Treatment patterns and associated factors in 14 668 people with type 2 diabetes initiating a second-line therapy: Results from the global DISCOVER study programme

Antonio Nicolucci, Bernard Charbonnel, Marília B Gomes, Kamlesh Khunti, Mikhail Kosiborod, Marina V Shestakova, Iichiro Shimomura, Hirotaka Watada, Hungta Chen, Javier Cid-Ruzafa, Peter Fenici, Niklas Hammar, Filip Surmont, Fengming Tang, Stuart Pocock, Antonio Nicolucci, Bernard Charbonnel, Marília B Gomes, Kamlesh Khunti, Mikhail Kosiborod, Marina V Shestakova, Iichiro Shimomura, Hirotaka Watada, Hungta Chen, Javier Cid-Ruzafa, Peter Fenici, Niklas Hammar, Filip Surmont, Fengming Tang, Stuart Pocock

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate treatment data from DISCOVER (NCT02322762 and NCT02226822), a global, prospective, observational study programme of patients with type 2 diabetes initiating a second-line glucose-lowering therapy.

Materials and methods: Data were collected using a standardized case report form. First- and second-line treatments were assessed in 14 668 patients from 37 countries across six regions. Among patients prescribed first-line metformin monotherapy, Firth logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with second-line treatment choices.

Results: The most common first-line therapies were metformin monotherapy (57.9%) and combinations of metformin with a sulphonylurea (14.6%). The most common second-line therapies were combinations of metformin with other agents (72.2%), including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (25.1%) or sulphonylureas (21.3%). Among patients prescribed first-line metformin monotherapy, the most common second-line therapies were combinations of metformin with a DPP-4 inhibitor [32.8%; across-region range (ARR): 2.4%-51.3%] or a sulphonylurea (30.0%; ARR: 18.3%-63.6%); only a few patients received combinations of metformin with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (6.7%; ARR: 0.0%-10.8%) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (1.9%; ARR: 0.1%-4.5%). Both clinical and non-medical factors were associated with choice of second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy.

Conclusions: Fewer patients than expected received metformin monotherapy at first line, and the use of newer therapies at second line was uncommon in some regions of the world. Patients' socioeconomic status was associated with treatment patterns, suggesting that therapy choices are influenced by cost and access.

Keywords: antidiabetic drug; population study; type 2 diabetes.

Conflict of interest statement

A. N., B. C., M. B. G., K. K., M. K., M. V. S., I. S., H. W. and S. P. are members of the DISCOVER Scientific Committee, and received financial support from AstraZeneca to attend DISCOVER planning and update meetings. H. C., P. F. and F. S. are employees of AstraZeneca. N. H. is a former employee of AstraZeneca. J. C.‐R. is an employee of Evidera. In addition, A. N. has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, and research support from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi‐Aventis, Artsana and Dexcom; B. C. has received payment from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Takeda; M. B. G. has received payment from Merck‐Serono; K. K. has received payment from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Servier and Pfizer, research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Pfizer, and also acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care – East Midlands (NIHR CLAHRC – EM) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Leicester–Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Centre; M. K. has received payment from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Glytec Systems, Merck (Diabetes) and Sanofi, and research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; M. V. S. has received payment from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Servier, and research support from Novo Nordisk and Sanofi; I. S. has received payment from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kowa, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novo Nordisk, Ono Pharmaceutical, Sanwa Kagaku Kenkyusho and Takeda Pharmaceutical, and research support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Japan Foundation for Applied Enzymology, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Kowa, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Midori Health Management Center, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novo Nordisk, Ono Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Suzuken Memorial Foundation and Takeda Pharmaceutical; F. T. is an employee of the Mid America Heart Institute and has received research support from AstraZeneca; and H. W. has received payment from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Kissei Pharma, Kowa, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Sanwa Kagaku Kenkyusho and Takeda, and research support from Abbott, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Benefit One Health Care, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Kissei Pharma, Kowa, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nitto Boseki, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sanwakagaku Kenkyusho, Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical, Takeda and Terumo Corp.

© 2019 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Likelihood of receiving (A) MET and a DPP‐4i, (B) MET and an SGLT‐2i, (C) MET and insulin, and (D) MET and a GLP‐1 RA, compared with receiving MET and an SU in DISCOVER patients who received MET monotherapy as first‐line treatment. Data are presented as odds ratios (95% CI), estimated using Firth multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for all variables in the table.10 BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; DPP‐4i, dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor; GLP‐1 RA, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist; MET, metformin; OR, odds ratio; PCP, primary care physician; SGLT‐2i, sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitor; SU, sulphonylurea. aComposite of nephropathy, retinopathy and neuropathy. bComposite of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, heart failure and implantable cardioverter defibrillator use. cHypoglycaemic events requiring external/third‐party assistance in the previous year. dHypoglycaemic events that were self‐reported and non‐confirmed, and which occurred in the previous 4 weeks. eOdds ratio was not estimated because none of the patients in Africa received an SGLT‐2i

