Skip to main content

Injectable Antihyperglycemics: A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature on Adherence, Persistence, and Health Outcomes

Abstract

Introduction

Improving real-world medication adherence to injectable antihyperglycemics in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a clinical challenge. Quantification of the level of adherence required to achieve a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in glycemic control would assist in meeting this goal. The study objective was to review the literature regarding the relationships of medication adherence and persistence with health outcomes in adult T2DM patients using injectable antihyperglycemics.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted using electronic databases to identify publications over the last decade. Publications were screened against established eligibility criteria. Study data were extracted, evaluated, and used to identify strengths, limitations, and gaps in current evidence.

Results

Eligibility criteria were met by 38 studies, and this report analyzed 34 studies related to glycemic control (n = 25), healthcare resource use (n = 9), and healthcare costs (n = 14). Eight of these studies examined adherence to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), including 1 study regarding adherence to GLP-1 RA or to insulin, and 1 study investigating a GLP-1 RA/insulin combination; the remaining studies involved insulin. Studies used a broad range of measures to classify adherence and persistence, and most measures were unable to reliably evaluate the complexities of patient behavior over time. Better adherence to injectable antihyperglycemic medications was generally found to be associated with improved glycemic control, although no studies attempted to identify a MCID. Although higher diabetes-related pharmacy and total healthcare costs were reported for adherent or persistent patients, these patients tended to have lower diabetes-related and all-cause medical costs.

Conclusion

Results of this review confirmed the effectiveness of injectable antihyperglycemic medications for glycemic control, suggesting that there are clinical and financial consequences to nonadherence. Although attempts were made to quantify the effects of nonadherence, the interpretation of study results was limited by the lack of a MCID and inadequate study design.

Funding

Novo Nordisk, Inc., Plainsboro Township, NJ, USA.

Plain Language Summary

Plain language summary available for this article.

Plain Language Summary

From clinical trials, we know that antidiabetic medications are effective at improving health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, improving real-world patient adherence to injectable medications remains a clinical challenge. We performed a systematic review of the medical literature regarding real-world injectable medication adherence and health outcomes in adults with T2DM from 2007 onward using electronic databases. Eligibility criteria for the review were met by 38 studies, and this report analyzed 34 studies of the outcomes of glycemic control (n = 25), healthcare resource use (n = 9), and healthcare costs (n = 14). Eight studies examined adherence to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and the remaining studies involved insulin. Studies used a broad range of measures to classify adherence and persistence, and most measures were unable to reliably evaluate the complexities of patient behavior over time. Better adherence to injectable medications was generally found to be associated with improved glycemic control. Although higher diabetes-related pharmacy and total healthcare costs were reported for adherent or persistent patients, these patients had lower diabetes-related and all-cause medical costs. The results of this review confirmed the effectiveness of injectable medications for glycemic control, suggesting that there are clinical and financial consequences to nonadherence. However, the few studies yielded by this review were limited by inadequate study designs and did not produce evidence describing the level of adherence necessary to achieve glycemic control or other health outcomes. Future research in these areas would assist in the development of successful strategies for adherence improvement.

Introduction

The efficacy of antihyperglycemic medications for the improvement of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been well established by clinical trial data [1]. In a recent review [2], Edelman and Polonsky argue that poor medication adherence is the key variable responsible for the gap between the clinical results achieved in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) and real-world studies. Theoretically, real-world studies should generally confirm the benefits of these medications with respect to improving clinical outcomes, and specifically confirm improvements in glycemic control. Here, in an attempt to quantify the consequences of nonadherence and identify strengths and limitations of this literature, we performed a systematic literature review regarding the effects of patient adherence to and persistence with T2DM injectable medications on health outcomes. The population of interest was adults with T2DM who used injectable antihyperglycemic medications (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor antagonists [GLP-1 RA] and insulins).

Methods

This systematic review conformed to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [3]. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Search queries were performed for English language literature from January 1, 2007 through October 11, 2017 utilizing the Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. This period covered the last decade of electronically available indexed studies from this study start date. Searches included adherence and persistence terms combined with terms to identify the T2DM population, and any injectable antihyperglycemic agent. See Appendix S1 in the Electronic supplementary material (ESM) for details.

