Persistence with Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Effect on Clinical and Economic Outcomes: A Retrospective Claims Database Study.

BACKGROUND: Persistence with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) may be challenging for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). However, limited information is available regarding the effect of persistence with MDI on outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate persistence with basal and bolus insulin therapy and assess its relationship with clinical and economic outcomes in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study used 2012-2015 data from multiple U.S. commercial health plans (IBM MarketScan). Patients with T2DM aged 18-64 years with ≥ 2 basal and ≥ 2 bolus insulin claims during a 12-month period were eligible for inclusion if they had 18 months of continuous health plan enrollment (6-month baseline and 12-month post-index). Persistence during 12 months post-index was defined using 2 methods: (a) method 1, ≤ 90-day gaps in both basal and bolus insulin claims and (b) method 2, ≥ 1 basal and ≥ 1 bolus insulin claim every quarter (every 90 days) for 4 consecutive quarters after index bolus claim. Propensity score matching was used to match persistent and nonpersistent method 2 cohorts. Mean per-patient all-cause and diabetes-related medical costs (2015 U.S. dollars, excluding outpatient drugs) and health care resource use (HCRU) were calculated. For patients with hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values during baseline and post-index months 10-12, treatment success was defined as (a) A1c decrease from baseline of ≥ 1% and/or (b) baseline A1c ≥ 7% with post-index A1c < 7%. Baseline characteristics of matched cohorts were compared using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Outcome variables were compared using t-tests, chi-square tests, and generalized linear models. RESULTS: Characteristics of 12,882 eligible patients and 12-month persistence rates were similar as defined by method 1 (22.4%) and method 2 (21.1%). After matching, the method 2 cohorts included 2,723 and 8,169 persistent and nonpersistent patients, respectively, with well-balanced baseline characteristics (mean age 53 years; 58% men; all SMDs < 0.1). All-cause annual medical costs were lower for the persistent cohort (mean $13,499 vs. $17,362; P < 0.0001), as were annual diabetes-related costs (mean $6,392 vs. $8,376; P < 0.0001). In persistent versus nonpersistent cohorts, 11% versus 15% of patients, respectively, experienced ≥ 1 hospitalization; 21% versus 24%, respectively, had ≥ 1 ED visit; 9% versus 12%, respectively, experienced ≥ 1 diabetes-related hospitalization; and 13% versus 15%, respectively, had ≥ 1 diabetes-related ED visit (P ≤ 0.005 for all). Mean baseline A1c was similar in persistent and nonpersistent cohorts (9.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively; P = 0.63). Persistence with MDI was associated with greater mean reduction in A1c (-1.3% vs. -0.8%, respectively; P = 0.006) and greater percentages of patients achieving treatment success (55% vs. 39%, respectively, for nonpersistent; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Poor persistence with basal-bolus insulin therapy over 12 months of follow-up was prevalent and was associated with greater medical costs, greater HCRU, and poorer glycemic control than for patients who were persistent. Interventions are needed to improve persistence with insulin therapy and aid patients with T2DM to achieve glycemic control. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD). All authors except Edelman are employees and stockholders of BD. Edelman reports board membership at Senseonics and participation in advisory board/speakers bureau at Lilly USA, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Merck, and AstraZeneca, all unrelated to this study. A poster for this study was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2018; April 23-26, 2018; Boston MA.

Type 2 Diabetes in the Real World: The Elusive Nature of Glycemic Control.

Despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of over 40 new treatment options for type 2 diabetes since 2005, the latest data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that the proportion of patients achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) remains around 50%, with a negligible decline between the periods 2003-2006 and 2011-2014. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set reports even more alarming rates, with only about 40% and 30% of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) in the commercially insured (HMO) and Medicaid populations, respectively, again with virtually no change over the past decade. A recent retrospective cohort study using a large U.S. claims database explored why clinical outcomes are not keeping pace with the availability of new treatment options. The study found that HbA1c reductions fell far short of those reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with poor medication adherence emerging as the key driver behind the disconnect. In this Perspective, we examine the implications of these findings in conjunction with other data to highlight the discrepancy between RCT findings and the real world, all pointing toward the underrealized promise of FDA-approved therapies and the critical importance of medication adherence. While poor medication adherence is not a new issue, it has yet to be effectively addressed in clinical practice-often, we suspect, because it goes unrecognized. To support the busy health care professional, innovative approaches are sorely needed.

