Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support

Med Decis Making. 2019 Apr;39(3):239-252. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19829735. Epub 2019 Feb 15.

Abstract

Background: Personalizing medical treatment often requires practitioners to compare multiple treatment options, assess a patient's unique risk and benefit from each option, and elicit a patient's preferences around treatment. We integrated these 3 considerations into a decision-modeling framework for the selection of second-line glycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Methods: Based on multicriteria decision analysis, we developed a unified treatment decision support tool accounting for 3 factors: patient preferences, disease outcomes, and medication efficacy and safety profiles. By standardizing and multiplying these 3 factors, we calculated the ranking score for each medication. This approach was applied to determining second-line glycemic therapy by integrating 1) treatment efficacy and side-effect data from a network meta-analysis of 301 randomized trials ( N = 219,277), 2) validated risk equations for type 2 diabetes complications, and 3) patient preferences around treatment (e.g., to avoid daily glucose testing). Data from participants with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003-2014, N = 1107) were used to explore variations in treatment recommendations and associated quality-adjusted life-years given different patient features.

Results: Patients at the highest microvascular disease risk had glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists or basal insulin recommended as top choices, whereas those wanting to avoid an injected medication or daily glucose testing had sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors commonly recommended, and those with major cost concerns had sulfonylureas commonly recommended. By converting from the most common sulfonylurea treatment to the model-recommended treatment, NHANES participants were expected to save an average of 0.036 quality-adjusted life-years per person (about a half month) from 10 years of treatment.

Conclusions: Models can help integrate meta-analytic treatment effect estimates with individualized risk calculations and preferences, to aid personalized treatment selection.

Keywords: network meta-analysis; personalized medicine; shared decision making; type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

MeSH terms

  • Choice Behavior
  • Decision Support Techniques*
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / psychology
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / therapy*
  • Humans
  • Network Meta-Analysis
  • Patient Preference / psychology*
  • Precision Medicine
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Risk Assessment / methods
  • Risk Assessment / trends
  • Treatment Outcome