Patient Adherence to Secondary Prevention Therapies After an Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Adherence to guideline-recommended, long-term secondary preventative therapies among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is fundamental to improving long-term outcomes. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide a broad synopsis of pertinent studies in a structured and comprehensive way regarding factors that influence patient adherence to medical therapy after ACS. METHODS: Relevant articles focusing on adherence to medical therapy after ACS were retrieved from the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases (search date, September 7, 2021). Studies were independently screened, and relevant information was extracted. FINDINGS: A total of 58 studies were identified by using the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Adherence to secondary prevention was moderate to low and steadily decreased over time. Nearly 30% of patients discontinued one or more medications within 90 days of their primary ACS, and adherence decreased to 50% to 60% at 1 year postdischarge. There were no major differences in adherence between drug classes. Factors influencing patient adherence can be broadly divided into 3 categories: patient related, health care system related, and disease related. Patients managed with percutaneous coronary interventions were more adherent to follow-up treatment than medically managed patients. Depression was reported as a major psychological factor that negatively affected adherence. Improved adherence was observed when higher levels of patient education and provider engagement were delivered during postdischarge follow-up, particularly when scheduled early. Notably, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower in hospitals with high 90-day medication adherence than those with moderate or low adherence. IMPLICATIONS: Patient nonadherence to guideline-recommended long-term pharmacologic secondary preventative therapies after ACS is multifactorial. A comprehensive multifaceted approach should be implemented to improve adherence and clinical outcomes. This approach should include key interventions such as early follow-up visits, high medication adherence at 90 days, patient engagement and education, and development of novel interventions that support the 3 broad categories influencing patient adherence as discussed in this review.

ApoA-I Infusion Therapies Following Acute Coronary Syndrome: Past, Present, and Future.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The elevated adverse cardiovascular event rate among patients with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) formed the basis for the hypothesis that elevating HDL-C would reduce those events. Attempts to raise endogenous HDL-C levels, however, have consistently failed to show improvements in cardiovascular outcomes. However, steady-state HDL-C concentration does not reflect the function of this complex family of particles. Indeed, HDL functions correlate only weakly with serum HDL-C concentration. Thus, the field has pivoted from simply raising the quantity of HDL-C to a focus on improving the putative anti-atherosclerotic functions of HDL particles. Such functions include the ability of HDL to promote the efflux of cholesterol from cholesterol-laden macrophages. Apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I), the signature apoprotein of HDL, may facilitate the removal of cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque, reduce the lesional lipid content and might thus stabilize vulnerable plaques, thereby reducing the risk of cardiac events. Infusion of preparations of apoA-I may improve cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC). This review summarizes the development of apoA-I therapies, compares their structural and functional properties and discusses the findings of previous studies including their limitations, and how CSL112, currently being tested in a phase III trial, may overcome these challenges. RECENT FINDINGS: Three major ApoA-I-based approaches (MDCO-216, CER-001, and CSL111/CSL112) have aimed to enhance reverse cholesterol transport. These three therapies differ considerably in both lipid and protein composition. MDCO-216 contains recombinant ApoA-I Milano, CER-001 contains recombinant wild-type human ApoA-I, and CSL111/CSL112 contains native ApoA-I isolated from human plasma. Two of the three agents studied to date (apoA-1 Milano and CER-001) have undergone evaluation by intravascular ultrasound imaging, a technique that gauges lesion volume well but does not assess other important variables that may relate to clinical outcomes. ApoA-1 Milano and CER-001 reduce lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) activity, potentially impairing the function of HDL in reverse cholesterol transport. Furthermore, apoA-I Milano can compete with and alter the function of the recipient's endogenous apoA-I. In contrast to these agents, CSL112, a particle formulated using human plasma apoA-I and phosphatidylcholine, increases LCAT activity and does not lead to the malfunction of endogenous apoA-I. CSL112 robustly increases cholesterol efflux, promotes reverse cholesterol transport, and now is being tested in a phase III clinical trial. Phase II-b studies of MDCO-216 and CER-001 failed to produce a significant reduction in coronary plaque volume as assessed by IVUS. However, the investigation to determine whether the direct infusion of a reconstituted apoA-I reduces post-myocardial infarction coronary events is being tested using CSL112, which is dosed at a higher level than MDCO-216 and CER-001 and has more favorable pharmacodynamics.

Efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide in key patient subgroups from the BALANCE randomized trial, stratified by pre-diabetes status, BMI, and age at baseline.

