RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: It can be a challenge to manage glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), due to both patient and medication issues. Although most antihyperglycemic medications can be used in mild kidney disease, many medications are either not advised or require dose adjustments in more advanced CKD. This review summarizes product label information, pharmacokinetic and clinical studies, and clinical guidelines relevant to use of antihyperglycemic medications in CKD. METHODS: Product labels and guidelines from North America and Europe, as well as pharmacokinetic and clinical studies of diabetes medication use in CKD were identified through Medline and PubMed searches, up to February 2015. Available data are summarized and correlations between treatment recommendations and available research are discussed, as are glycemic targets for patients with CKD. RESULTS: Newer medications have significantly more data available than older medications regarding use in CKD, although larger clinical studies are still lacking for some drugs. As CKD advances, dose adjustment is needed for many medications [numerous dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, some insulins, sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors], although not for others (thiazolidinediones, meglitinides). Some medications are not recommended for use in more advanced CKD (metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, some glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists) for safety or efficacy reasons. There is not always good alignment between label recommendations, pharmacokinetic or clinical studies, and guideline recommendations for use of these drugs in CKD. In particular, controversy remains about the use of metformin in moderate CKD and appropriate use of liraglutide and sulfonylureas in advanced CKD. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists with respect to recommendations and clinical data for the many antihyperglycemic drugs used in patients with T2DM and CKD. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Asunto(s)

Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiología , Hipoglucemiantes/farmacocinética , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/epidemiología , Glucemia , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/farmacocinética , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/uso terapéutico , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Insulina/farmacocinética , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Receptores de Glucagón/agonistas , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2 , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/farmacocinética , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/uso terapéutico , Tiazolidinedionas/farmacocinética , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapéutico

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted. RESULTS: There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (≥ 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (≤ 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.

Asunto(s)

Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Evaluación del Resultado de la Atención al Paciente , Péptidos/administración & dosificación , Ponzoñas/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Europa (Continente) , Exenatida , Femenino , Grecia , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Método de Montecarlo , Estudios Prospectivos

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy; NCT00635492) assessed, as its primary objective, the time to a 'significant treatment change' (defined within this paper) after patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated their first injectable, glucose-lowering therapy [exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin] in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Patients were invited to participate in CHOICE only after their treating physician had made the clinical decision to initiate first injectable therapy with either exenatide BID or insulin. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 2,515 patients were recruited; 1,114 patients in the exenatide BID cohort and 1,274 patients in the insulin cohort were eligible for the 24-month analysis. During the study, 42.2% and 36.0% of patients from each cohort, respectively, had a significant treatment change. By 24 months, improved mean glycated hemoglobin (p < 0.001 for both cohorts) and reduced severity of several cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts; additionally, mean weight was reduced in the exenatide BID cohort (p < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (p < 0.001). Hypoglycemia was reported by 18.4% of the exenatide BID cohort and 36.8% of the insulin cohort; 25.9% of the exenatide BID cohort and 10.0% of the insulin cohort had met the secondary endpoint of glycated hemoglobin <7.0%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: CHOICE provided data on exenatide BID and insulin usage patterns and 24-month outcomes in clinical practice. On average, improved glycemic control and reduced severity of cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts, and those in the exenatide BID cohort also had mean weight loss.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices. RESULTS: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients' clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had ≥1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan-Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change -3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively. CONCLUSION: About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the resource use and associated direct costs of diabetes care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the 6 months before and after initiation of insulin therapy. METHODS: INSTIGATE is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter study of patients with type 2 diabetes who were initiating insulin for the first time as part of their usual care in 2006. The study was conducted in France, Germany, Greece, Spain, and the UK, and observed the course of diabetes therapy for up to 6 months. Direct medical costs were evaluated from the national health care system (third-party payer) perspective at 2006 prices. RESULTS: Of the 1153 patients with type 2 diabetes, 1051 (91.2%) had follow-up visits in the 6 months after insulin initiation and were included in the cost analysis. In all countries in our study, mean total direct costs per patient increased in the 6-month follow-up period, compared with the 6-month period prior to insulin initiation, and ranged from €577 in Greece to €1402 in France. The incremental cost of adding insulin treatment ranged from €81 in France to €471 in Spain. CONCLUSION: In all countries, the mean total direct cost of care for diabetes increased after starting insulin. The breakdown of total direct costs by expenditure category varied considerably across countries, reflecting differences in resource use patterns, prices of medical resources, and different health care systems.