IntroductionReal-world evidence on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RAs) usage is emerging in different European countries but is lacking in Italy. This retrospective cohort study aimed to describe the real-world drug utilization patterns in patients initiating GLP-1 RAs for treating T2DM in Italy.MethodsAdults aged ≥ 20 years and with ≥ 1 oral antidiabetic drug (alone or in combination with insulin) other than GLP-1 RAs in the 6 months prior to initiating exenatide twice daily (exBID), exenatide once weekly (exQW), dulaglutide once weekly (DULA), liraglutide once daily (LIRA) or lixisenatide once daily (LIXI) between March and July 2016 were retrospectively identified in the Italian IMS LifeLink™ longitudinal prescriptions database (retail pharmacy data). Patients with ≥ 6-month follow-up (defined as evidence of any prescription activity) were included. Proportions of patients who remained persistent (continued treatment until discontinuation/switch) in the first 6 months and of those who discontinued or switched to a different GLP-1 RA over the entire follow-up were recorded. For each treatment, the average daily/weekly dosage (ADD/AWD) while persistent during the available follow-up was calculated.ResultsWe identified 7319 patients: 92 exBID, 970 exQW, 3368 DULA, 2573 LIRA and 316 LIXI. Across treatments, 89% patients were ≥ 50 years old, 54% were males, and the median follow-up duration ranged between 8.1 and 8.7 months. At 6 months, 35% exBID, 47% exQW, 62% DULA, 50% LIRA and 40% LIXI patients remained persistent. Over the entire follow-up, median persistence days varied from 73 (exBID) to > 300 days (DULA). The mean ± SD ADD/AWD was exBID: 17.7 ± 2.1 µg/day; exQW: 2.1 ± 0.1 mg/week; DULA: 1.5 ± 0.2 mg/week; LIRA: 1.5 ± 0.2 mg/day; LIXI: 21.0 ± 5.5 µg/day.ConclusionsThis real-world analysis suggests differences exist in persistence between patients treated with various GLP-1 RAs. Among the investigated treatments, patients prescribed exBID recorded the lowest and those prescribed DULA the highest persistence with therapy.FundingEli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN, USA.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0396-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Adherence to prescribed medication is important to the management of all diseases, especially those of chronic nature. Drug effectiveness is substantially compromised by therapy nonadherence. We reviewed the available evidences on the impact of patient preferences for therapy on adherence to a prescribed treatment in chronic diseases requiring long-term treatment. A search on PubMed retrieved 699 publications, leading to a selection of 12 publications: 6 on osteoporosis, 2 on moderate-to-severe asthma, 1 on type 1 diabetes, 1 on type 2 diabetes, 1 on kidney transplantation, and 1 on atrial fibrillation. Overall, 8 studies found a positive association between patient preference and adherence to therapy, while the others found no association. In general, overall adherence was considered to be high in the published studies. The reasons for a positive association included reduced dosing frequency, route of administration, lower costs, and favorable safety profile, which is related to the diverse nature of the pathology and its type and duration of treatment. A literature review suggests that achieving good adherence and persistence to therapy requires evaluation of patient preferences. In a period of increasingly limited resources, more effort is warranted to promote better adherence to therapy, especially when patients must self-manage their disease in the long term. Our results further highlight that insufficient attention has been given to the relationship between patient preference and adherence and point out the complex nature of adherence and the need for adequate patient education. More efforts are also needed to better understand the entity of cost savings for payers for specific treatments and the link with patient preference.
ObjectivesSeveral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are administered as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). These medications vary in their injection processes, and a recent study in the UK found that these differences had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to replicate the UK study in Italy to examine preferences of an Italian patient sample, while allowing for comparison between utilities in the UK and Italy.Materials and methodsParticipants with T2D in Italy valued health states in time trade-off interviews. All health states had the same description of T2D, but differed in description of the treatment process. As in the original UK study, the first health state described an oral treatment regimen, while additional health states added a weekly injection. The injection health states differed in three injection-related attributes: requirements for reconstituting the medication, waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling.ResultsInterviews were completed by 238 patients (58.8% male; mean age = 60.2 years; 118 from Milan, 120 from Rome). The oral treatment health state had a mean (SD) utility of 0.90 (0.10). The injection health states had significantly (p < 0.0001) lower utilities, which ranged from 0.87 (requirements for reconstitution, waiting, and handling) to 0.89 (weekly injection with none of these requirements). Differences in health state utility scores suggest that each administration requirement was associated with a disutility (ie, negative utility difference): −0.006 (reconstitution), −0.006 (needle handling), −0.011 (reconstitution, needle handling), and −0.022 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling).ConclusionDisutilities associated with the injection device characteristics were similar to those reported with the UK sample. Results suggest that injection device attributes may be important to some patients with T2D, and it may be useful for clinicians to consider these attributes when choosing medication for patients initiating these weekly treatments.
BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials demonstrated that atypical antipsychotics are more effective but also more expensive (as drug cost) compared with the typical neuroleptics by treating psychotic disorders. The present study aimed to evaluate this result using an observational approach which better reflects the real clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical effectiveness (including work and social functioning) and overall direct costs in a group of patients affected by psychotic disorders (schizophrenia and bipolar) and treated with typical and atypical (olanzapine and risperidone) antipsychotics. METHODS: With a multicentre observational design -two years long -89 patients (in charge by Psychiatric Centers of Regione Campania -Italy) were assessed using CGI (Clinical Global Impression) and GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) scales. Moreover economic data were collected with reference to pharmacological and non-pharmacological (hospitalization, medical/nurse visits, etc.) resources consumption. The pharmacoeconomic analysis were conducted choosing the perspective of the local Psychiatric Services for costs attribution. RESULTS: Considering the treatment outcomes, the use of the atypical drugs provided better performances with reference to the patients quality of life. The results in terms of work and social functioning indicated an advantage in the olanzapine group of patients. Overall direct costs of treatment (drugs and healthcare resources) didn't generate significant differences among the groups of therapy despite the pharmacological cost evidentiated an economic advantage (p<0,05) in the typical group due to the cheaper cost of these drugs. The use of olanzapine was associated to a lower number of hospitalizations and showed a general reduction (-16%) of total treatment costs between 1st and 2nd year of observation. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of side effects, the improvement in work and social functioning, associated to a more efficient use of total healthcare resources seems to be at the basis of the better pharmacoeconomic profile for olanzapine compared with the other antipsychotic therapies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.