INTRODUCTION: Efpeglenatide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist being developed to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the BALANCE 205 study (NCT02075281), efpeglenatide significantly reduced body weight versus placebo in patients with obesity, or overweight with comorbidities, and without T2D. These subanalyses explore the efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide in subgroups of patients with pre-diabetes and stratified by body mass index (BMI) or age from the BALANCE study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The 20-week BALANCE study randomized patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 or ≥27 kg/m2 with comorbidities, and without diabetes, to efpeglenatide 4 mg or 6 mg once weekly, 6 mg or 8 mg once every 2 weeks, or placebo. For these subanalyses, patients were stratified by pre-diabetes status (glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7%-6.4% (39-46 mmol/mol) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100-125 mg/dL) and by BMI or age < or ≥ median values (34.9 kg/m2 and 44 years, respectively) at baseline. RESULTS: In patients with pre-diabetes at baseline, all efpeglenatide doses led to greater proportions of patients reverting to normoglycemia (40.6%-64.3%) versus placebo (10.0%), and greater reductions in HbA1c (0.30%-0.38%), FPG (7.7-14.1 mg/dL), and weight (5.6-7.3 kg) versus placebo (nominal p<0.05 for all). In patients with BMI or age < or ≥ median, greater reductions in weight were observed with all efpeglenatide doses versus placebo (nominal p<0.01 for all). The most common adverse events in patients receiving efpeglenatide across patient subgroups were gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the overall BALANCE population and suggest beneficial effects of efpeglenatide on glycemic control and body weight regardless of pre-diabetes status, age, or BMI at baseline. The effects of efpeglenatide on glycemic control in patients with pre-diabetes suggest it might help reduce the likelihood of at-risk patients developing diabetes.

Cholesterol Efflux Capacity and Its Association With Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular disease events. Yet, emerging evidence suggests that it is the functional properties of HDL, in particular, reverse cholesterol transport, which is a key protective mechanism mediating cholesterol removal from macrophage cells and reducing plaque lipid content. Cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) measures the capacity of HDL to perform this function. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to explore the association of CEC and adverse cardiovascular events. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to September 2019 was performed for all studies that examined the association between CEC and cardiovascular outcomes. The primary outcome was adverse cardiovascular events, which were inclusive of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or mortality. Results: A total of 20 trials were included. Compared with low CEC levels, high CEC levels were associated with a 37% lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events (crude RR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < 0.00001). Every SD increase of CEC was associated with a 20% lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97; P = 0.02). The association remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors, medications, and HDL-C levels (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91; P = 0.004). A significant CEC-endpoint relationship was observed (P = 0.024) such that for every 0.1 unit increase in CEC, there was a 5% reduced risk for adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99). Conclusions: Higher CEC is associated with lower adverse cardiovascular outcomes. These findings warrant further research on whether CEC is merely a biomarker or a mechanism that could be targeted as a pharmacologic intervention for improving clinical outcomes. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020146681; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Development and validation of a predictive model algorithm to identify anaphylaxis in adults with type 2 diabetes in U.S. administrative claims data.

PURPOSE: To use medical record adjudication and predictive modeling methods to develop and validate an algorithm to identify anaphylaxis among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in administrative claims. METHODS: A conventional screening algorithm that prioritized sensitivity to identify potential anaphylaxis cases was developed and consisted of diagnosis codes for anaphylaxis or relevant signs and symptoms. This algorithm was applied to adults with T2D in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD) from 2016 to 2018. Clinical experts adjudicated anaphylaxis case status from redacted medical records. We used confirmed case status as an outcome for predictive models developed using lasso regression with 10-fold cross-validation to identify predictors and estimate the probability of confirmed anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Clinical adjudicators reviewed medical records with sufficient information from 272 adults identified by the anaphylaxis screening algorithm, which had an estimated Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%-71%). The predictive model algorithm had a c-statistic of 0.95. The model's probability threshold of 0.60 excluded 89% (84/94) of false positives identified by the screening algorithm, with a PPV of 94% (95% CI: 91%-98%). The model excluded very few true positives (15 of 178), and identified 92% (95% CI: 87%-96%) of the cases selected by the screening algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive modeling techniques yielded an accurate algorithm with high PPV and sensitivity for identifying anaphylaxis in administrative claims. This algorithm could be considered in future safety studies using similar claims data to reduce potential outcome misclassification.

