Greater persistence and adherence to basal insulin therapy is associated with lower healthcare utilization and medical costs in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess persistence and adherence to basal insulin therapy, their association with all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and direct medical costs, and predictors of persistence and adherence in adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with US adults with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin therapy between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims data. Persistence and adherence were assessed during 1 year post-initiation per previous definitions. Demographic/clinical characteristics were assessed during the 1 year pre-initiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding variables. Post-IPTW, all-cause HCRU and direct medical costs were assessed during the first-year and second-year post-initiation by persistence and adherence status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of persistence and adherence. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 64,953 patients; 56.8% demonstrated persistence and 41.9% demonstrated adherence. Patients demonstrating persistence and adherence were significantly less likely to have a hospitalization than patients demonstrating non-persistence or non-adherence, respectively. In the second-year post-initiation, total mean all-cause direct medical costs per patient were lower for patients demonstrating persistence and significantly lower for patients demonstrating adherence. Prior use of both oral and injectable antidiabetic medication predicted persistence and adherence compared with patients with only prior oral antidiabetic medication use (persistence OR, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.44 to 1.57); adherence OR, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.42 to 1.55)). CONCLUSIONS: Persistence and adherence to basal insulin was associated with fewer hospitalizations and lower direct medical costs.

Evaluating Patient and Provider Preferences for a Once-Weekly Basal Insulin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

Purpose: The global burden of disease of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is significant, and insulin currently plays a central role in T2D management. This study sought to assess the preferences of patients with T2D and healthcare providers (HCPs) involved in T2D care regarding a hypothetical once-weekly basal insulin in comparison to current basal insulin options. Patients and Methods: In a survey-based study in the United States that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE), patients with T2D (insulin naïve and current insulin users) and providers who treat individuals with T2D were asked to evaluate current basal insulins and identify attributes of importance regarding a hypothetical once-weekly basal insulin. A regression analysis was conducted to identify drivers of preference by relevant demographics, attitudes, and behaviors. Results: Most respondents (91% of patients with T2D and 89% of HCPs in the base case scenario) would choose a once-weekly basal insulin product over another type of basal insulin. Both patients with T2D and HCPs rated insulin type and delivery method to be attributes of highest importance in the discrete choice exercise. Current basal insulin users ("insulin experienced") reported higher levels of confidence that a once-weekly insulin would help them to achieve their desired blood sugar levels compared to their current basal insulin (5.7 vs 5.2 on a 7-point Likert scale). Most insulin-experienced respondents (88%) were likely to inquire about once-weekly basal insulin, and most HCPs (85%) indicated willingness to educate patients on management of their T2D using a once-weekly basal insulin. Conclusion: Discussing preferences for T2D medication management is important for patients and HCPs to ensure treatments are offered for patients based on their preferences. This study showed that patient and provider preferences are similar towards a once-weekly basal insulin over current basal insulin preparations.

Cardiorenal care coordination: holistic patient care opportunities in the primary care setting for patients with chronic kidney disease and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are closely linked conditions, and the presence of each condition promotes incidence and progression of the other. In this study, we sought to better understand the medical journey of patients with CKD and ASCVD and to uncover patients' and healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions and attitudes toward CKD and ASCVD diagnosis, treatment, and care coordination. METHODS: Cross-sectional, US-population-based online surveys were conducted between May 18, 2021, and June 17, 2021, among 239 HCPs (70 of whom were primary care physicians, or PCPs) and 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD. RESULTS: PCPs reported personally diagnosing CKD in 78% and ASVD in 64% of their patients, respectively. PCPs reported they are more likely to serve as the overall coordinator of their patient's care (89%), while slightly more than half of PCPs self-identified as a patient's coordinator of care specifically for CKD (54%) or ASCVD (59%). In contrast, patients viewed their PCP as their coordinator of care for CKD (25%) or ASCVD (9%). PCPs who personally treated patients with CKD and ASCVD most often recalled primarily prescribing or recommending pharmacologic treatments for CKD and ASCVD; however, patients reported that lifestyle modification was the most common treatment modality they had ever used to manage CKD and ASCVD. CONCLUSION: CKD and ASCVD are interrelated cardiometabolic conditions with underlying risk factors that can be managed in a primary care setting. However, few patients in our study considered their PCP to be the coordinator of their care for CKD or ASCVD. PCPs can and should take a more active role in educating patients and coordinating care for those with CKD and ASCVD.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a medical condition where the kidneys are damaged, and their function is reduced. CKD is often linked to other health problems. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a condition where cholesterol builds up in the arteries, leading to reduced blood flow and heart issues. This study wanted to understand what patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) know about these two conditions and how they are managed. We sent questionnaires to 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD as well as 239 HCPs who treat patients with CKD and ASCVD. The results showed primary care physicians (PCPs) are the main healthcare providers for most patients, but specialists are often involved in managing CKD and ASCVD. PCPs play a crucial role in helping patients understand how other health care conditions can impact their risk for CKD and ASCVD. PCPs can also guide patients on making lifestyle changes to lower their risk of these diseases and can refer patients to specialists, while still providing guidance on management of these conditions.