Citations identified through the searches were assessed by one reviewer and verified by another based on the title and abstract, using predefined eligibility criteria (round 1). The inclusion criteria were: (1) study of a T2DM population; (2) study regarding outcomes of medication adherence or persistence; (3) analysis of injectable anthihyperglycemic medications; (4) inclusion of health outcomes data; and (5) allowable study types (observational studies and database/claims analyses). The exclusion criteria were: (1) oral treatments, infusions, on-demand treatments or treatments without a planned regimen, and treatments not self-injected by the patient; (2) studies with no data, e.g., protocol only studies; (3) case studies; (4) basic science studies; (5) meeting abstracts, dissertations, and pilot studies; (6) practice guidelines; (7) study population: animals; (8) study population: non-adults; (9) study population: patients with cancer; (10) study population: patients with gestational diabetes; and (11) reviews, commentaries, letters, or editorials.

For round 2, full text publications of potentially relevant citations were examined by two reviewers to assure that medication adherence was studied in relationship to the health outcome. For round 3, a final eligibility review for the remaining articles was conducted, and known studies not captured by this process were added to the selected publication list. Information was then extracted into a pre-defined database. Reviewer disagreements about study selection in the full text review and extraction phases were resolved by jointly re-examining studies and reaching mutual agreement.

Publications included in the review were assessed for risk of bias with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [4]. Two reviewers assessed each article for NOS criteria. Any discrepancy in scoring was resolved by joint re-examination to arrive at consensus. NOS scores were subdivided into those indicating high quality (≥ 6), moderate quality (4–5), and low quality (1–3).

Results

Study Selection and Characteristics

Results of the literature search are described in Fig. 1. A total of 3491 publications were identified by the original searches, and 38 met all inclusion and exclusion criteria after a thorough review of the full text [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. No studies from the search of the Cochrane database were eligible for the study, and this information was omitted from Fig. 1 for clarity. Although additional outcomes were identified in the 38 articles yielded by this review, this review focuses on studies of three health outcomes: (1) glycemic control, (2) healthcare resource use, and (3) healthcare costs. The other outcomes identified that are not reported here were: mortality (2 articles), weight change (4 articles), depression (1 article), health-related quality of life (4 articles), device satisfaction (1 article), hypoglycemic events (9 articles), and assorted clinical outcomes (1 article). This focus on the three outcomes of glycemic control, healthcare resource use, and healthcare costs limited the final selection to 34 studies, which excludes analysis of four of the studies retrieved [39,40,41,42]. Table 1 summarizes selected study characteristics. Quality scoring is presented in Table 2. Out of 9 potential total points per study, the median score was 5 (range 2–8).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart. Text in green boxes describes exclusions

Table 1 Summary of included studies
Table 2 Quality scoring: quality assessment of included publications using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

To the extent possible, studies of GLP-1 RA and insulins are described separately, recognizing that these classes of medications have different adherence issues, e.g., GLP-1 RA is administered with an injection pen and should not produce wastage, in contrast to the use of both pens and syringes for insulins [43]. Also, insulin regimens may be more complex than GLP-1 RA regimens, a feature that has been associated with poorer adherence [44].

Studies regarding medication adherence typically distinguish between adherence (compliance) and persistence (non-discontinuation) [45]. Regarding adherence, see Table 1 for a listing of the various adherence measures used in the final dataset. The main persistence measure was discontinuation at or before 1 year from index date. Although, in theory, discontinuation can be thought of as an extreme case of nonadherence, these concepts measure different types of departures from a treatment regimen and have different practical challenges in measurement. For administrative/claims data studies, It was common to use proportion of days covered (PDC) or medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥ 80% as a definition of adherence, and a gap of ≤ 90 days was defined as being persistent. None of the reviewed studies considered primary nonadherence, i.e., patients who had not filled a prescription even once. With two exceptions, information regarding the type of provider prescribing the medication was not included in the published studies.

Glycemic Control Results

Studies Regarding the Impact of Medication Adherence and Persistence on Glycemic Control

A total of 25 studies reported relationships between medication adherence or persistence and glycemic control [5, 6, 9,10,11,12,13, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Of these, 8 reported regarding GLP-1 RA use [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Data collection for all GLP-1 RA studies pertained to the use of exenatide or liraglutide, or, if not specifically stated, occurred before weekly formulations were approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (2012) [46]. One of these studies [32] reported results for both medication types, and 1 study [31] reported results for a combination of GLP-1 RA and insulin. The remaining 26 studies reported exclusively on insulins.

Improvements in Glycemic Control

Most studies found that adherence or persistence had a positive effect on glycemic control, i.e., increased adherence or persistence was associated with decreased HbA1c, which was the predominant measure of glycemic control. Study designs varied widely, precluding any rigorous uniform summation. See Table 3 for individual study details.