Advancing therapy with iGlarLixi versus premix BIAsp 30 in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: Design and baseline characteristics of the SoliMix randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Premix insulin is commonly used in some regions of the world, despite the higher risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain compared with basal insulin, based on the premise that it offers a simplified insulin regimen. iGlarLixi is a once-daily titratable fixed-ratio formulation that combines basal insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and the GLP-1 RA, lixisenatide, which offers a single-injection option for treatment intensification, with improved HbA1c reductions, similar hypoglycaemia risk and more favourable bodyweight profiles over iGlar alone. This randomized controlled study directly compares, for the first time, treatment intensification with iGlarLixi versus premix insulin analogue biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in adults with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin in combination with one or two oral antihyperglycaemic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, active-controlled, comparative, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b study. In total, 887 adults with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin were randomized to switch to either iGlarLixi once daily, or BIAsp 30 twice daily, for 26 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 887 participants were enrolled (mean age 59.8 years, 50.2% female) from 89 centres in 17 countries. At baseline, 65.6% had a duration of T2D of 10 years or longer, and the mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The study directly compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and one or more oral antihyperglycaemic agents. These results provide robust clinical data that may inform clinicians in their therapeutic management of people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin requiring additional therapy.

Gastrointestinal adverse events with insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis.

AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are the recommended first injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes. However, long-term persistence is suboptimal and partly attributable to gastrointestinal tolerability, particularly during initiation/escalation. Gradual titration of fixed-ratio combination GLP-1 RA/insulin therapies may improve GLP-1 RA gastrointestinal tolerability. We compared gastrointestinal adverse event (AE) rates for iGlarLixi versus GLP-1 RAs during the first 12 weeks of therapy, including a sensitivity analysis with IDegLira. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PICO framework was used to identify studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL searches using a proprietary, web-based, standardized tool with single data extraction. Gastrointestinal AEs were modelled using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), using fixed and random effects for each recommended dose (treatment-specific NMA) and class (drug-class NMA). RESULTS: Treatment-specific NMA included 17 trials (n = 9030; 3665 event-weeks). Nausea rates were significantly lower with iGlarLixi versus exenatide 10 µg twice daily (rate ratio: 0.32; 95% credible interval: 0.15, 0.66), once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg (0.35; 0.24, 0.50) and liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (0.48; 0.23, 0.98). Rates were numerically, but not statistically, lower versus once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg (0.60; 0.30, 1.23) and dulaglutide 1.5 mg (0.60; 0.29, 1.26), and numerically, but not statistically, higher versus once-weekly exenatide (1.91; 0.91, 4.03). Sensitivity analysis results were similar. In a naïve, pooled analysis, vomiting was lower with iGlarLixi versus other GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 12 weeks of treatment, iGlarLixi was generally associated with less nausea and vomiting than single-agent GLP-1 RAs. Enhanced gastrointestinal tolerability with fixed-ratio combinations may favour treatment persistence.

Effectiveness of premixed insulin to achieve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective UK cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of premixed insulin for achieving glycaemic outcomes in clinical practice in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical record data from The Health Improvement Network database were captured for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled (HbA1c ≥9%) on two or more oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) initiating premixed insulin. Effectiveness of premixed insulin was assessed by the probability and incidence of achieving glycaemic outcomes (target HbA1c <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol] and a ≥1% or ≥2% HbA1c reduction) over 24 months. RESULTS: Data from 974 participants (mean age 62 years; 56% male; 52% obese or extremely obese; mean HbA1c 11.3% [100 mmol/mol]; hypertension 64%, dyslipidaemia 23% and nephropathy 21%) were analysed. The probability of achieving HbA1c <7.5% was highest during months 3-6 (18.2%), while the cumulative probability of achieving this target plateaued between months 15-24 (15.7%-16.0%). Incidence of achieving all glycaemic outcomes plateaued after 12 months and differed by baseline HbA1c, but not OAD use. Factors affecting some glycaemic outcomes included a body mass index >40 kg/m2 and co-morbidities including nephropathy and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In people with uncontrolled T2D (HbA1c ≥9%), glycaemic outcome achievement on premixed insulin was low at 6 months with little additional clinical benefit beyond 12 months, suggesting a high unmet need for early, timely treatment changes with more effective, simpler therapies.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegLira in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was -0.36 (95% credible intervals -0.58, -0.14) % [-3.9 (-6.3, -1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%). CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Understanding Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation, Attitudes and Education Needs Among People Who Discontinue Type 2 Diabetes Treatment: Results from an Online Patient Survey in the USA and UK.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires long-term treatment to achieve and maintain glycaemic control; however, up to 50% of people with T2DM discontinue treatment by 1 year. It is therefore important to understand the patient perspective of therapeutic adherence and persistence. METHODS: An online questionnaire was presented to people with T2DM in the USA and UK on PatientLive®, a platform of Carenity, an online patient community. Those who discontinued at least one T2DM treatment within the last 6 months answered open-ended questions aimed to assess the reasons for discontinuation, how discontinuation could have been prevented, and what would have improved the experience with the discontinued treatment. Thematic qualitative analysis was performed on respondents' answers to these questions. RESULTS: Oral antidiabetics were the most commonly discontinued treatments (93/161), followed by insulin (40/161) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (13/161). Main reasons for treatment discontinuation overall were side effects (57/161), mostly gastrointestinal side effects and weight gain. The second most reported reason was drug efficacy issues (42/161). Key factors stated to prevent discontinuation were an improved care pathway (45/161) and more efficacious treatments with fewer side effects (41/161). In the USA, treatment cost played an important role in discontinuation (14/89) and discontinuation prevention (12/89). More information about T2DM and associated treatments (56/161), help with T2DM management (24/161), and increased and informative patient-physician interaction (12/161) would have been helpful for many respondents in both countries, while some patients noted that no additional information would have been useful to improve their understanding and experience with their T2DM treatment (64/161). CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasise the need for focused medical education and improved communication to enhance patient experience and prevent treatment discontinuation. Understanding of attributes preferred by people with T2DM can help improve therapeutic adherence and outcomes with current medications, and guide development of future therapies.