Estimated Cost-Effectiveness, Cost Benefit, and Risk Reduction Associated with an Endocrinologist-Pharmacist Diabetes Intense Medical Management "Tune-Up" Clinic.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 U.S. diabetes costs were estimated to be $245 billion, with $176 billion related to direct diabetes treatment and associated complications. Although a few studies have reported positive glycemic and economic benefits for diabetes patients treated under primary care physician (PCP)-pharmacist collaborative practice models, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an endocrinologist-pharmacist collaborative practice model treating complex diabetes patients versus usual PCP care for similar patients. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost benefit of a collaborative endocrinologist-pharmacist Diabetes Intense Medical Management (DIMM) "Tune-Up" clinic for complex diabetes patients versus usual PCP care from 3 perspectives (clinic, health system, payer) and time frames. METHODS: Data from a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) ≥ 8% who were referred to the DIMM clinic at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Health System were used for cost analyses against a comparator group of PCP patients meeting the same criteria. The DIMM clinic took more time with patients, compared with usual PCP visits. It provided personalized care in three 60-minute visits over 6 months, combining medication therapy management with patient-specific diabetes education, to achieve A1c treatment goals before discharge back to the PCP. Data for DIMM versus PCP patients were used to evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost benefit. Analyses included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at 6 months, 3-year estimated total medical costs avoided and return on investment (ROI), absolute risk reduction of complications, resultant medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 10 years. RESULTS: Base case ICER results indicated that from the clinic perspective, the DIMM clinic costs $21 per additional percentage point of A1c improvement and $115-$164 per additional patient at target A1c goal level compared with the PCP group. From the health system perspective, medical cost avoidance due to improved A1c was $8,793 per DIMM patient versus $3,506 per PCP patient (P = 0.009), resulting in an ROI of $9.01 per dollar spent. From the payer perspective, DIMM patients had estimated lower total medical costs, a greater number of QALYs gained, and appreciable risk reductions for diabetes-related complications over 2-, 5- and 10-year time frames, indicating that the DIMM clinic was dominant. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were robust, and overall conclusions did not change appreciably when key parameters (including DIMM clinic effectiveness and cost) were varied within plausible ranges. CONCLUSIONS: The DIMM clinic endocrinologist-pharmacist collaborative practice model, in which the pharmacist spent more time providing personalized care, improved glycemic control at a minimal cost per additional A1c benefit gained and produced greater cost avoidance, appreciable ROI, reduction in long-term complication risk, and lower cost for a greater gain in QALYs. Overall, the DIMM clinic represents an advanced pharmacy practice model with proven clinical and economic benefits from multiple perspectives for patients with T2DM and high medication and comorbidity complexity. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Preliminary versions of the study data were presented in abstract form at the American Pharmacists Association Annual Meeting & Exposition; March 27, 2015; San Diego, California, and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 21, 2016; San Francisco, California. Study concept and design were contributed by Hirsch, Bounthavong, and Edelman, along with Morello and Morreale. Arjmand, Ourth, Ha, Cadiz, and Zimmerman collected the data. Data interpretation was performed by Ha, Morreale, and Morello, along with Cadiz, Ourth, and Hirsch. The manuscript was written primarily by Hirsch and Zimmerman, along with Arjamand, Ourth, and Morello, and was revised by Hirsch and Cadiz, along with Bounthavong, Ha, Morreale, and Morello.

Development and Content Validity of the Statin Experience Assessment Questionnaire (SEAQ)©.

INTRODUCTION: The National Lipid Association Statin Intolerance (SI) Panel recognized the need for better understanding of the patient SI experience. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire to assess a patient's experience with SI. METHODS: Questionnaire development was informed via a series of research activities: literature review, concept elicitation, item generation, and content evaluation. Following the literature review and concept elicitation, a draft questionnaire was constructed and subsequently modified based on feedback from therapeutic area experts and patients via cognitive debriefing interviews. RESULTS: Muscle-related symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms associated with SI in the literature review (35 of 41 articles reviewed [85%]) and in semi-structured interviews with experts (n = 5 [100%]) and patients (n = 17 of 20 [85.0%]). Physical and other impacts of SI symptoms on daily activities were also frequently reported. A 17-item draft questionnaire was created, and cognitive debriefing with experts (n = 5) and patients (n = 15) was conducted. Overall, the items, response options, and instructions were comprehensible and positively reviewed; minor changes resulted in the 15-item Statin Experience Assessment Questionnaire (SEAQ)©. Using a 30-day recall period, the SEAQ© assesses the severity and impact of six SI symptoms (muscle ache, muscle pain, muscle cramps, muscle weakness, tiredness, and joint pain) on an 11-point numeric scale. Statin discontinuation and likelihood of discontinuation due to symptoms are assessed and scored on a yes/no and five-point verbal response scale, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SEAQ

Clinical Outcomes Associated With a Collaborative Pharmacist-Endocrinologist Diabetes Intense Medical Management "Tune Up" Clinic in Complex Patients.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies exist examining the impact of a short-term pharmacist-endocrinologist collaborative practice model on glycemic control in complex patients. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate outcomes associated with a PharmD-Endocrinologist Diabetes Intense Medical Management (DIMM) "tune up" clinic for complex patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 99 patients referred to DIMM clinic versus a comparator group of 56 primary care provider (PCP) patients meeting the same criteria (adult type 2 diabetes patients, glycosylated hemoglobin [A1C] ≥ 8%, follow-up visit within 6 months) in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. DIMM clinic used a short-term model that coupled personalized clinical care with real-time, patient-specific diabetes education during two to four 60-minute visits over 6 months. PCP patients received usual care. Primary outcome was mean A1C change after 6 months. Secondary measures included fasting blood glucose, lipids, blood pressure, weight, body mass index, and percentage of patients meeting goals. RESULTS: Patients in each group had an average of 8 and were taking 12 to 14 medications daily. Mean A1C (%) improvement in DIMM group was significantly greater at 6 months (-2.4 [SD = 2.1] vs -0.8 [SD = 1.7]; P < 0.001), than PCP group. Percentage meeting A1C goal levels (<7%, <8%, and <9%) was significantly greater at 3 and 6 months compared with baseline in the DIMM group (P < 0.001) versus (only <8%) at 3 and 6 months compared with baseline in PCP group. CONCLUSIONS: The DIMM clinic "tune up" model demonstrates a successful collaborative practice which helped complex diabetes patients achieve glycemic control in a 6-month period.

