Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted. Results: In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout. Conclusion: CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_file.pdf)
- Download
- 701.12 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Kesselheim AS, Avorn J, Sarpatwari A. The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States: origins and prospects for reform. JAMA 316(8), 858–871 (2016).
2.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT. Measuring the value of prescription drugs. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(27), 2595–2597 (2015).
3.
Schumock GT, Pickard AS. Comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research: enhancing uptake and use by patients, clinicians and payers. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(2), 177–180 (2018).
4.
Esposito D, Yong PL, Rich E, Geonnotti K, Kimmey LD. The ARRA investment in CER: a description of the midstream evaluation and how the funds were allocated and CER priorities addressed. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3(6), 581–589 (2014).
5.
Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA 286(20), 2578–2585 (2001).
6.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 274(22), 1800–1804 (1995).
7.
Avorn J, Fischer M. ‘Bench to behavior’: translating comparative effectiveness research into improved clinical practice. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29(10), 1891–1900 (2010).
• Outlines the factors impacting the translation of comparative effectiveness research (CER) into clinical practice and was useful in interpreting the results of our current study.
8.
Gibson TB, Ehrlich ED, Graff J et al. Real-world impact of comparative effectiveness research findings on clinical practice. Am. J. Manag. Care 20(6), e208–e220 (2014).
•• Assessed the impact of four unrelated CER findings on prescribing using claims data. It was used to identify the gap in literature for our current study and recognize the need to focus on one therapeutic area.
9.
Morrato EH, Concannon TW, Meissner P, Shah ND, Turner BJ. Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2(2), 185–194 (2013).
10.
Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 14(Suppl. 1), 29–37 (2010).
11.
Murad MH, Montori VM. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. JAMA 309(21), 2217–2218 (2013).
12.
Petrisor BA, Bhandari M. The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation. Indian J. Orthop. 41(1), 11 (2007).
13.
Paul M, Leibovici L. Systematic review or meta-analysis? Their place in the evidence hierarchy. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 20(2), 97–100 (2014).
14.
Petrisor BA, Bhandari M. The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation. Indian J. Orthop. 41(1), 11–15 (2007).
15.
Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J. Clin. Nursing 12(1), 77–84 (2003).
16.
Blackstone EA, Fuhr JP, Ziernicki D. Will comparative effectiveness research finally succeed? Biotechnol. Healthc. 9(3), 22–26 (2012).
17.
Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(3), 203–205 (2009).
18.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, GA, USA (2017).
19.
American Diabetes Association. Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care 41(5), 917–928 (2018).
20.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Division of diabetes translation at a glance (2019). https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/diabetes.htm
21.
Food and Drug Adminstration. Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products (2019). https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm
22.
Aroda VR, Henry RR, Han J et al. Efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors: meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin. Therapeut. 34(6), 1247–1258 (2012).
23.
Kayaniyil S, Lozano-Ortega G, Bennett HA et al. A network meta-analysis comparing exenatide once weekly with other GLP-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther. 7(1), 27–43 (2016).
24.
Pinelli NR, Hurren KM. Efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with exenatide twice daily and sitagliptin in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Pharmacother. 45(7–8), 850–860 (2011).
25.
Scott DA, Boye KS, Timlin L, Clark JF, Best JH. A network meta-analysis to compare glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide once weekly or liraglutide once daily in comparison with insulin glargine, exenatide twice daily or placebo. Diabetes Obes. Metabol. 15(3), 213–223 (2013).
26.
Shyangdan DS, Royle PL, Clar C, Sharma P, Waugh NR. Glucagon-like peptide analogues for Type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Endocrine Disord. 10, 20 (2010).
27.
Zinman B, Schmidt WE, Moses A, Lund N, Gough S. Achieving a clinically relevant composite outcome of an HbA1c of<7% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the liraglutide clinical trial programme. Diabetes Obes. Metabol. 14(1), 77–82 (2012).
28.
Niswender K, Pi-Sunyer X, Buse J et al. Weight change with liraglutide and comparator therapies: an analysis of seven Phase III trials from the liraglutide diabetes development programme. Diabetes Obes. Metabol. 15(1), 42–54 (2013).
29.
Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G et al. Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for Type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6). Lancet 374(9683), 39–47 (2009).
30.
Buse JB, Sesti G, Schmidt WE et al. Switching to once-daily liraglutide from twice-daily exenatide further improves glycemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes using oral agents. Diabetes Care 33(6), 1300–1303 (2010).