Evaluating glycaemic control in patients poorly controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs in real-world setting: Results from assessing the Appropriate Timing of Type 2 diAbetes INtensification (ATTAIN).

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) fail to achieve glycaemic control despite recommended treatment strategies to reduce glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). This real-world retrospective cohort study compared HbA1c change and treatment patterns between those intensifying and not intensifying therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients suboptimally controlled on OADs (>58 mmol/mol [>7.5%] or >64 mmol/mol [>8.0%] for high risk, index 1) were included from IQVIA Medical Research Data. Intensifiers within 12 months of index 1 were matched (1:1) to nonintensifiers. Primary outcomes were HbA1c change and proportion of participants achieving HbA1c targets 6 and 12 months post-index 2 (date of intensification [intensifiers] or pseudodate [nonintensifiers]). Therapy adherence was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 10 832 participants (5539 intensifiers and 5293 nonintensifiers) were included. Mean HbA1c decrease from baseline to 6 months was -1.13% (intensifiers) vs -0.75% (nonintensifiers), with no substantial further change at 12 months. Cox proportional hazards (PH) analysis suggested a nearly 20% greater chance of target achievement at 6 months for intensifiers vs nonintensifiers (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.86]), which was similar at 12 months (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.74-0.86]). Intensifiers tended towards greater adherence to baseline therapy (90% [standard deviation (SD): 14.9] vs nonintensifiers 87% [SD: 16.0]), which decreased following intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in HbA1c were evident at 6 months and were greater in intensifiers vs nonintensifiers. Little additional clinical benefit was seen 12 months postintensification. Despite good treatment adherence, many participants failed to achieve target HbA1c; actions beyond improved adherence are needed to improve suboptimal HbA1c.

Achievement of glycaemic control is associated with improvements in lipid profile with iGlarLixi versus iGlar: A post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-L trial.

Diabetic dyslipidaemia is a major risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis. Glycaemic treatments that improve dyslipidaemia may help reduce the burden of atherosclerosis. This analysis investigated the effect of iGlarLixi [insulin glargine U100 (iGlar) and lixisenatide] versus iGlar on lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin. Data from LixiLan-L were used to estimate changes in fasting lipid levels from baseline to week 30, overall and in patients stratified by achievement of glycaemic targets {2-hour postprandial glucose [≤10, >10 mmoL/L], fasting plasma glucose [≤6.1, >6.1 mmoL/L], HbA1c [≤7, >7% (≤53, >53 mmol/mol)]}. At week 30, median percentage change in triglycerides remained nearly unchanged (0.3% increase) with iGlarLixi versus a 6.5% increase with iGlar (P = 0.035; overall); similarly, trends towards better total and LDL cholesterol levels were observed with iGlarLixi versus iGlar. In patient subgroups achieving glycaemic targets, all lipid variables except for HDL cholesterol improved with iGlarLixi but not with iGlar. In summary, patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin showed improved fasting lipid profiles with iGlarLixi compared with iGlar, particularly when achieving glycaemic targets.