Table 3 Studies regarding the impact of adherence or persistence on glycemic control (n = 25)

GLP-1 RA Studies

Of the 8 GLP-1 RA articles, 5 reported improved HbA1c from baseline with persistence [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38], although this was not statistically significant in 1 study [32] and not reported in another [36]. Four of these studies involved patients initiating GLP-1 RA and 1 involved initiation of a second class of medications, either GLP-1 RA or insulin, resulting in combination GLP-1 RA/insulin therapy [31]. Estimates of persistence with GLP-1 RA in these studies ranged from 17 to 86%. As noted in Table 3, 1 study examined change in HbA1c at baseline for persisters only, 3 studies tested this change for persisters and nonpersisters, and 1 study presented an odds ratio for persisters vs nonpersisters regarding whether a HbA1c goal was met. Each study had a different design and study population, and follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 132 weeks.

The remaining 3 GLP-1 RA studies found improvements in HbA1c from baseline with adherence [33,34,35]. All 3 studies were for GLP-1 RA initiators, with varying combinations of prior and continuing medications, and were retrospective cohort studies using administrative/claims data. One of these studies examined both adherence and persistence in the same study population [34]. All 3 studies found a reduction in HbA1c with adherence defined as a PDC ≥ 80% (P values not reported for 1 study [35]), and 2 studies provided odds ratios for adherent vs nonadherent patients meeting HbA1c goals [33, 34]. Although these adherence studies used similar data sources and adherence measures, the study populations, study durations, and the exact outcome measures varied.

Insulin Studies

A total of 18 published articles (including Levin et al. [32]) reported relationships between insulin adherence or persistence and HbA1c. Of these 18, 5 studies [5, 17, 19, 21, 32] examined persistence and 13 examined adherence. Here too, study designs varied widely, precluding any evaluation of trends or synthesis of study results. See Table 3 for individual study details.

The five studies examining persistence were all retrospective cohort studies that examined changes in HbA1c over time. At 1-year, reports of persistence in these five studies ranged from 21 to 66%. They all demonstrated some drop in HbA1c from baseline, although 1 study [32] did not show statistical significance. Study populations differed with respect to enrolling continuing or naïve insulin users (and additional medications used by study participants), and study durations ranged from 6 months to 2 years.

Of the remaining 13 insulin studies, 4 examined adherence over time in retrospective cohorts [11, 15, 16, 20], and 9 examined adherence and HbA1c in cross-sectional studies, many of which involved patient interviews. Adherence to insulin regimens was generally associated with lower HbA1c, but 3 studies did not document statistically significant differences [10, 11, 24]. Several studies attempted to quantify the association between the degree of adherence and HbA1c [10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 22,23,24], although these were generally not high-quality studies.

Healthcare Resource Use Results

Studies Regarding the Impact of Adherence and Persistence on Medical Resource Use

The 9 articles identified included 2 cross-sectional studies [12, 13] and 7 studies using administrative/claims data [5, 7, 15, 17, 25, 29, 31], of which 2 were supplemented with electronic medical record (EMR) [17] or laboratory [15] data. Only 1 study included GLP-1 RA patients (exenatide or liraglutide), and these patients initiated combination therapy with insulin [31].

Improvements in Healthcare Resource Use

Adherence and persistence appeared to have an inverse relationship with healthcare resource use. Studies consistently found a reduction in rates of all-cause and diabetes-related hospital, emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient days; most studies also found a reduction in outpatient visits in adherent/persistent patients.

GLP-1 RA Studies

The only study that included GLP-1 RA medication was Lin et al. [31]. One-year persistence after initiating a combination treatment with insulin and GLP-1 RA was associated with improvements in all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalizations and length of stay.

Insulin Studies

Ayyagari et al. [15] demonstrated that adherence was associated with fewer hospitalizations in both pen and syringe/vial users. Pen users had increased adherence. Two other lesser quality studies examined adherence. Osborn et al. [12] found that self-reported adherence was associated with fewer ED visits, and DiBonaventura et al. [13] noted that self-reported adherence was associated with fewer ED, physician, and inpatient visits.

Wei et al. [5] found that persistence was associated with fewer all-cause ED, all-cause hospitalization, and diabetes-related hospitalization visits. Perez-Nieves et al. [29] observed that medication persistence was associated with fewer all-cause ED visits, diabetes-related ED visits, all-cause hospitalization days, diabetes-related hospitalization days, all-cause outpatient visits, at least 1 fill of premixed or non-basal insulin, and 1 fill of any non-insulin antihyperglycemic injectable.

