Prevalence and treatment patterns of adult atopic dermatitis in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

The prevalence of active atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults in the UK according to disease severity shows variability. This study evaluated disease prevalence and treatment patterns among the adult UK population with AD. Data were obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database. Adults with active AD were identified by an AD-related prescription or general practitioner visit within the same calendar year. Prevalence was defined as the number of patients with active AD on 1 January of each year as a percentage of the number of adults in the CPRD population on that date. Moderate-to-severe disease was classified as either referral to a specialist or prescription(s) for topical calcineurin inhibitors, phototherapy, or systemic treatment. Patient characteristics and treatment and referral patterns were analysed for patients with active AD in 2019. The overall prevalence of AD was stable at 2.4% per year during the period 2015-2019. In 2019, mean patient age (± standard deviation) was 52.6 ± 21.0 years, 58.2% of patients were female and mean disease duration was 9.4 ± 5.9 years. The most prescribed treatment was topical corticosteroids, in 78.5% of patients. 36.7% of patients with moderate-to-severe AD were prescribed systemic agents and 59.8% (vs. 32.3% of patients with mild AD) were referred to any secondary care or specialist treatment. The prevalence of active AD in the adult UK population was stable over the 5-year period (2015-2019) and was comparable to estimates from similar studies based on UK primary healthcare records.

Therapeutic inertia related to the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care.

AIMS: To determine the extent of therapeutic inertia related to the weekly injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the United Kingdom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with T2D who received their first primary care prescription of dulaglutide or semaglutide between January and July 2019 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database. Doses prescribed, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI) and concomitant T2D medications were assessed at first prescription and at 3, 6 and 9 months. RESULTS: Of the patients prescribed dulaglutide (N = 748; mean [SD] age 59.0 [11.2] years) and semaglutide (N = 437; mean [SD] age 58.4 [10.6] years), 93.0% and 89.0%, respectively, had an HbA1c level ≥7.5% (≥58.46 mmol/mol), and 56.4% and 54.9%, respectively, had an HbA1c level ≥9.0% (≥74.86 mmol/mol), at first prescription. At 6 to 9 months, 75.0% of those on dulaglutide 0.75 mg and 57.6% of those on semaglutide 0.25 mg or 0.5 mg had an HbA1c level ≥7.5% (≥58.46 mmol/mol). At 9 months, 21.9% of the dulaglutide cohort were on the suboptimal dose of 0.75 mg, and 46.1% of the semaglutide cohort were on the suboptimal doses of 0.25 mg or 0.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple examples of therapeutic inertia were identified, including first prescription at HbA1c levels considerably above target and failure to escalate to optimal doses even with evidence of suboptimal metabolic control. A substantial proportion of patients therefore did not achieve optimal HbA1c targets.

Burden of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Adults from France, Italy, and the UK: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Treatment Patterns.

INTRODUCTION: Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a significant disease burden, impacting sleep, quality of life, and treatment needs. The aim of this study was to characterize disease burden and treatment patterns for adults with moderate to severe AD in three European countries: France, Italy, and the UK. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of adult patients with moderate to severe AD in Europe used medical records and physician/patient survey data collected in August 2019 to April 2020. Demographic and baseline disease characteristics, information on current comorbidities, disease flares, and current and previous treatments were collected by the physician. Patient-perceived burden was assessed using patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, which were completed on a voluntary basis and included the following instruments: Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI). Disease severity was subjectively assessed by physicians and was based on their own definition of the terms mild, moderate, and severe. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The physician-reported sample included 912 patients with moderate to severe disease from France (n = 314), Italy (n = 309), and the UK (n = 289); approximately 30% of patients provided PRO data. Across these countries, 22-41% of patients reported current flares; mean POEM and DLQI scores were 10.6-13.1 and 9.5-11.1, respectively, indicating a high disease burden. However, systemic therapy use was low (e.g., conventional systemics were used by 18-24% of patients). Physician-assessed disease severity did not fully align with EASI scores, indicating that factors in addition to skin signs are impacting AD severity. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate to severe AD report significant disease burden, highlighting unmet treatment needs, particularly with respect to the underuse of systemic treatments despite AD being a systemic disease and the associated disease burden.

Cardiovascular risk profiles: A cross-sectional study evaluating the generalizability of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials REWIND, LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 to the real-world type 2 diabetes population in the United Kingdom.