31.
Buse JB, Nauck M, Forst T et al. Exenatide once weekly versus liraglutide once daily in patients with Type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label study. Lancet 381(9861), 117–124 (2013).
32.
Gerrald KR, Van Scoyoc E, Wines RC, Runge T, Jonas DE. Saxagliptin and sitagliptin in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes. Metabol. 14(6), 481–492 (2012).
33.
Park H, Park C, Kim Y, Rascati KL. Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in Type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis. Ann. Pharmacother. 46(11), 1453–1469 (2012).
34.
Gross JL, Rogers J, Polhamus D et al. A novel model-based meta-analysis to indirectly estimate the comparative efficacy of two medications: an example using DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin and linagliptin, in treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open 3(3), e001844 (2013).
35.
Scheen AJ, Charpentier G, Östgren CJ, Hellqvist A, Gause-Nilsson I. Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in combination with metformin compared with sitagliptin in combination with metformin in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 26(7), 540–549 (2010).
36.
Mann KV, Raskin P. Exenatide extended-release: a once weekly treatment for patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 7, 229–239 (2014).
37.
Villa L, Warholak TL, Hines LE et al. Health care decision makers' use of comparative effectiveness research: report from a series of focus groups. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 19(9), 745–754 (2013).
38.
Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid. Based Med. 21(4), 125–127 (2016).
39.
Berlin JA, Golub RM. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA 312(6), 603–606 (2014).
40.
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 7(9), e1000326 (2010).
41.
Westrich KD, Wilhelm JA, Schur CL. Comparative effectiveness research in the USA: when will there be an impact on healthcare decision-making? J. Comp. Eff. Res. 5(2), 207–216 (2016).
• Highlights the opinions of various elite decision makers about the impact of CER on decision making. Findings of the study by Westrich et al. (2016) suggest significant short-term impact of CER in improving the medical decision making, which helped adding credibility to the results and implications of our current study.
42.
Garber AM. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff. (Millwood) 20(5), 62–82 (2001).
43.
Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12), 1624–1632 (2003).
44.
Wang A, Halbert RJ, Baerwaldt T, Nordyke RJ. US payer perspectives on evidence for formulary decision making. JOP 8(3S), 22s–27s (2012).
45.
Grabowski H, Mullins CD. Pharmacy benefit management, cost–effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions. Social Sci. Med. 45(4), 535–544 (1997).
46.
Lyles A, Palumbo FB. The effect of managed care on prescription drug costs and benefits. PharmacoEconomics 15(2), 129–140 (1999).
47.
Prosser H, Walley T. New drug uptake: qualitative comparison of high and low prescribing GPs’ attitudes and approach. Fam. Pract. 20(5), 583–591 (2003).
48.
Goldberg NH, Schneeweiss S, Kowal MK, Gagne JJ. Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States. JAMA 305(17), 1786–1789 (2011).
49.
Stafford RS, Wagner TH, Lavori PW. New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling. N. Engl. J. Med. 361(13), 1230–1233 (2009).
•• Discusses the importance of designing superiority trials as CER and its role in drug innovation. It helped guide and develop the research hypothesis of our current study.
50.
Chokshi DA, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Designing comparative effectiveness research on prescription drugs: lessons from the clinical trial literature. Health Affairs 29(10), 1842–1848 (2010).
51.
Fischer MA, Avorn J. Economic implications of evidence-based prescribing for hypertension: can better care cost less? JAMA 291(15), 1850–1856 (2004).
52.
Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1), 128–132 (2005).
53.
Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research – implications of the Federal Coordinating Council’s report. N. Engl. J. Med. 361(4), 328–330 (2009).
54.
Conway PH, Clancy C. Charting a path from comparative effectiveness funding to improved patient-centered health care. JAMA 303(10), 985–986 (2010).
55.
Basu A, Jena AB, Philipson TJ. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending. J. Health Econ. 30(4), 695–706 (2011).
56.
Biskupiak JE, Dunn JD, Holtorf A-P. Implementing CER: what will it take? J. Manag. Care Pharm. 18(5), S19 (2012).
57.
Hill SC, Zuvekas SH, Zodet MW. Implications of the accuracy of MEPS prescription drug data for health services research. Inquiry 48(3), 242–259 (2011).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 1393 - 1403
PubMed: 31789054
Copyright
© 2019 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 22 August 2019
Accepted: 14 October 2019
Published online: 2 December 2019
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs. (2019) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0127
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.