Wu et al. [17] recounted that patients who continued insulin therapy after hospital discharge had lower risks of all-cause hospital readmission, diabetes-related hospital readmission, and all-cause ED visits. Twelve months after hospital discharge, the insulin therapy continuation group had a higher all-cause hospital readmission-free rate and a higher all-cause ED visit-free rate. Diabetes-related hospital readmission-free rates and diabetes-related ED visit-free rates were also significantly higher among patients who continued therapy.

Hadjiyianni et al. [25] noted that all-cause inpatient days were reduced for continuers compared with interrupters and discontinuers; however, all-cause outpatient visits were not. Wang et al. [7] showed that persistence was associated with fewer hospitalizations.

Healthcare Costs Results

Studies Regarding the Impact of Adherence and Persistence on Healthcare Costs

Of the 14 articles identified, 11 used administrative/claims data [1, 8, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28,29,30,31, 34] (of which two were supplemented with EMR [17] or laboratory [15] data), 2 used an employee or healthcare provider database [14, 27], and 1 used a cross-sectional design [9]. Only 2 [31, 34] included GLP-1 RA patients.

Improvements in Costs

The literature largely showed positive relationships between adherence or persistence measures and lower healthcare costs in T2DM subjects. However, for total all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs, the increase in pharmacy costs for adherent/persistent patients tended to partially or completely offset the gains in other healthcare costs (Table 4).

Table 4 Studies regarding the impact of adherence or persistence on healthcare costs (n = 14)

GLP-1 RA Studies

Two studies included GLP-1 RA medications [31, 34]. Buysman et al. [34] considered 1-year adherence and persistence. Although diabetes-related pharmacy and total healthcare costs were higher for the adherent and persistent groups, these patients incurred significantly lower diabetes-related medical costs (Table 4).

Lin et al. [31] examined patients initiating a combination therapy of insulin and GLP-1 RA and grouped patients by 1-year persistence with both medications. In adjusted regression models, persistence with combination therapy was a predictor of lower all-cause inpatient and outpatient medical costs during the follow-up period (estimate [95% CI] − 0.24 [− 0.43, − 0.05]; P = 0.013), and a predictor of lower diabetes-related inpatient and outpatient medical costs (−0.45 [− 0.66, − 0.24)]; P < 0.001] during the follow-up period. Such results typically represent the proportion of change in mean costs between the groups. Pharmacy costs were higher for the persistent group.

Insulin Studies

See Table 4. Pharmacy costs, if measured, were invariably higher in the adherent or persistent groups, and medical costs (excluding pharmacy), if measured, were generally lower. As in the study by Buysman et al. [34], some insulin studies reported that the savings in medical costs were about equal to the pharmacy cost increase, and others, as in the study by Lin et al. [31], reported that persisters had a net savings in total costs.

Discussion

The 34 studies obtained from this review reported on the relationships of adherence or persistence to the outcomes of glycemic control, healthcare resource use, and cost for adults with T2DM using injectable antihyperglycemics. Studies varied widely with respect to medications used, naïveté to index medications, study population characteristics, concurrence of the periods of measurement of adherence and the outcomes, study duration, definitions of adherence and outcome, and control by covariates. Most studies used conventional statistical methods and were not sufficiently sophisticated to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationships between adherence and health outcomes [47, 48]. For example, one such hypothetical relationship may be that “improvement in health outcomes over time may lead to better adherence and better adherence may lead to improvement in outcomes.” Furthermore, other time-varying relevant covariates (e.g., glycemic control, frequency of healthcare visits, adherence to diet or exercise) may also dynamically interact with medication adherence. Advanced and more complex statistical models, e.g., marginal structural models [49,50,51], can account for these dynamic time-varying relationships, but such a model only appeared in 1 study in this review [15].

In spite of these limitations, most studies showed a benefit to adherence and persistence, confirming results from clinical trials. In general, persistence was associated with improved glycemic control. Patients who continued to take their medications demonstrated decreases from baseline HbA1c over the study periods. Patients who discontinued medications tended to revert back to study baseline HbA1c. Estimates of the effect of persistence on glycemic control appeared to be similar in the insulin and GLP-1 RA studies reviewed here, with 1-year HbA1c decreases approximating 1.0% for persisters.