Addressing racial inequality and its effects on vaccination rate: A trial comparing a pharmacist and peer educational program (MOTIVATE) in diverse older adults.

BACKGROUND: The mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and cost attributable to vaccine-preventable diseases are substantial for those aged 50 years and older. Although vaccination is the most cost-effective strategy to prevent common infectious diseases in older adults, vaccination rates remain below US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention benchmarks, especially among racial minorities. Historical mistrust, structural racism within the US medical system, and misinformation contributed to lower immunization rates among minorities, especially Black Americans. To address the critical need to increase knowledge and trust in vaccination, 2 community-based educational interventions were tested: a pharmacist-led didactic session (PHARM) and a peer-led educational workshop (PEER). OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effectiveness and costs of PEER and PHARM community-based education models in improving knowledge and trust in vaccinations. METHODS: The Motivating Older adults to Trust Information about Vaccines And Their Effects (MOTIVATE) study was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in the greater Delaware Valley Region sites from 2017 to 2020. The included sites (7 senior centers, 3 housing units, 1 church, and 1 neighborhood family center) predominantly served Black communities. Participants were randomized to either PHARM or PEER sessions covering influenza, pneumococcal disease, herpes zoster, and beliefs related to vaccines. Peer leaders facilitated smaller workshops (5-10 participants), whereas pharmacists conducted larger didactic lectures with 15-43 participants. Outcomes were captured through a self-administered survey at baseline, postprogram, and 1 month after the program. Intervention costs were measured in 2017 US dollars. RESULTS: 287 participants were included. Their mean age was 74.5 years (SD = 8.94), 80.5% were women, 64.2% were Black, and 48.1% completed some college. Knowledge scores within groups for all 3 diseases significantly increased postprogram for both PEER and PHARM and were sustained at 1 month. Between-group knowledge differences were significant only for influenza (PEER participants had significantly larger improvement vs PHARM). Vaccination trust significantly increased in both groups. Total program costs were $11,411 for PEER and $5,104 for PHARM. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions significantly improved knowledge and trust toward vaccination and retained their effect 1 month after the program. The 2 effective community-based education models should be expanded to ensure timely and trusted information is available to educate older adults about vaccine-preventable diseases. Further research is encouraged to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these models' utilization on a larger scale. DISCLOSURES: Dr Schafer is an employee of Merck; however, at the time of the project, he was a professor at Thomas Jefferson University. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. The sponsor played no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the article. Study Registration Number: NCT03239665.

Improving Medication Management by Understanding Patient and Caregiver Preferences for Medication Packaging.

OBJECTIVE: To assess older adults' perceptions and preferences when comparing multi-medication packaging products.
DESIGN: Qualitative study involving focus group interviews (FGIs) and key informant interviews (KIIs).
SETTING: Interviews were conducted in multiple cities within the United States during June-July 2019.
PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: FGI participants (N=36) included community dwelling adults, 65 years of age or older, who took 5+ chronic medications, or their caregivers. KII participants (N=15) included health care professionals caring for similar populations.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were given samples of blister packs and pouches and asked about medication management and appearance and usability of medication packaging. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants' consent, then transcribed and coded using Atlas. ti. Recurrent and emergent themes were identified, and selected quotes served as examples of identified themes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants' perceptions regarding medication packaging.
RESULTS: Participants' preferences varied for different multi-medication packaging systems. Similarly, most FGI participants did not communicate a strong attitude for or against their existing management systems. However, many FGI participants perceived a need for larger font size than seen on the either of the multimedication packaging samples. KII participants also preferred a larger font size on both packagings. KII participants thought the blister packs offered better visual organization and enabled caregivers to quickly assess adherence. However, KII participants expressed concern about integrating as-needed and short-term use medications and noted difficulty opening both types of packages.
CONCLUSION: Visual appearance is important to both patients and health care providers. Continued research in this area is vital for tailoring packaging types and technology to patients.

Assessment of primary care practitioners' attitudes and interest in pharmacogenomic testing.

Aims: Identify the attitudes and interests of primary care providers (PCPs) in applying clinical pharmacogenomics (PGx) test results. Materials & methods: A questionnaire was designed and then disseminated to PCPs across the MedStar Health System. Results: Ninety of 312 (29%) PCPs responded and were included in analyses. Seventy-six (84%) had heard of PGx and 12 (13%) previously ordered PGx testing. Most, 68 (76%), believed PGx can improve care; however, a minority, 23 (26%), reported confidence in using PGx in prescribing decisions. Sixty-four (70%) wanted a pharmacist consultation. PCPs desired PGx for antidepressants (75%), proton pump inhibitors (72%) and other medications. Conclusion: Most PCPs felt unprepared to interpret PGx results and desired pharmacist consultations. These data can inform future PGx implementations with PCPs.