BIOSIMILARS AND NEW INSULIN VERSIONS.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with an overview of similar biologic products including biosimilars and new insulin versions available in the U.S. and of key issues associated with such products, including differences in manufacturing and regulatory approaches and their impact on clinical use. METHODS: We reviewed the relevant clinical and regulatory literature. RESULTS: Patent protections for many biologics including several insulin preparations have or will expire shortly. This opens the door for new insulin versions to enter the U.S. and global marketplace. The development, manufacturing, and approval process for similar biologic products is more complex than for generic versions of small molecules. Most similar biologic products in the U.S. will be submitted for approval under section 351(k), a newly created biosimilar regulatory pathway. However, some biologics, including new insulin versions, will be submitted via the existing 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. These regulatory pathways have implications for how such products may be labeled, how they may be dispensed, and how patients may perceive them. The immunogenicity of biologics can affect safety and efficacy and can be altered through subtle changes in manufacturing. With the arrival of new insulin versions, health care providers will need to understand the implications of interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, substitution, switching, and new delivery devices. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the above topics will be important as physicians, payers, and patients choose between similar versions of a reference listed biologic product.

The Impact of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia on Clinical and Cost-Related Issues in Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: This article provides an overview of the clinical and economic issues associated with hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Current research regarding hypoglycemia is comprehensively reviewed, with special emphasis on nocturnal hypoglycemia, as almost 50% of all severe hypoglycemic episodes occur at nighttime during sleep. Current findings on the economic and human burden of hypoglycemia are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Poor diabetes self-management leads to an increased risk for hypoglycemia and the development of long-term complications associated with poor glycemic control. Hypoglycemia is also associated with increased health care costs and resources required to treat hypoglycemic events, as well as personal financial costs and loss of productivity at school or work. In addition, fear, anxiety, and worry about hypoglycemic episodes are shown to interfere with patients' quality of life. Nocturnal hypoglycemia can cause a number of immediate clinical consequences, including convulsions, coma, and even death. Repeated long-term exposure to nocturnal hypoglycemia can blunt counterregulatory mechanisms that maintain glucose levels, leading to reduced cognitive function, impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure. Clinicians must be aware of the impact of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal hypoglycemia, so that they can prescribe appropriate glucose-lowering therapy and educate patients about the prevention and management of hypoglycemic events to reduce anxiety and improve quality of life.

A survey of blood glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: are recommendations from health care professionals being followed?

OBJECTIVE: To survey the self-reported use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), both insulin users (IUs) and non-insulin users (NIUs), in the United States and to examine: how often patients test; what SMBG instructions patients report receiving from their health care providers (HCPs); how the frequency of testing conforms with reported HCP recommendations for testing; and what is done with the results of testing. Differences between IUs and NIUs were also investigated. METHODS: A convenience sample of 886 T2DM participants at a series of one-day conferences across the United States completed a survey on current and recommended SMBG frequency, how SMBG results were used, and how HCPs reportedly talked about SMBG issues with the patient. IUs (65% of the sample) and NIUs (35%) were examined separately. RESULTS: IUs and NIUs reported testing significantly less frequently than was recommended (in both cases, p < 0.001), with wide variations within both groups. Many IUs (42%) and NIUs (50%) did not bring SMBG data regularly to medical visits, and 54% of IUs and 56% of NIUs did not respond regularly to out-of-range SMBG readings. HCPs were generally supportive and responsive to SMBG data. More frequent SMBG was associated with more regular HCP attention to SMBG records, for IUs (p = 0.02) and NIUs (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported SMBG use is common in T2DM, though frequency is lower than HCP recommendations. Wide variations in actual and recommended SMBG were observed. HCP support for SMBG is reportedly common, and is associated with greater SMBG frequency. While SMBG data can be valuable, recommendations are often not followed and data often goes unused by both HCPs and patients.

Continuous glucose monitoring health outcomes.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a new tool that has recently become available to people with diabetes. Properly designing and conducting trials in order to answer important questions regarding the clinical usefulness of CGM is very difficult and fraught with many confounding variables and unique challenges. Initial clinical trials using older technology using retrospective data analysis have not shown unequivocal benefit; however, more recent data using real-time CGM suggest significant improvements in important clinical outcomes such as hemoglobin A1c, time spent in the hypo- and hyperglycemic range, glucose variability, quality of life, and perceived value to physicians and patients. Additional variables such as age of the subject and duration of sensor use have important implications in defining the benefits of CGM in a heterogeneous population with diabetes. This review will present the most relevant recent literature and comment on the methodological difficulties that have made this field challenging.