Suppr超能文献

个性化护理及胰岛素在优化糖尿病治疗中的作用。

Personalized Care and the Role of Insulin as a Vehicle to Optimizing Treatments in Diabetes Care.

机构信息

1 Sanofi US, Bridgewater, New Jersey.

2 HealthCore, Wilmington, Delaware.

出版信息

J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Nov;23(11):1160-1168. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.11.1160.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with poor glycemic control, there is an unmet need for treatment optimization involving the initiation and/or intensification of insulin therapy, which is often delayed because of clinical inertia. Educational initiatives that target patients and physicians might be one way to address this need.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of educational materials mailed to physicians and their patients in affecting initiation of insulin therapy and other health care outcomes.

METHODS

This study, named PIVOTs (Personalized care and the role of Insulin as a Vehicle to Optimizing Treatments), used integrated medical and pharmacy claims data from the U.S.-based HealthCore Integrated Research Database between January 1, 2006, and April 4, 2014, to identify patients who were potential candidates for insulin therapy. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, currently enrolled in a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan, with T2D diagnosis codes. Patients selected for insulin treatment education had glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) > 10%, irrespective of the number of noninsulin antihyperglycemic drugs used, or A1c > 8.0% and ≤ 10% while receiving ≥ 2 noninsulin antihyperglycemic drugs. For each identified patient, a corresponding treating physician was identified on a hierarchical basis. Physician-level randomization was conducted to assign physicians and their linked patients to the following 4 cohorts: (1) a cross-sectional cohort in which educational materials were sent to patients and physicians on a single outreach date; (2) a longitudinal cohort in which educational materials were sent to patients and physicians on 2 occasions, 3 months apart; (3) an enhanced cohort in which patients and physicians received the same mailings as the longitudinal cohort, plus physicians were invited to attend a 1:1 video conference academic detailing session; and (4) a control cohort in which patients and physicians did not receive any educational materials. Insulin initiation rates, A1c levels, and medical and pharmacy costs were assessed from claims over 6 and 12 months follow-up within each cohort.

RESULTS

Mean insulin initiation rates at 12 months ranged from 9.2%-10.3% (all patients) to 12.3%-14.9% (subset with baseline A1c ≥ 9.0%), with similar rates across the intervention and control cohorts. Reductions in A1c from baseline were also similar across cohorts for all patients (0.1%-0.6%), as well as for those with a baseline A1c ≥ 9.0% (0.9%-1.6%). Approximately 14%-20% of patients achieved A1c < 7.0%, with no differences across cohorts. Changes in mean total all-cause and diabetes-related health care costs were also similar across cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this real-world, randomized intervention call into question the value of educational mailings as a means to overcoming clinical inertia and improving health outcomes in patients with T2D, at least in the context of insulin initiation.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Sanofi US. Bieszk and Wei are employees of Sanofi US. Grabner, Barron, and Quimbo are employees of HealthCore, which was under contract with Sanofi US for the conduct of this study. Yan is an employee of PHAR, LLC and was employed by HealthCore at the time this study was conducted and completed. Biel is an employee of Anthem. Chu is a consultant for Sanofi US; a member of the lecture bureaus for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi US; and has received research funding from Novo Nordisk. Study concept and design were contributed by Bieszk, Grabner, Wei, Quimbo, and Barron. Yan, Barron, Quimbo, and Grabner collected the data, which were interpreted by Biel, Chu, Bieszk, and Wei, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Bieszk, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Bieszk, Grabner, Biel, and Chu, along with the other authors. Part of this work was presented in poster format at the 76th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association; June 10-14, 2016; New Orleans, Louisiana.

摘要

背景

在血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病(T2D)患者中,存在着治疗优化的未满足需求,包括起始和/或强化胰岛素治疗,由于临床惰性,通常会延迟这种治疗。针对患者和医生的教育计划可能是满足这种需求的一种方法。

目的

评估邮寄给医生及其患者的教育材料在启动胰岛素治疗和其他医疗保健结果方面的有效性。

方法

这项名为 PIVOTs(个性化护理和胰岛素作为优化治疗的载体)的研究使用了美国 HealthCore 综合研究数据库的医疗和药房索赔数据,该数据库的时间范围为 2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 4 月 4 日,以确定可能适合胰岛素治疗的患者。合格患者的年龄为 18-75 岁,目前参加商业或医疗保险优势健康计划,并伴有 2 型糖尿病诊断代码。选择接受胰岛素治疗教育的患者糖化血红蛋白 A1c(A1c)>10%,无论使用多少种非胰岛素类抗高血糖药物,或 A1c>8.0%且≤10%,同时接受≥2 种非胰岛素类抗高血糖药物。对于每个确定的患者,根据分层原则确定相应的治疗医生。对医生进行随机分层,将医生及其关联患者分配到以下 4 个队列中:(1)横断面队列,在单个外展日向患者和医生发送教育材料;(2)纵向队列,每 3 个月向患者和医生发送 2 次教育材料;(3)增强队列,患者和医生接受与纵向队列相同的邮件,外加医生受邀参加 1:1 的视频会议学术详细信息会议;(4)对照组,患者和医生未收到任何教育材料。在每个队列的 6 个月和 12 个月的随访中,根据索赔评估胰岛素起始率、A1c 水平以及医疗和药房费用。

结果

在 12 个月时,所有患者的胰岛素起始率范围为 9.2%-10.3%,基线 A1c≥9.0%的患者亚组的起始率为 12.3%-14.9%,干预组和对照组的起始率相似。所有患者(0.1%-0.6%)和基线 A1c≥9.0%的患者(0.9%-1.6%)的 A1c 从基线的降低也相似。大约 14%-20%的患者达到 A1c<7.0%,各队列之间没有差异。总所有原因和糖尿病相关医疗保健费用的平均变化在各队列中也相似。

结论

这项真实世界的随机干预研究的结果对教育邮件作为克服临床惰性和改善 2 型糖尿病患者健康结果的手段提出了质疑,至少在胰岛素起始方面是如此。

披露

这项研究由赛诺菲美国公司资助。Bieszk 和 Wei 是赛诺菲美国公司的员工。Grabner、Barron 和 Quimbo 是赛诺菲美国公司的员工,负责这项研究。Yan 是 PHAR,LLC 的员工,在进行这项研究时受雇于 HealthCore,并完成了这项研究。Biel 是 Anthem 的员工。Chu 是赛诺菲美国公司的顾问;阿斯利康、礼来和赛诺菲美国公司的演讲人;并从诺和诺德获得了研究资金。Bieszk、Grabner、Wei、Quimbo 和 Barron 提出了研究概念和设计。Yan、Barron、Quimbo 和 Grabner 收集了数据,Biel、Chu、Bieszk 和 Wei 对数据进行了解释,并得到了其他作者的帮助。手稿由 Bieszk 撰写,其他作者也参与了修订,并与其他作者一起修订了 Bieszk、Grabner、Biel 和 Chu 的内容。这项工作的一部分以海报的形式在 2016 年 6 月 10 日至 14 日举行的第 76 届美国糖尿病协会科学会议上发表;新奥尔良,路易斯安那州。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验