Non-Persistence and Non-Adherence of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Therapy with GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Our main aim was to assess the level of persistence and adherence to therapy with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany, also by comparing once- (OD) with twice-a-day (BID) therapy. METHODS: We used two large retrospective datasets: a German claims dataset and the UK General Practitioner (GP)-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) dataset (2010-2012). All continuously insured T2DM patients with at least one outpatient/inpatient T2DM diagnosis were observed starting with the first prescription of a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Non-persistence (NP) was defined as treatment gap >90 days. Non-adherence (NA) was defined as medication possession ratio <80%, calculated during a period in which a patient continued therapy (no treatment gap >90 days) only. RESULTS: In the UK sample, 1905 T2DM patients started a treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists (mean age: 55.5 years, 47.2% female). In the German sample, 1627 T2DM patients started a treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists (mean age: 56.6 years, 51.4% female). Percentage of NP patients after 12 months was 29.5% in the UK and 36.4% in the German sample. In both countries, a BID treatment was associated with a higher probability to discontinue a treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists earlier than an OD treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.431 in UK and HR = 1.314 in Germany). The percentages of patients considered NA were 20.2%/20.0%/20.5% (all/OD/BID) for the UK sample, and 19.9%/19.2%/21.8% (all/OD/BID) for the German sample. CONCLUSION: NP and NA to treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists in both UK and Germany appear to be similar. Persistence to OD treatment is higher than to BID treatment in both the UK and Germany.

Epidemiology of urinary tract infections in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: An analysis based on a large sample of 456,586 German T2DM patients.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis was conducted to investigate urinary tract infection (UTI) incidence among Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Germany in a real-world setting and to identify risk factors associated with UTI incidence/recurrence. METHODS: Our cohort study was conducted based on an anonymized dataset from a regional German sickness fund (2010-2012). A UTI event was mainly identified through observed outpatient/inpatient UTI diagnoses. We reported the number of UTI events per 1000 patient-years. Furthermore, the proportion of patients affected by ≥1 and ≥2 UTI events in the observational period was separately reported. Finally, three multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that may be associated with UTI event risk or recurrent UTI event risk. RESULTS: A total of 456,586 T2DM-prevalent patients were identified (mean age 72.8years, 56.1% female, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 7.3). Overall, the UTI event rate was 87.3 events per 1000 patient-years (111.8/55.8 per 1000 patient-years for women/men (p<0.001)). The highest UTI event rates were observed for those aged >89years. After 730days after first observed T2DM diagnosis, the proportion of women/men still UTI-event-free was 80.9%/90.2% (p<0.001). Most important factors associated with UTI risk in our three models were older age (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.56-1.70 for >79years), female gender (HR=1.38-1.57), UTIs in the previous two years (HR=2.77-5.94), number of comorbidities as measured by the CCI (HR=1.32-1.52 for CCI>6) and at least one cystoscopy in the previous year (HR=2.06-5.48). Furthermore, high HbA1c values in the previous year (HR=1.29-1.4 referring to HbA1c>9.5%) and a poor kidney function (HR=1.11-1.211 referring to glomerular filtration rate (GFR)<60ml/min) increased the UTI event risk. DISCUSSION: Our study confirms that UTI event risk is high in T2DM patients. Older female patients having experienced previous UTIs face an above-average UTI risk, especially if these risk factors are associated with poor glycemic control and poor kidney function.

Effectiveness of sulphonylureas in the therapy of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We compared all-cause mortality, major macrovascular events (MACE) and diabetes-related hospitalizations in T2DM-incident patients newly treated with metformin (MET) versus sulphonylureas (SU) monotherapy and in T2DM-prevalent patients newly treated with MET+SU versus MET+DPP4-inhibitor combination therapy. METHODS: We analysed anonymized data obtained from a German health fund. Patients were included when they had started MET versus SU therapy or MET+SU versus MET+DPP4 therapy between 01/07/2010 and 31/12/2011. Observation started with the first MET/SU prescription or the first prescription of the second agent of a MET+SU/MET+DPP4 combination therapy. Follow-up time lasted until the end of data availability (a minimum of 12 months), death or therapy discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 434,291 T2DM-prevalent and 35,661 T2DM-incident patients were identified. Of the identified T2DM-incident patients, 904/7,874 started SU/MET monotherapy, respectively, with a mean age of 70.1/61.4 years (54.6/50.3 % female; Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 1.4/2.2; 933/7,350 observed SU/MET patient years). 4,157/1,793 SU+MET/DPP4+MET therapy starters had a mean age of 68.1/62.2 years (53.4/50.8 % female; CCI 2.8/2.6; 4,556/1,752 observed SU+MET/ DPP4+MET patient years). In a propensity score matched (PSM) comparison, the HRs (95 % CIs) associated with SU monotherapy compared to MET monotherapy exposure were 1.4 (0.9-2.3) for mortality, 1.4 (0.9-2.2) for MACE, 4.1 (1.5-10.9) for T2DM hospitalizations and 1.6 (1.2-2.3) for composite event risk. In a multivariable Cox regression model, SU monotherapy was associated with higher mortality (aHR 2.0; 1.5-2.6), higher MACE (aHR 1.3; 1.0-1.7) and higher T2DM hospitalizations (aHR 2.8; 1.8-4.4), which corresponded with a higher composite event risk (aHR 1.8; 1.5-2.1). No significant differences in event rates were observed in the PSM comparison between DPP4+MET/SU+MET combination therapy starters and in the multivariable Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that SU monotherapy may be associated with increased mortality, MACE and T2DM hospitalizations, compared to MET monotherapy. When considering SU therapy, the associated cardiovascular risk should also be taken into account.