T2DM patients, interventions and comparators were any intervention for T2DM care or absence of intervention, and outcomes were resource utilization, productivity loss or utility. Only RWE studies were included, defined as studies that were not clinical trials and that collected de novo data (no retrospective analysis). RESULTS: The literature search identified 1,158 potentially relevant studies, among which sixty were included in the literature review. Many studies showed a lack of transparency by not mentioning the source for outcome and exposure measurement, source for patient selection, number of study sites, recruitment duration, sample size calculation, sampling method, missing data, approbation by an ethics committee, obtaining patient's consent, conflicts of interest, and funding. A significant proportion of studies had poor quality scores and was at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: RWE from T2DM studies lacks transparency and credibility. There is a need for good procedural practices that can increase confidence in RWE studies. Standardized methodologies specifically adapted for RWE studies collecting pharmacoeconomic data for the management of T2DM could help future reimbursement decision making in this major public health problem.