Adherence studies using MPR or PDC measures from claims data often failed to make a distinction between persistence and adherence, generally categorizing the nonpersisters into the nonadherent group and making the interpretation of medication adherence more complex. This distinction was examined in the study by Buysmann et al. [34], where patients were independently classified as adherers and persisters, and where, at 1 year, a higher odds ratio (OR) was reported for reaching the HbA1c goal of < 7.0% for persisters vs nonpersisters (OR = 2.34) compared with adherers vs nonadherers (OR = 1.84). These studies also failed to report estimates of change in HbA1c per unit change in the adherence measure, except for Egede et al. [11], which reported an estimate of a 0.05% HbA1c reduction for each percentage increase in MPR. None of the GLP-1 RA studies reported such estimates.

However, studies that focused on adherence using patient-reported measures (all studies of insulin use) were able to describe the deviation from prescribed treatment that appeared associated with worse glycemic control [10, 12, 13, 22, 24]. For example, Linetsky et al. [22] showed that “no missed shots” was associated with a lower HbA1c (drop of 0.19% [0.05–0.34%]) compared to all others who missed shots, and Aikens and Piette [24] found that each nonadherence unit in the Morisky score (range 0–4) was associated with a 0.16% increase in HbA1c at 6 months. Such studies, although elementary in design, begin to quantify how compliant patients must be to achieve the benefits of the medication.

Adherence and persistence were also associated with decreased healthcare resource use. Similarly, there was a fairly consistent relationship between adherence or persistence and decreased healthcare costs, although for some, the reduction in medical costs was about equal to the increase in pharmacy costs for adherent patients. These studies generally used a government or payer perspective, and did not consider the potential benefits that might accrue to patients, such as improved quality of life or fewer disability days.

Outcomes such as healthcare resource use and healthcare costs analyzed in cohort studies using administrative/claims data were often measured concurrently with adherence or persistence over the typical 1-year follow-up. Interpreting the results of such analyses as ‘causal’ is challenging, due to the temporal overlap of events. However, it may be that longer follow-up is required to demonstrate healthcare cost savings. In the second year of a 2-year study, Li et al. documented that medical costs for patients who were persistent with liraglutide were lower than the first year medical costs when compared to those patients using sitagliptin [52].

Furthermore, these studies could not directly measure the more subtle aspects of medication adherence. Compared to discontinuation, adherence is a more complex attribute of medication utilization, and it is harder to calculate, particularly with respect to injectables. Wastage due to inappropriate storage, transportation, or administration is problematic for injectables and cannot be measured from such administrative/claims data sources.

As noted above, adherence studies using claims data often failed to make a distinction between persistence and adherence. This imprecise measurement of adherence or persistence in claims-based studies regarding glycemic control also occurred in the resource use and cost studies. The rudimentary categorization of adherers and persisters makes these claims-based studies difficult to interpret. Fundamentally, these studies fail to distinguish between those who are nonadherent/nonpersistent based on doctors’ orders (e.g., altering doses or stopping medications due to side effects) vs those who are nonadherent/nonpersistent based on personal decisions. Moreover, in situations where it is clear that the doctor has recommended medication (e.g., written prescriptions for it), they fail to distinguish between nonadherence/nonpersistence that is intentional (based on active decision-making) versus unintentional (e.g., due to forgetting, or due to the complexity of treatment) [53].

Ascher-Svanum et al. [8] found that the probability of restarting insulin therapy among early discontinuers was high (90.3%), pointing not only to a low treatment attrition rate but also to the realization that early discontinuation appears to reflect a temporary interruption rather than a true and complete cessation. Importantly, an earlier study, which looked at persistence over a 10-year period, found similar results: most patients (57.9%) discontinued antihyperglycemic medication treatment at some point, but most discontinuers restarted, with only 8–10% of insulin users discontinuing and never restarting [54]. These issues may lead to bias towards the null as the nonadherent or nonpersistent group would actually include adherent or healthier intentionally nonadherent patients.

Limitations

The review was conducted using predefined eligibility criteria and conformed to PRISMA guidelines, and this contributes to the strength of the conclusions. However, limitations to this methodology include: (1) restriction to publications in the study period, and (2) the potential not to include articles that were lacking in the keywords used in the search but that did address the relationships of interest. Other limitations with respect to the generalizability of the data retrieved may have resulted from the various populations studied by the relevant articles (e.g., claims databases, national polls), discussion of both GLP-1 RA and insulin drug classes, and the methodological limitations outlined above. Another limitation is the potential misalignment between the quality score assigned to a study and the quality of the specific part of the results used for this review, particularly where the association of adherence with outcomes was a minor or secondary objective.

Looking Forward

The results validate the effectiveness of GLP-1 RA and insulins for glycemic control, and suggest that there are consequences (both medical and financial) to nonadherence. The results can support steps to address reasons for nonadherence or discontinuation of these injectables.