Evaluating Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled on Basal Insulin: UK ATTAIN Real-World Study.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective, observational cohort study evaluated the effect of therapy intensification on change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 6 and 12 months post intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled on basal insulin (BI) (i.e., HbA1c ≥ 7.5% [≥ 58 mmol/mol]). METHODS: Patients with T2D with suboptimal glycemic control using BI were identified from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Patients who underwent therapy intensification (intensifiers) within 12 months of index 1 (the date of the first incidence of suboptimally controlled HbA1c) were matched (1:1) to patients who did not intensify therapy (non-intensifiers). Index 2 was the date of therapy intensification for intensifiers, or a pseudo date for non-intensifiers that resulted in the same duration from index 1 to index 2 as their matched intensifier patient. Primary outcomes were HbA1c change and proportion of patients achieving the HbA1c target at 6 and 12 months post index 2. RESULTS: A total of 1342 patients (n = 646 intensifiers; n = 696 non-intensifiers) were included in the analysis. At post index 2, mean HbA1c change was substantially greater at 6 months for intensifiers than for non-intensifiers (- 0.81% vs. - 0.35%), with no additional benefit at 12 months (- 0.81% vs. - 0.49%, respectively). Compared with non-intensifiers, a greater proportion of intensifiers achieved target HbA1c at 6 months (25.1% vs. 18.8%) and at 12 months (33.4% vs. 28.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Many real-world patients with T2D suboptimally controlled with BI do not have their therapy intensified. The results of this study suggest that in this patient population, therapy intensification achieves significant reductions in HbA1c at 6 months post intensification, with little additional clinical benefit at 12 months. This suggests that, for patients who fail to achieve their glycemic targets at 6 months, since no meaningful additional clinical benefit is observed at 12 months when continuing the same therapy, further therapy intensification or change should be promptly considered. FUNDING: This study and the Rapid Service Fees were funded by Sanofi. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 17THIN068.

Clinical implications of prolonged hyperglycaemia before basal insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes patients: An electronic medical record database analysis.

AIMS: To assess the effect of duration of hyperglycaemia before basal insulin (BI) initiation on clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T2D who initiated BI during 2009-2013, had continuous enrolment for ≥2 years preceding and ≥1 year following BI initiation ("index date"), and had ≥1 glycated haemoglobin (A1C) measure not at target (ie, ≥7.0%) within 6 months preindex date were included in the study. Patients were stratified by preindex-date duration of A1C ≥7.0%. Longitudinal A1C, weight, BMI, and diabetes medication were compared between cohorts for up to 15-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of 37 053 patients who initiated BI, 40.7%, 15.3%, 16.0%, and 28.0%, respectively, had uncontrolled A1C for <6, 6-<12, 12-<18 and 18-24 months preindex date. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Baseline A1C values were similar across cohorts (9.2%-9.6%). Mean follow-up A1C values were higher with longer preindex-date duration of uncontrolled A1C (8.0 ± 1.7%, 8.2 ± 1.6%, 8.5 ± 1.7%, and 8.6 ± 1.7% for <6, 6-<12, 12-<18, and 18-24 months); attainment of A1C <7.0% worsened with increasing preindex-date duration of A1C ≥7.0% (29.6%, 20.0%, 14.6%, and 11.5% for <6, 6-<12, 12-<18, and 18-24 months). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that longer duration of uncontrolled A1C before BI initiation increases the risk of not reaching glycaemic targets. However, target attainment was poor in all cohorts, highlighting inadequate glycaemic control as an important unmet need in US patients with T2D.

