Search

Aims/Introduction: Treatment intensification is commonly delayed in people with type 2 diabetes, resulting in poor glycemic control for an unacceptable length of time and increased risk of complications. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study investigated clinical inertia in 33,320 Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) between 2009 and 2018, using data from the Computerized Diabetes Care (CoDiC®) database. Results: The median time from first reported glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) to treatment intensification was considerably longer and HbA1c levels were higher the more OADs the patient was exposed to. For patients receiving three OADs, the median times from HbA1c ≥7.0% (53 mmol/mol) to intensification with OAD, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist or insulin were 8.1, 9.1 and 6.7 months, with a mean HbA1c level at the time of intensification of 8.4%, 8.9% and 9.3%, respectively. The cumulative incidence for time since the first reported HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) to intensification confirmed the existence of clinical inertia, identifying patients whose treatment was not intensified despite poor glycemic control. HbA1c levels ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) after ≥6 months on one, two or three OADs were observed in 42%, 51% and 58% of patients, respectively, showing that approximately 50% of patients are above HbA1c target regardless of how many OADs they take. Conclusions: Real‐world data here show clinical inertia in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes from early diabetes stages when they are receiving OADs, and illustrate a need for earlier, more effective OADs or injectable treatment intensification and better communication around the existence of clinical inertia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Treatment with IDegLira has the potential to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without the weight gain and with a lower risk of hypoglycemia than with other therapies. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus insulin glargine U100 with re-education and up-titration of the dose for treatment of patients with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting. Methods: Data were obtained from the DUAL V randomized controlled trial in which adults with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic targets with insulin glargine U100 were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or insulin glargine U100. Long-term projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Results: IDegLira was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (13.99 [standard deviation 0.19] versus 13.82 [standard deviation 0.20] years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.14 [standard deviation 0.12] versus 8.87 [standard deviation 0.13] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared to insulin glargine U100. IDegLira was associated with increased direct costs of $16,970, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $63,678 per QALY gained versus insulin glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses identified that the key driver of cost-effectiveness was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin with IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100. Conclusions: Based on head-to-head clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is likely to improve long-term clinical outcomes for patients with T2DM not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin compared to re-education and up-titration of the dose of insulin glargine U100, with these improvements coming at an increased cost from a healthcare payer perspective. An ICER within the range described as high care value was calculated, suggesting IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the US. Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), evidence from both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies has demonstrated that treatment intensification with liraglutide offers effective glycemic control, weight reduction, and a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to treatment intensification with insulin or additional OADs. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are a new class of OADs that have also been shown to be effective in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with OADs. Currently there are no head-to-head RCTs comparing these to liraglutide. Methods: We aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy, using network meta-analysis (NMA), of treatment intensification with liraglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors people with T2DM who have been treated with metformin (alone or in combination with SU, DPP-4, and TZD). We performed a systematic literature review to identify relevant RCTs comparing liraglutide (1.2 and 1.8 mg), canagliflozin (100 and 300 mg), empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg), or dapagliflozin (5 and 10 mg) to placebo. To strengthen the indirect evidence base, we also included non-placebo RCTs where sitagliptin (100 mg) was the active comparator. Bayesian NMA was performed on the following outcomes to assess the relative efficacy and safety of interventions: reduction (change) in HbA1c, weight, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as well as proportion reaching target HbA1c (<7%), and risk of hypoglycemia. Doses for each intervention were considered separately. Results: A total of 16 RCTs were identified. All trials were similar with respect to important baseline characteristics and study design. Both doses of liraglutide were generally statistically significantly superior to the SGLT-2s with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c and FPG as well as odds of reaching target HbA1c <7%. For weight, canagliflozin 300 mg was superior to liraglutide 1.2 mg, and SGLT-2s were generally associated with larger change from baseline in weight. For risk of major or minor hypoglycemia, no differences were found between treatments. Conclusions: Compared to SGLT-2 inhibitors, liraglutide offers improvement in HbA1c and FPG. Reductions in weight are likely comparable between liraglutide and SGLT-2s. Liraglutide did not differ from SGLT-2s in terms of risk of hypoglycemia. Given the lack of head-to-head evidence, this analysis provides valuable insight into the comparative outcomes of liraglutide versus SGLT-2 inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]