Reasons for nonadherence have been classified by the World Health Organization [55] as “Five Dimensions of Adherence:” (1) health system: e.g., poor-quality provider–patient relationship, lack of access to healthcare, lack of continuity of care; (2) condition: e.g., asymptomatic chronic disease (lack of physical cues), mental health disorders (e.g., depression); (3) patient: e.g., physical impairments (e.g., vision problems, impaired dexterity), cognitive impairment, psychological/behavioral problems; (4) therapy: e.g., complexity of regimen, side effects; and (5) socioeconomic: e.g., low literacy, higher medication costs, poor social support.

This categorization suggests that there are multiple targets for adherence improvement strategies. Although much effort has been spent on the implementation of behavioral and technological strategies, these have largely been ineffective, as detailed in a recent Cochrane review [56]. Other avenues, including the use of health system incentives to encourage more contact and communication between healthcare providers and patients initiating treatment [57], reducing the complexity of medication regimens (including the use of alternative dosing strategies) [44, 58], and decreasing medication costs to the patient, may have the potential to help patients stay the course [59, 60].

To pave the way for the implementation of adherence improvement strategies, and to allow multiple strategies to be compared, future research will require the development of statistical models that identify the degree of adherence that would achieve a “minimal clinically important difference” (MCID) for glycemic control in adults with T2DM. An MCID defines a minimal threshold for clinically meaningful improvement; here, it would refer to the smallest change or difference in glycemic control considered meaningful, as determined, for example, by consensus within the clinical perspective [61, 62]. Such consensus would rely on what is known about HbA1c improvement and clinical outcomes. Upon the determination of an MCID for glycemic control, a standard measure of patient adherence could be tested to identify the degree of adherence that achieves a HbA1c change of at least 1 MCID.

Conclusions

The results confirmed the effectiveness of injectable antihyperglycemic medications for glycemic control, and suggested that there are both medical and financial consequences to nonadherence. Over the last decade, there have been relatively few studies on the association of real-world adherence and persistence with health outcomes. Those identified generally used standard definitions and methods to compare medication adherence and persistence groups with the outcomes of glycemic control and healthcare resource use and costs. More sophisticated methodological approaches are necessary to account for the complex dynamics of both adherence and persistence over time, and make a better case for causal relationships to outcomes. Future research to establish a MCID for glycemic control in adult patients with T2DM, and to determine the required level of adherence to achieve that MCID, would assist in the determination of successful strategies for adherence improvement.

References

  1. Asche C, LaFleur J, Conner C. A review of diabetes treatment adherence and the association with clincial and economic outcomes. Clin Ther. 2011;33(1):74–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Edelman SV, Polonsky WH. Type 2 diabetes in the real world: the elusive nature of glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(11):1425–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Oxford. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website. Available at: http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/PRISMAStatement.aspx. Accessed Apr 8, 2019.

  4. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connel D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quailty of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed Apr 8, 2019.