Probability of Achieving Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Practice in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Basal insulin (BI) plays an important role in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially when oral antidiabetic (OAD) medications are insufficient for glycemic control. We conducted a retrospective, observational study using electronic medical records (EMR) data from the IBM® Explorys database to evaluate the probability of achieving glycemic control over 24 months after BI initiation in patients with T2D in the USA. METHODS: A cohort of 6597 patients with T2D who started BI following OAD(s) and had at least one valid glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result recorded both within 90 days before and 720 days after BI initiation were selected. We estimated the changes from baseline in HbA1c every 6 months, the quarterly conditional probabilities of reaching HbA1c < 7% if a patient had not achieved glycemic control prior to each quarter (Q), and the cumulative probability of reaching glycemic control over 24 months. RESULTS: Our cohort was representative of patients with T2D who initiated BI from OADs in the USA. The average HbA1c was 9.1% at BI initiation, and decreased robustly (1.5%) in the first 6 months after initiation with no further reductions thereafter. The conditional probability of reaching glycemic control decreased rapidly in the first year (26.6% in Q2; 17.6% in Q3; 8.6% in Q4), and then remained low (≤ 6.1%) for each quarter in the second year. Cumulatively, about 38% of patients reached HbA1c < 7% in the first year; only approximately 8% more did so in the second year. CONCLUSION: Our study of real-world data from a large US EMR database suggested that among patients with T2D who initiated BI after OADs, the likelihood of reaching glycemic control diminished over time, and remained low from 12 months onwards. Additional treatment options should be considered if patients do not reach glycemic control within 12 months of BI initiation. FUNDING: Sanofi Corporation.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Attributes Important to Injection-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multinational Preference Study.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) differ in efficacy, side effects, dosing frequency, and device-related attributes. This study assessed the relative importance of treatment-related attributes in influencing preferences for GLP-1RAs among injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Injection-naïve T2DM patients from five countries completed a Web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between hypothetical treatment profiles reflecting important and differentiating attributes of GLP-1RAs. Eight attributes were included: efficacy, side effects, device size, needle size, titration, preparation, evidence of long-term efficacy/safety, and dosing frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a conditional logit model to indicate the likelihood of choosing a treatment with a given attribute level versus a reference attribute level. The influence of individual attributes when considering full treatment profiles was examined using exenatide once weekly (QW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) as case examples. RESULTS: A total of 1482 patients with T2DM completed the DCE survey. Side effects, efficacy, and dosing frequency were the three most important attributes influencing preferences; needle size, device size, and required preparation were least important. Total sample analysis indicated that a profile of GLP-1RA approximating exenatide QW (single pen) was preferred over a profile approximating liraglutide QD (OR 3.36; p < 0.001), when efficacy was assumed to be equal. CONCLUSION: The most influential drivers of treatment preferences for a hypothetical GLP-RA profile were side effects, efficacy, and dosing frequency among injection-naïve T2DM patients. Preference elicitation can promote patient-centered care and inform new generations of T2DM treatments, which can lead to improved adherence and health outcomes.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Attributes Important to Injection-Experienced Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Preference Study in Germany and the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the relative importance of treatment-related attributes in influencing patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) among injection-experienced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Germany and the United Kingdom. METHODS: T2DM patients experienced with injecting once-weekly (QW) exenatide or once-daily (QD) liraglutide completed an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between hypothetical blinded treatment profiles reflecting attributes of GLP-1RAs. The DCE survey included eight attributes: efficacy, side effects, device size, needle size, titration, injection preparation, long-term efficacy/safety, and dosing frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a conditional logit model indicating the likelihood of choosing a treatment with a given attribute level versus a reference attribute level. RESULTS: 510 GLP-1RA injection-experienced patients completed the survey; 45.3% respondents were being treated with exenatide QW and 54.7% respondents were being treated with liraglutide QD. In terms of GLP-1RA attributes, patients indicated a preference for a treatment with greater efficacy (i.e., a 1.5-point improvement in HbA1c) (OR 2.58; 95% CI 2.37, 2.80; p < 0.001), fewer side effects (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.52, 2.82; p < 0.001), once-weekly rather than once-daily administration (OR 2.26; 95% CI 2.13, 2.39; p < 0.001), and the preparation required for a multi-use pen (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.55, 1.88; p < 0.001). Needle size, device size, and titration were not significant drivers of patient preference. CONCLUSIONS: Among GLP-1RA injection-experienced patients, key drivers of treatment preference for a hypothetical GLP-RA profile were side effects, efficacy, dosing frequency, and required preparation. Understanding patient preferences is important for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving treatment adherence. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A Network Meta-analysis Comparing Exenatide Once Weekly with Other GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Exenatide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is limited direct evidence comparing the efficacy and tolerability of exenatide 2 mg once weekly (QW) to other GLP-1 RAs. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to estimate the relative efficacy and tolerability of exenatide QW versus other GLP-1 RAs for the treatment of adults with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide) at approved doses in the United States/Europe, added on to metformin only and of 24 ± 6 weeks treatment duration. A Bayesian NMA was conducted. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were included in the NMA. Exenatide QW obtained a statistically significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) relative to lixisenatide 20 µg once daily. No other comparisons of exenatide QW to other GLP-1 RAs were statistically significant for change in HbA1c. No statistically significant differences in change in weight, systolic blood pressure, risk of nausea or discontinuation due to adverse events were observed for exenatide QW versus other GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSION: Exenatide QW demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability compared to other GLP-1 RAs, for the treatment of T2DM in adults inadequately controlled on metformin alone.