Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

Bromocriptine and Colesevelam Hydrochloride: Novel Therapies for Type II Diabetes Mellitus

The increasing prevalence of type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a worldwide healthcare concern. Over the years, our understanding of T2DM has grown considerably in uncovering the pathophysiology of the disease and, in turn, understanding how improved treatment methods can be used to slow disease progression. Some long-term complications that are responsible for most T2DM mortalities include cardiovascular disease, neurological decline, and renal failure. In treating T2DM, it is important that not only glycemic control be obtained but also control of associated complications. Bromocriptine and colesevelam hydrochloride have both been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat T2DM but are not readily used in practice. These medications are known to treat glycemic dysregulation via unconventional mechanisms, which might contribute to their potential to provide protection against common diabetic complications such as cardiovascular disease. In order to ensure that these overlooked medications become more readily used, it is vital that more research be performed to further elucidate their efficacy in a clinical setting. Future studies should continue to provide clinicians a better understanding of the role these medications have on the treatment of T2DM such as their ability to be used in combination with other commonly used T2DM medications or as monotherapies.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Newer Non-Insulin Antidiabetic Drugs: Trends in Decision-Analytical Models for Modelling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic overview of the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing Non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) with other NIADs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using decision-analytical modelling (DAM), focusing on both the economic results and the underlying methodological choices.

METHODS

Eligible studies were CEAs using DAM to compare NIADs within the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor classes with other NIADs within those classes for the treatment of T2DM. The PubMed, Embase and Econlit databases were searched from 1 January 2018 to 15 November 2022. Two reviewers screened the studies for relevance by titles and abstracts and then for eligibility via full-text screening, extracted the data from the full texts and appendices, and then stored the data in a spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The search yielded 890 records and 50 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were mainly based on a European setting (60%). Industry sponsorship was found in 82% of studies. The CORE diabetes model was used in 48% of the studies. GLP1 and SGLT2 products were the main comparators in 31 and 16 studies, respectively, while one study had DPP4 and two had no easily discernible main comparator. Direct comparison between SGLT2 and GLP1 occurred in 19 studies. At a class level, SGLT2 dominated GLP1 in six studies and was cost effective against GLP1 once as part of a treatment pathway. GLP1 was cost effective in nine studies and not cost effective against SGLT2 in three studies. At a product level, oral and injectable semaglutide, and empagliflozin, were cost effective against other within-class products. Injectable and oral semaglutide were more frequently found cost effective in these comparisons, with some conflicting results. Most of the modelled cohorts and treatment effects were sourced from randomised controlled trials. The following model assumptions varied depending on the class of the main comparator: choice of and reasoning behind risk equations, the time until the treatment switch, and how often the comparators were discontinued. Diabetes-related complications were emphasised on par with quality-adjusted life-years as model outputs. The main quality issues were regarding the description of alternatives, the perspective of analysis, the measurement of costs and consequences, and patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The included CEAs using DAMs have limitations that hinder their ability to inform decision makers on the cost-effective choice: lack of updated reasoning behind the choice of key model assumptions, over-reliance on risk equations based on older treatment practices, and sponsorship bias. The question of which NIAD is cost effective for the treatment of which T2DM patient is a pressing one and the answer remains unclear.

Analysis of co-medication in people with dementia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Dementia prevalence is increasing, with numbers projected to double by 2050. Risk factors for its development include age and cardiovascular comorbidities, which are found more often in patients with dementia and should be treated properly to improve outcomes. In this case-control study, we analysed a large population-based prescription database to explore the patterns of co-medication in patients with dementia.

METHODS

Prescription claims covering >99% of the Austrian population from 2005 to 2016 were obtained. Patients who were treated with an approved antidementia drug (ADD) were included and co-medication exposure was recorded. A group of people not taking ADDs was matched for age, sex and follow-up duration as a control.

RESULTS

We included 70,799 patients on ADDs who were exposed to a mean of 5.3 co-medications while control patients were treated with a total of 5.2 co-medications (p < 0.001). We found that patients on ADDs received less somatic (4.1 vs. 4.5) but more psychiatric medication (1.1 vs. 0.6; p < 0.001 for both). Patients on ADDs were less likely to be treated for pain, cardiovascular conditions or hyperlipidemia. More than 50% of patients on ADDs were treated with antidepressants or antipsychotics. Greater number of co-medications was associated with markers of more intensive antidementia treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patients on ADDs received more medications overall but were less frequently treated for somatic conditions known to be more prevalent in this group. Together, our data suggest that management of comorbidities in dementia could be improved to optimize outcome and quality of life.

Projecting the incidence and costs of major cardiovascular and kidney complications of type 2 diabetes with widespread SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA use: a cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Whether sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are cost-effective based solely on their cardiovascular and kidney benefits is unknown. We projected the health and economic outcomes due to myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) among people with type 2 diabetes, with and without CVD, under scenarios of widespread use of these drugs.

METHODS

We designed a microsimulation model using real-world data that captured CVD and ESKD morbidity and mortality from 2020 to 2040. The populations and transition probabilities were derived by linking the Australian Diabetes Registry (1.1 million people with type 2 diabetes) to hospital admissions databases, the National Death Index and the ESKD Registry using data from 2010 to 2019. We modelled four interventions: increase in use of SGLT2is or GLP-1 RAs to 75% of the total population with type 2 diabetes, and increase in use of SGLT2is or GLP-1 RAs to 75% of the secondary prevention population (i.e. people with type 2 diabetes and prior CVD). All interventions were compared with current use of SGLT2is (20% of the total population) and GLP-1 RAs (5% of the total population). Outcomes of interest included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs (from the Australian public healthcare perspective) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We applied 5% annual discounting for health economic outcomes. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at AU$28,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The numbers of QALYs gained from 2020 to 2040 with increased SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA use in the total population (n=1.1 million in 2020; n=1.5 million in 2040) were 176,446 and 200,932, respectively, compared with current use. Net cost differences were AU$4.2 billion for SGLT2is and AU$20.2 billion for GLP-1 RAs, and the ICERs were AU$23,717 and AU$100,705 per QALY gained, respectively. In the secondary prevention population, the ICERs were AU$8878 for SGLT2is and AU$79,742 for GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

At current prices, use of SGLT2is, but not GLP-1 RAs, would be cost-effective when considering only their cardiovascular and kidney disease benefits for people with type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: a paradigm shift in the current management of type 2 diabetes

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Historical concerns about cardiovascular (CV) risks associated with certain glucose-lowering medications gave rise to the introduction of cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Initially implemented to help monitor the CV safety of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with T2D, who either had established CVD or were at high risk of CVD, data that emerged from some of these trials started to show benefits. Alongside the anticipated CV safety of many of these agents, evidence for certain sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have revealed potential cardioprotective effects in patients with T2D who are at high risk of CVD events. Reductions in 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE) and CV death have been noted in some of these CVOTs, with additional benefits including reduced risks of hospitalisation for heart failure, progression of renal disease, and all-cause mortality. These new data are leading to a paradigm shift in the current management of T2D, with international guidelines now prioritising SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1 RAs in certain patient populations. However, clinicians are faced with a large volume of CVOT data when seeking to use this evidence base to bring opportunities to improve CV, heart failure and renal outcomes, and even reduce mortality, in their patients with T2D. The aim of this review is to provide an in-depth summary of CVOT data-crystallising the key findings, from safety to efficacy-and to offer a practical perspective for physicians. Finally, we discuss the next steps for the post-CVOT era, with ongoing studies that may further transform clinical practice and improve outcomes for people with T2D, heart failure or renal disease.

Comprehensive cost-effectiveness of diabetes management for the underserved in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus affects almost 10% of U.S. adults, leading to human and financial burden. Underserved populations experience a higher risk of diabetes and related complications resulting from a combination of limited disposable income, inadequate diet, and lack of insurance coverage. Without the requisite resources, underserved populations lack the ability to access healthcare and afford prescription drugs to manage their condition. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings from cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in underserved populations.

METHODS

Original, English, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in U.S. underserved populations were obtained from 8 databases, and PRISMA 2009 reporting guidelines were followed. Evidence was categorized as strong or weak based on a combination of GRADE and American Diabetes Association guidelines. Internal validity was assessed by the Cochrane methodology. Studies were classified by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as very cost-effective (ICER≤US$25,000), cost-effective (US$25,000<ICER≤US$50,000), marginally cost-effective (US$50,000<ICER≤US$100,000) or cost-ineffective (ICER>US$100,000). Reporting and quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the CHEERS guidelines and Recommendations of Second Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, respectively.

FINDINGS

Fourteen studies were included. All interventions were found to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. None of the studies reported all 24 points of the CHEERS guidelines. Given the considered cost categories vary significantly between studies, assessing cost-effectiveness across studies has many limitations. Program costs were consistently analyzed, and a third of the included studies (n = 5) only examined these costs, without considering other costs of diabetes care.

INTERPRETATION

Cost-effectiveness studies are not based on a standardized methodology and present incomplete or limited analyses. More accurate assessment of all direct and indirect costs could widen the gap between intervention and usual care. This demonstrates the urgent need for a more standardized and comprehensive cost-effectiveness framework for future studies.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Agents in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Simple Summary

New treatments in multiple myeloma are embraced by patients and physicians but are also associated with substantial higher costs. To ensure the affordability and accessibility of health care, an evaluation of the outcomes in relation to the costs is increasingly requested. However, an up-to-date summary and assessment of the cost-effectiveness evidence for multiple myeloma treatments is currently lacking. We identified the cost-effectiveness studies currently available and show that novel treatments could improve survival with almost 4 years compared to standard of care. However, additional costs compared to standard of care could increase up to USD 535,530 per patient. The ratio between outcomes and costs is above currently accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Our results show cost-effectiveness ratios should be either improved or less favorable ratios should be accepted to ensure accessibility to promising treatments.

Abstract

Background: Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) promise to improve outcomes but are also associated with substantial increasing costs. Evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of novel treatments is necessary, but a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the cost-effectiveness evidence of novel treatments is currently lacking. Methods: We searched Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and EconLIT ProQuest to identify all cost-effectiveness evaluations of novel pharmacological treatment of MM reporting cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year (LY) gained since 2005. Quality and completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Results: We identified 13 economic evaluations, comprising 32 comparisons. Our results show that novel agents generate additional LYs (range: 0.311–3.85) and QALYs (range: 0.1–2.85) compared to backbone regimens and 0.02 to 1.10 LYs and 0.01 to 0.91 QALYs for comparisons between regimens containing two novel agents. Lifetime healthcare costs ranged from USD 60,413 to 1,434,937 per patient. The cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained ranged from dominating to USD 1,369,062 for novel agents compared with backbone therapies and from dominating to USD 618,018 for comparisons between novel agents. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness ratios of novel agents were generally above current willingness-to-pay thresholds. To ensure access, cost-effectiveness should be improved or cost-effectiveness ratios above current thresholds should be accepted.

The diminishing cost-effectiveness of the newer glucose-lowering drug classes in the United States: 2010-2018

BACKGROUND

The difference between the costs of the newer and older glucose-lowering drugs (GLMs) has been steadily increasing since 2010. In 2018, newer drugs cost 8-12 times more than older drugs (except for insulin). This study aimed to understand how the cost change influenced the cost-effectiveness of the newer GLMs.

METHODS

Based on our previous literature review on US-based cost-effectiveness studies comparing newer (i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors) with older GLMs, we identified 12 studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of newer drugs based on drug costs estimated before 2010. We updated the corresponding cost-effectiveness of each study by replacing the old cost estimates with 2018 estimates from the 2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases. The time window and willingness to pay threshold were consistent with the original studies.