  5. Wei W, Pan C, Xie L, Baser O. Real-world insulin treatment persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2014;20(1):52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Leiter LA, Boras D, Woo VC. Dosing irregularities and self-treated hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: results from the Canadian cohort of an international survey of patients and healthcare professionals. Can J Diabetes. 2014;38(1):38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang L, Wei W, Miao R, Xie L, Baser O. Real-world outcomes of US employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin: a comparative retrospective database study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ascher-Svanum H, Lage MJ, Perez-Nieves M, et al. Early discontinuation and restart of insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5(1):225–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Perez-Nieves M, Ivanova JI, Hadjiyianni I, et al. Basal insulin initiation use and experience among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with different patterns of persistence: results from a multi-national survey. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(10):1833–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Linetzky B, Jiang D, Funnell MM, Curtis BH, Polonsky WH. Exploring the role of the patient-physician relationship on insulin adherence and clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: insights from the MOSAIc study. J Diabetes. 2017;9(6):596–605.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Egede LE, Gebregziabher M, Echols C, Lynch CP. Longitudinal effects of medication nonadherence on glycemic control. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48(5):562–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Osborn CY, Gonzalez JS. Measuring insulin adherence among adults with type 2 diabetes. J Behav Med. 2016;39(4):633–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DiBonaventura M, Wintfeld N, Huang J, Goren A. The association between nonadherence and glycated hemoglobin among type 2 diabetes patients using basal insulin analogs. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:873–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderten H, Dippel FW, Kostev K. Early discontinuation and related treatment costs after initiation of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes patients: a German primary care database analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(3):644–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ayyagari R, Wei W, Cheng D, Pan C, Signorovitch J, Wu EQ. Effect of adherence and insulin delivery system on clinical and economic outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin treatment. Value Health. 2015;18(2):198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donnelly LA, Morris AD, Evans JM. Adherence to insulin and its association with glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. QJM. 2007;100(6):345–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wu EQ, Zhou S, Yu A, et al. Outcomes associated with insulin therapy disruption after hospital discharge among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had used insulin before and during hospitalization. Endocr Pract. 2012;18(5):651–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mashitani T, Hayashino Y, Okamura S, et al. Patient-reported adherence to insulin regimen is associated with glycemic control among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Diabetes Distress and Care Registry in Tenri (DDCRT 3). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;100(2):189–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sambamoorthi U, Garg R, Deb A, Fan T, Boss A. Persistence with rapid-acting insulin and its association with A1C level and severe hypoglycemia among elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(7):1309–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kindmalm L, Melander A, Nilsson JL. Refill adherence of antihyperglycaemic drugs related to glucose control (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2007;44(4):209–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yavuz DG, Ozcan S, Deyneli O. Adherence to insulin treatment in insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients initiated on different insulin regimens. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1225–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Linetzky B, Curtis B, Frechtel G, et al. Challenges associated with insulin therapy progression among patients with type 2 diabetes: Latin American MOSAIc study baseline data. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2016;8:41.

  23. Nishimura A, Harashima SI, Fukushige H, et al. A large difference in dose timing of basal insulin introduces risk of hypoglycemia and overweight: a cross-sectional study. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(2):385–99.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aikens JE, Piette JD. Longitudinal association between medication adherence and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30(3):338–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hadjiyianni I, Desai U, Suzuki S, et al. Basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and outcomes after treatment initiation: a retrospective database study among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):149–66.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cobden D, Lee WC, Balu S, Joshi AV, Pashos CL. Health outcomes and economic impact of therapy conversion to a biphasic insulin analog pen among privately insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(7):948–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kleinman NL, Schaneman JL, Lynch WD. The association of insulin medication possession ratio, use of insulin glargine, and health benefit costs in employees and spouses with type 2 diabetes. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50(12):1386–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chandran A, Bonafede MK, Nigam S, Saltiel-Berzin R, Hirsch LJ, Lahue BJ. Adherence to insulin pen therapy is associated with reduction in healthcare costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2015;8(3):148–58.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Perez-Nieves M, Kabul S, Desai U, et al. Basal insulin persistence, associated factors, and outcomes after treatment initiation among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the US. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(4):669–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kalirai S, Duan R, Liu D, Reed BL. Economic impact of treatment duration and persistence with basal insulin in previously insulin-naive users. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(3):327–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin J, Lingohr-Smith M, Fan T. Real-world medication persistence and outcomes associated with basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist free-dose combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in the US. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;9:19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Levin PA, Wei W, Zhou S, Xie L, Baser O. Outcomes and treatment patterns of adding a third agent to 2 OADs in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014;20(5):501–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Durden E, Lenhart G, Lopez-Gonzalez L, Hammer M, Langer J. Predictors of glycemic control and diabetes-related costs among type 2 diabetes patients initiating therapy with liraglutide in the United States. J Med Econ. 2016;19(4):403–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Buysman EK, Liu F, Hammer M, Langer J. Impact of medication adherence and persistence on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide: a retrospective cohort study. Adv Ther. 2015;32(4):341–55.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Carls GS, Tuttle E, Tan RD, et al. Understanding the gap between efficacy in randomized controlled trials and effectiveness in real-world use of GLP-1RA and DPP4 therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(11):1469–78.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Buysschaert M, Preumont V, Oriot PR, et al. One-year metabolic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide in routine practice. Diabetes Metab. 2010;36(5):381–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Varanasi A, Chaudhuri A, Dhindsa S, et al. Durability of effects of exenatide treatment on glycemic control, body weight, systolic blood pressure, C-reactive protein, and triglyceride concentrations. Endocr Pract. 2011;17(2):192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ivanyi T, Fovenyi J, Faludi P, et al. Long-term effects of adding exenatide to a regimen of metformin and/or sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetes: an uncontrolled, open-label trial in Hungary. Clin Ther. 2012;34(6):1301–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen YC, Lee CT, Lin BJ, Chang YY, Shi HY. Impact of pay-for-performance on mortality in diabetes patients in Taiwan: a population-based study. Medicine. 2016;95(27):e4197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. Development of a new measure for assessing insulin delivery device satisfaction in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(11):773–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kokoszka A. Treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus correlates with different coping styles, low perception of self-influence on disease, and depressive symptoms. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:587–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Carls GS, Tan R, Zhu JY, Tuttle E, Yee J, Edelman SV, et al. Real-world weight change among patients treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and sulfonylureas for type 2 diabetes and the influence of medication adherence. Obes Sci Pract. 2017;3(3):342–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Slabaugh SL, Bouchard JR, Li Y, Baltz JC, Meah YA, Moretz DC. Characteristics relating to adherence and persistence to basal insulin regimens among elderly insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: pre-filled pens versus vials/syringes. Adv Ther. 2015;32(12):1206–21.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stephenson JJ, Raval AD, Kern DM, Bae JP. Non-adherence to basal insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes in a US managed care population: results from a patient survey. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(11):2700–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A, et al. Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health. 2008;11(1):44–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tuchscherer RM, Thompson AM, Trujillo JM. Semaglutide: the newest once-weekly GLP-1 RA for type 2 diabetes. Ann Pharmacother. 2018;52(12):1224–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002;40(9):794–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Barnett A, Allsworth J, Jameson K, Mann R. A review of the effects of antihyperglycaemic agents on body weight: the potential of incretin targeted therapies. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(7):1493–507.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Robins J, Hernan M, Babette B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiol. 2000;11(5):550–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiol. 2000;11(5):561–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Robins JM. Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference. In: Halloran E, Berry D, editors. Statistical models in epidemiology: the environment and clinical trials. New York: Springer; 1999.