AIMS: To determine the proportion of UK patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who meet the cardiovascular (CV) or combined CV/core eligibility criteria used for the CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of UK-marketed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) showing CV benefit (dulaglutide in REWIND, liraglutide in LEADER and injectable semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with T2D on/before June 2018 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data (Protocol 19_262). Patient CV and clinical data were evaluated against the CVOT eligibility criteria. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: The study cohort (N = 33 118 patients with T2D) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 66.0 (13.3) years and 56.6% were male. Almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the study cohort met the CV criteria for REWIND, versus 43.0% for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of the study cohort who met the CVOT criteria of "established CV disease" and "CV risk factors only" for REWIND were 22.4% and 42.1%, respectively, versus 38.7% and 4.3%, respectively, for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of patients satisfying both CV and core criteria were 44.4% for REWIND, 13.3% for LEADER and 13.5% for SUSTAIN-6. Study findings remained consistent when restricted to GLP-1RA users. CONCLUSIONS: REWIND captured a trial population more representative of the real-world T2D population in the United Kingdom than LEADER or SUSTAIN-6 with regard to both CV and combined CV/core eligibility criteria.

Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Benefit Descriptions on Diabetes Patients' Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences.

BACKGROUND: As more studies report on patient preferences for diabetes treatment, identifying diabetes outcomes other than glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to describe effectiveness is warranted to understand patient-relevant, benefit-risk tradeoffs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate how preferences differ when effectiveness (glycemic control) is presented as long-term sequela (LTS) risk mitigation rather than an asymptomatic technical marker (HbA1c). METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes and using insulin (n = 3160) were randomly assigned to four self-administered, discrete-choice experiments that differed by their presentation of effectiveness. Epidemiologic reviews were conducted to ensure a close approximation of LTS risk relative to HbA1c levels. The relative importance of treatment benefit-risk characteristics and maximum acceptable risk tradeoffs was estimated using an error-component logit model. Log-likelihood ratio tests were used to compare parameter vectors. RESULTS: In total, 1031 people responded to the survey. Significantly more severe hypoglycemic events were accepted for a health improvement in terms of LTS mitigation versus HbA1c improvement (0.7 events per year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-1.0 vs. 0.2 events per year 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.5) and avoidance of treatment-related heart attack risk (1.4 severe hypoglycemic events per year; 95% CI: 0.8-1.9 vs. 1 event per year; 95% CI: 0.6-1.3). This finding is supported by a log-likelihood test that rejected at the 0.05 level that respondent preference structures are similar across the different experimental arms of the discrete-choice experiment. CONCLUSION: We found evidence that benefit descriptions influence elicited preferences for the benefit-risk characteristics of injectable diabetes treatment. These findings argue for using carefully defined effectiveness measures to accurately take account of the patient perspective in benefit-risk assessments.

Treatment beliefs, health behaviors and their association with treatment outcome in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: While the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is growing, it is increasingly well recognized that treatment outcomes in primary care practice are often suboptimal. The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which treatment beliefs and health behaviors predict diabetes health outcome as measured by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, blood pressure, and lipid profile. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a large-scale cross-sectional, registry-based study involving a well-defined type 2 diabetes population, in the county of Funen, Denmark. Registry data were combined with a 27-item self-reported survey administered to all insulin-treated people in the registry (n=3160). The survey was constructed to operationalize key concepts of diabetes management, diabetes treatment beliefs, and health behaviors. RESULTS: In total, 1033 respondents answered the survey. The majority of treatment beliefs and health behaviors examined were predictors of glycemic control and, to a large extent, lipid profile. Absence from, or a low frequency of, self-measured blood glucose, non-adherence to general medical advice and the prescribed treatment, a low primary care utilization, and perceived low treatment efficacy were factors positively associated with HbA1c levels, s-cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein. Conversely, infrequent self-measured blood glucose was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having a blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg. Perceived low treatment efficacy was the only health belief associated with poorer levels of health outcome other than HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviors were stronger predictors for health outcomes than treatment beliefs. Self-reported adherence to either the treatment regimen or general medical advice most consistently predicted both glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors.

The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research.

BACKGROUND: The importance of understanding the perspective of patients towards their own care is increasingly recognized, both in clinical practice and in pharmaceutical drug development. Stated preference methods to assess the preference of patients towards different aspects of diabetes treatment have now been applied for over a decade. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, and to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical and policy decisions. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The information sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Current Contents, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit. RESULTS: Three contingent valuation studies and 11 discrete choice experiments were retrieved. The majority of studies were conducted from 2009 onwards, but some date back to 1998. The reasons provided for applying the stated preference methods were to help differentiate between products, or to enable inclusion of the patient's perspective in treatment decisions. The main aspects of treatment examined were related to glucose control, adverse events, and drug administration. The majority of patients preferred glucose control over avoiding minor hypoglycemic events. Patient willingness to pay was above $US100/month for glucose control, avoiding immediate health hazards such as nausea, and oral or inhaled drug administration. Preference towards drug administration was highly associated with previous experience with injectable diabetes medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions-from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage-is warranted.