References

    1. Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm – 2018 executive summary. Endocr Pract. 2018;24:91‐120.
    1. Chinese Diabetes Society . Chinese guidelines for type 2 diabetes prevention (2013). Chin J Diabetes. 2014;22:2‐42.
    1. International Diabetes Federation . Global guideline for type 2 diabetes. 2012. . Accessed June 13, 2019.
    1. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Humphrey LL, Forciea MA. Oral pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:279‐290.
    1. Davies MJ, D'Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2018;41:2669‐2701.
    1. Haneda M, Noda M, Origasa H, et al. Japanese clinical practice guideline for diabetes 2016. J Diabetes Investig. 2018;9:657‐697.
    1. Ji L, Bonnet F, Charbonnel B, et al. Towards an improved global understanding of treatment and outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: rationale and methods of the DISCOVER observational study program. J Diabetes Complications. 2017;31:1188‐1196.
    1. Katakami N, Mita T, Takahara M, et al. Rationale and design for the J‐DISCOVER study: DISCOVERing the treatment reality of type 2 diabetes in a real‐world setting in Japan ‐ a protocol. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9:165‐175.
    1. Rathmann W, Medina J, Kosiborod M, et al. The DISCOVER study: diversity of sites, physicians, and patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018;27:228.
    1. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993;80:27‐38.
    1. Allison P. Logistic Regression for Rare Events. 2012. . Accessed June 13, 2019.
    1. Gomes MB, Rathmann W, Charbonnel B, et al. Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus worldwide: baseline patient characteristics in the global DISCOVER study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;151:20‐32.
    1. Overbeek JA, Heintjes EM, Prieto‐Alhambra D, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment patterns across Europe: a population‐based multi‐database study. Clin Ther. 2017;39:759‐770.
    1. International Diabetes Federation . Access to medicines and supplies for people with diabetes. 2016. . Accessed June 13, 2019.
    1. Chow CK, Ramasundarahettige C, Hu W, et al. Availability and affordability of essential medicines for diabetes across high‐income, middle‐income, and low‐income countries: a prospective epidemiological study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:798‐808.
    1. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117‐2128.
    1. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644‐657.
    1. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown‐Frandsen K, et al. LEADER Trial Investigators Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:311‐322.
    1. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1834‐1844.
    1. Kosiborod M, Cavender MA, Fu AZ, et al. Lower risk of heart failure and death in patients initiated on SGLT‐2 inhibitors versus other glucose‐lowering drugs: the CVD‐REAL study. Circulation. 2017;136:249‐259.
    1. Bethel MA, Patel RA, Merrill P, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta‐analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:105‐113.
    1. Roglic G, Norris SL. Medicines for treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes and type of insulin in type 1 and type 2 diabetes in low‐resource settings: synopsis of the World Health Organization guidelines on second‐ and third‐line medicines and type of insulin for the control of blood glucose levels in nonpregnant adults with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:394‐397.
    1. Hirst JA, Farmer AJ, Dyar A, Lung TW, Stevens RJ. Estimating the effect of sulfonylurea on HbA1c in diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetologia. 2013;56:973‐984.
    1. Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, et al. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2427‐2443.
    1. Murayama H, Imai K, Odawara M. Factors influencing the prescribing preferences of physicians for drug‐naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the real‐world setting in Japan: insight from a web survey. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9:1185‐1199.
    1. Zgibor JC, Songer TJ. External barriers to diabetes care: addressing personal and health systems issues. Diabetes Spectr. 2001;14:23‐28.
    1. Zhuang XD, He X, Yang DY, et al. Comparative cardiovascular outcomes in the era of novel anti‐diabetic agents: a comprehensive network meta‐analysis of 166,371 participants from 170 randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17:79.
    1. Douros A, Dell'Aniello S, Yu OHY, Filion KB, Azoulay L, Suissa S. Sulfonylureas as second line drugs in type 2 diabetes and the risk of cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic events: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2018;362:k2693.
    1. Kosiborod M, Birkeland KI, Cavender MA, et al. Rates of myocardial infarction and stroke in patients initiating treatment with SGLT‐2 inhibitors versus other glucose‐lowering agents in real‐world clinical practice: results from the CVD‐REAL study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:1983‐1987.
    1. Arnold SV, Inzucchi SE, McGuire DK, et al. Evaluating the quality of comprehensive cardiometabolic care for patients with type 2 diabetes in the U.S.: the Diabetes Collaborative Registry. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:e99‐e101.
    1. Blak BT, Thompson M, Dattani H, Bourke A. Generalisability of The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database: demographics, chronic disease prevalence and mortality rates. Inform Prim Care. 2011;19:251‐255.
    1. Herrett E, Thomas SL, Schoonen WM, Smeeth L, Hall AJ. Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69:4‐14.
    1. Becher H, Kostev K, Schroder‐Bernhardi D. Validity and representativeness of the "Disease Analyzer" patient database for use in pharmacoepidemiological and pharmacoeconomic studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;47:617‐626.
    1. Arnold SV, Inzucchi SE, Echouffo‐Tcheugui JB, et al. Understanding contemporary use of thiazolidinediones. Circ Heart Fail. 2019;12:e005855.
    1. Arnold SV, McGuire DK, Inzucchi SE, et al. Assessing use of patient‐focused pharmacotherapy in glycemic management through the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR). J Diabetes Complications. 2018;32:1035‐1039.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe