Real-world experience with glucagon-like peptide 2 analogues in patients with short bowel syndrome and chronic intestinal failure: Results from an international survey in expert intestinal failure centers

Abstract

Background and aims

Glucagon-like peptide 2 (GLP-2) analogues are the first available disease-modifying treatments for patients with intestinal failure (IF) due to short bowel syndrome (SBS). Efficacy in terms of reduction of parenteral support (PS) has been demonstrated in multiple studies and real-world reports. However, it remains unclear how many patients are eligible to receive the treatment, when treatment is started after intestinal resection, how treatment efficacy is assessed outside of clinical trials, and how the treatment is modified in case of non-response or adverse events. The aim of this study was to investigate the real-world management of patients treated with GLP-2 analogues in expert centers around the world.

Methods

A survey questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary working group consisting of 52 questions related to various aspects of multidisciplinary care of SBS-IF patients. The 17 questions related to the use of GLP-2 analogues in clinical practice were analyzed for this study. The online survey was sent to 33 participating centers in a phase 3 study of a long-acting GLP-2 analogue. Only responses from countries with access to commercially available GLP-2 analogues were included in the study. A descriptive analysis was performed for each question. Results are presented as median (interquartile range).

Results

The responses from the 19 expert IF centers with access to GLP-2 analogues indicated that 10 (10–20) % of patients with SBS-IF were treated with a GLP-2 analogue, which was less than the number of eligible patients (30 (25–40) %). In most centers (10 centers, 53 %), GLP-2 therapy was started 6–12 months after the last intestinal resection, with 5 centers (26 %) starting later (12–24 months). Multiple parameters were used in combination to determine the response to GLP-2 analogues of which the three most common were >20 % decrease in PS (95 %), at least 1 day of PS reduction per week (84 %) and increased urinary output (68 %). In non-responders GLP-2 therapy was stopped within the first year by 67 % of the centers. Finally, strategies in case of significant adverse events include stopping the GLP-2 analogue (used by 79 % of experts), dose reduction (67 %) and temporary treatment interruption (62 %).

Conclusion

The results of this survey completed by expert IF centers show the real-life use of GLP-2 analogues in clinical practice. Key learning points identified include the accounting for a period of intestinal adaptation before starting GLP-2 analogues and not stopping the treatment too early in case of non-response. The best strategy in case of adverse effects should be studied further.