  52. Li Q, Ganguly R, Ganz ML, Gamble C, Dang-Tan T. Real-world clinical effectiveness and cost savings of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in treating type 2 diabetes for 1 and 2 years. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9:1279–93.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and support in adherence. Clinical guideline 2009. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg76/chapter/introduction. Accessed Apr 8, 2019.

  54. Brown JB, Nichols GA, Glauber HS, Bakst A. Ten year follow-up of antidiabetic drug use, nonadherence, and mortality in a defined population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 1999;21(6):1045–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. World Health Organization. Adherence to long-term therapy: evidence for action. 2003. Available at: http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/adherence_report/en/. Accessed April 8, 2019.

  56. Nieuwlaat R, Wilczynski N, Navarro T, et al. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11)CD000011.

  57. Ho PM, Bryson CL, Rumsfeld JS. Medication adherence: its importance in cardiovascular outcomes. Circulation. 2009;119(23):3028–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Marino AB, Cole SW, Nuzum DS. Alternative dosing strategies for liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(3):223–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Choudhry N, Avorn J, Glynn RJ, et al., for the Post-Myocaridal Infarction Free Rx Event and Economic Evaluation (MI FREEE) Trial. Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med. 2011;365(22):2088-97.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaiser Family Foundation. Public opinion on prescription drugs and their prices. Slide presentation. Available at: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/. Accessed Apr 8, 2019.

  61. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Cont Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):406–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding

Funding for this study and for its publication was provided by Novo Nordisk, Inc., Plainsboro Township, NJ, USA. All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Medical Writing, Editorial, and Other Assistance

The authors acknowledge Dr. Lisa M. Korst, AMF Consulting, who was funded by Novo Nordisk, Inc. for manuscript preparation and editorial assistance, and Ms. Mariann E. Lucas for assistance with the literature search and with library services.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Dr. Fridman is an employee of AMF Consulting, USA, and was contracted by Novo Nordisk, Inc. Dr. Hamersky is an employee of Novo Nordisk, Inc. Dr. Gamble is an employee of Novo Nordisk, Inc. Dr. Iyer is an employee of Novo Nordisk, Inc. Although employees of Novo Nordisk were involved in the design, collection, analysis, interpretation, and fact checking of information, the content of this manuscript, the interpretation of the data, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication was made by the authors independently.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no original datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol M. Hamersky.

Additional information

Enhanced Digital Features

To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7976570.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamersky, C.M., Fridman, M., Gamble, C.L. et al. Injectable Antihyperglycemics: A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature on Adherence, Persistence, and Health Outcomes. Diabetes Ther 10, 865–890 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0617-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0617-3

Keywords

  • Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist
  • Insulin
  • Medication adherence
  • Medication compliance
  • Medication persistence
  • Real-world data
  • Type 2 diabetes