Kate Van Brunt

Safe and Effective Use of the Once Weekly Dulaglutide Single-Dose Pen in Injection-Naïve Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Background: This 4-week, phase 3b, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, outpatient study demonstrated the safe and effective use of the dulaglutide single-dose pen containing 0.5 mL of placebo for subcutaneous injection in injection-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with A1C ≤ 8.5% (69 mmol/mol), BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ≤ 45 kg/m2. Method: Patients completed a modified self-injecting subscale of the Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-Testing Questionnaire (mD-FISQ) and were trained to self-inject with the single-dose pen. Patients completed the initial self-injection at the site, injected at home for 2 subsequent weeks, and returned to the site for the final injection. The initial and final self-injections were evaluated for success; the final (initial) self-injection success rate was the primary (secondary) outcome measure, and the primary (secondary) objective was to demonstrate this success rate as being significantly greater than 80%. Patients recorded their level of pain after each injection. After the final injection, patients completed the mD-FISQ and the Medication Delivery Device Assessment Battery (MDDAB) to assess their perceptions of the single-dose pen, including ease of use and experience with the device. Results: Among 211 patients (mean age: 61 years), the primary objective was met, with a final injection success rate of 99.1% (95% CI: 96.6% to 99.7%). Among 214 patients, the initial injection success rate was 97.2% (95% CI: 94.0% to 98.7%), meeting the key secondary objective. Overall, most patients (>96%) found the device easy to use, were satisfied with the device, and would be willing to continue to use the single-dose pen after the study. There was a significant reduction (P < .001) from baseline to study end in patients’ fear of self-injecting, as measured by the mD-FISQ. Conclusions: The dulaglutide single-dose pen was found to be a safe and effective device for use by patients with T2D who were injection-naïve. A positive injection experience is an important factor for patients and providers when initiating injectable therapy.

Utilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastases

Introduction Although cost-utility models are often used to estimate the value of treatments for metastatic cancer, limited information is available on the utility of common treatment modalities. Bisphosphonate treatment for bone metastases is frequently administered via intravenous infusion, while a newer treatment is administered as a subcutaneous injection. This study estimated the impact of these treatment modalities on health state preference. Methods Participants from the UK general population completed time trade-off interviews to assess the utility of health state vignettes. Respondents first rated a health state representing cancer with bone metastases. Subsequent health states added descriptions of treatment modalities (ie, injection or infusion) to this basic health state. The two treatment modalities were presented with and without chemotherapy, and infusion characteristics were varied by duration (30 minutes or 2 hours) and renal monitoring. Results A total of 121 participants completed the interviews (52.1% female, 76.9% white). Cancer with bone metastases had a mean utility of 0.40 on a standard utility scale (1 = full health; 0 = dead). The injection, 30-minute infusion, and 2-hour infusion had mean disutilities of −0.004, −0.02, and −0.04, respectively. The mean disutility of the 30-minute infusion was greater with renal monitoring than without. Chemotherapy was associated with substantial disutility (−0.17). When added to health states with chemotherapy, the mean disutilities of injection, 30-minute infusion, and 2-hour infusion were −0.02, −0.03, and −0.04, respectively. The disutility associated with injection was significantly lower than the disutility of the 30-minute and 2-hour infusions (P < 0.05), regardless of chemotherapy status. Conclusion Respondents perceived an inconvenience with each type of treatment modality, but injections were preferred over infusions. The resulting utilities may be used in cost-utility models examining the value of treatments for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases.

Attributes Influencing Insulin Pen Preference Among Caregivers and Patients With Diabetes Who Require Greater Than 20 Units of Mealtime Insulin

Background: This study compared patient preference for Humalog® KwikPen™ 200 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 200 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) versus the Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL (insulin lispro; hereafter, IL 100 pen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) in patients with diabetes requiring >20 units of mealtime insulin and diabetes caregivers. This study also determined which attributes had the greatest influence on pen preference selection. Methods: In this 2-period, crossover, simulated-use study, 106 participants were randomized to 1 of 8 sequences that varied the pen order (IL 100 pen or IL 200 pen) and dosing order (15 units = low dose or 50 units = high dose) for a total of 4 simulated injections. Participants then completed a self-administered questionnaire to select their overall preference between the 2 pens and then rated the importance of 11 pen attributes in contributing to their overall preference. Results: Of the 90 participants expressing an overall preference, significantly more preferred the IL 200 pen to the IL 100 pen (IL 200 pen: 80 respondents; IL 100 pen: 10 respondents; 95% confidence interval [0.81, 0.94], P < .0001). The total amount of insulin in the pen, the ease in pressing the injection button, and the amount of fluid injected were key attributes influencing IL 200 pen preference. Conclusions: Based on these key attributes, the IL 200 pen was significantly preferred over the IL 100 pen by patients with diabetes who require >20 daily mealtime insulin units or diabetes caregivers and may improve the injection experience for these patients.

One Programme, Four Stakeholders: An Overview of the Utilisation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Intervention Development to Meet the Needs of Regulators, Payers, Healthcare Professionals and Patients

For a new intervention to achieve commercial success, regulators (to provide marketing authorisation), payers (for reimbursement and formulary placement), healthcare professionals (HCPs; to prescribe) and patients (to adhere and persist) must all consider the intervention to be valuable. These stakeholders are increasingly using the patient’s perspective on a condition and its treatment—measured through patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments—to define the value of a treatment. However, there is common confusion about the most appropriate way to incorporate the patient’s perspective into the clinical development of pharmaceutical interventions in a way that will resonate with these four key stakeholder groups. This article briefly summarises the perspectives of regulators, payers, HCPs and patients regarding PRO endpoints, and examines how a robust, comprehensive and systematic PRO endpoint strategy can be developed to meet the needs of all stakeholders in a single development programme. Such an endpoint strategy may include PRO assessments of first-order signs and symptoms using a disease-specific measure, health-related quality of life using both a disease-specific measure and generic utility measure, and general quality of life. Other PRO endpoints (e.g. preference/satisfaction, ease of use, HCP contact time, absenteeism) may be useful with some stakeholders to provide further differentiation between interventions.

Insulin Dosing and Outcomes Among Commercially Insured Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine costs, resource use, adherence, and hypoglycemic events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with increasing doses of 100-U/mL (U-100) insulin regimens. METHODS Data from Truvens Health Analytics Commercial Claims and Encounters database from January 1, 2008, through January 31, 2011, were used. Regressions were used to examine the associations among costs, resource use, adherence, and receipt of a hypoglycemic event and index dose of insulin. Specifically, general linear models with a γ-distribution and log link were used to examine costs, whereas logistic and negative binomial regressions were used to examine resource use and hypoglycemic events. All analyses controlled for patient characteristics, preindex comorbidities, general health, use of antidiabetic medications, and visits to an endocrinologist. FINDINGS The study focused on 101,728 individuals with T2DM who received an outpatient prescription for U-100 insulin. In general, costs and resource use are highest among patients treated with the highest dose of insulin (>300 U/d). For example, all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalizations and office visits were highest in the highest-dose cohort. Costs generally followed the same pattern. Patients who were prescribed the lowest dose of insulin (10-100 U/d) generally had higher all-cause or diabetes-related inpatient and emergency department costs and resource use compared with those patients with an index dose >100 to 150, >150 to 200, and >200 to 300 U/d. There were generally no significant differences in rates of hypoglycemic events based on index dose. IMPLICATIONS These results suggest significant differences in patient outcomes based on dosing of insulin. Those patients with T2DM using insulin at the highest and lowest dose ranges have the highest costs and resource use.

Dosing of U-100 insulin and associated outcomes among Medicare enrollees with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

Objective To examine costs, resource utilization, adherence, and hypoglycemic events among various doses of U-100 insulin regimens among elderly patients (age ≥65 years) diagnosed with diabetes. Methods Truven Health Analytics Medicare databases from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011 were utilized. General linear models with a gamma distribution and log link were used to examine costs, while logistic and negative binomial regressions were used to examine resource utilization and hypoglycemic events. Analyses controlled for patient characteristics, pre-period comorbidities, general health, and use of antidiabetic medications as well as index dose of insulin. Results All-cause inpatient, emergency room, and outpatients costs, as well as diabetes-related inpatient costs, were highest among individuals who were treated with an index dose of 10–100 units/day followed by >300 units/day, while drug costs and total costs generally increased as index dosage increased. Resource utilization generally followed the same pattern as costs, with number of office visits increasing as the dose increased and the highest hospital length of stay, number of hospitalizations, number of emergency room visits, and number of diabetes-related hospitalizations were generally highest among those in the lowest and highest index dose cohorts. Compared to patients who initiated with an index dose of 10–100 units/day, all other patients were significantly less likely to achieve an adherence threshold of 80% based upon index dose range, and while those with an index dose of >100–150 units/day were significantly more likely to experience a hypoglycemic event. Conclusion These results suggest that, for elderly individuals with diabetes, there is a higher patient burden among those who receive the lowest and highest insulin doses.