RESULTS

Only 8% of the original studies suggested that the older drugs were cost-effective. However, 58% of studies were in favor of the older drugs after the cost update. Among the four studies comparing newer drugs with thiazolidinediones, all the original results favored newer drugs. However, all studies suggested thiazolidinedione to be cost-effective in the updated analysis. For the four studies comparing newer drugs with sulfonylureas, two studies suggested the sulfonylureas to be cost-effective after the cost update. All four studies suggested newer drugs to be cost-effective when compared with insulin in the original study. Only 1 flipped its conclusion when 2018 costs were used. Our sensitivity analysis shows that our results are robust under a 30% rebate.

CONCLUSION

Significant changes in the cost of GLMs have impacted the economic value of different GLM classes substantially. More cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted to support the drug choice in T2DM management.

Electronic Medical Record Risk Modeling of Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Increased utilization of electronic health records (EHR) has enriched databases for creating risk models. We used machine learning techniques to develop an EHR-based risk model locally fitted to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for predicting cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted within Ochsner Health, Louisiana, USA, between 2013-2017. Data analysis included 6245 patients who had two outpatient diagnoses of T2DM recorded on separate days or a diagnosis recorded during an inpatient encounter. Baseline clinical data were limited to 180 days before the index diagnosis. Cardiovascular outcomes were coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure and stroke. Machine learning approaches were used to select predictor variables into Cox proportional hazards models for each outcome. Locally fit equations were compared to "generalized" risk equations (RECODe, AS-CVD, QRISK3) using model discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

Among factors identified in the Ochsner (n = 11), RECODe (n = 14), AS-CVD (n = 15) and QRISK3 (n = 23), only age was common to all four risk equations. The Ochsner model had high internal discrimination for CHD (C-statistics 0.85) and better discrimination than RECODe (C-statistics 0.45), the QRISK3 (C-statistics 0.72) and AS-CVD (C-statistics 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

The Ochsner model overestimated 5-year CHD risk, but had relatively higher calibration than the other models in CHD. Risk equations fitted for local populations improved cardiovascular risk stratification for patients with T2DM. Application of machine learning simplified the models compared to "generalized" risk equations.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus without established cardiovascular disease: Do they have a role in primary prevention?

Most guidelines and cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) focus on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients with T2DM without established CVD (eCVD) also form a critical cohort, for whom primary prevention with timely pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions can effectively prevent or delay the onset of CVD. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have demonstrated a promising role for primary prevention of CVD in CVOTs and real-world studies. The 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on primary prevention of CVD recommend SGLT2i as one of the add-on treatment options to metformin for adults with T2DM and glycated hemoglobin >7% who have cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. The outcomes with maximal response to SGLT2i use in primary prevention are hospitalization for heart failure and chronic kidney disease. The cardiorenal benefits with SGLT2i are attributed to pleiotropic effects on CV risk factors, and interference with glucose and sodium handling in kidneys, independent of their glycemic benefits. Results therefore support a role for SGLT2i not only in patients with T2DM and eCVD but also in patients with T2DM without eCVD. This review examines the evidence for potential role of SGLT2i for primary prevention of CVD in T2DM.

From glucose lowering agents to disease/diabetes modifying drugs: a "SIMPLE" approach for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

During the last decade we experienced a surge in the number of glucose lowering agents that can be used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes. Especially important are the discoveries that sodium glucose co-transporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve patients’ cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Accordingly, various medical associations have updated their guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in this new era. Though not agreeing on every issue, these position-statements generally share a detailed and often complex workflow that may be too complicated for the busy and overworked primary care setting, where the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in many countries. Other guidelines, generally those from the cardiology associations focus primarily on the population of patients with high risk for or pre-existing cardiovascular disease, which represent only the minority of patients with type 2 diabetes. We believe that we should re-define SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA as diabetes/disease modifying drugs (DMDs) given the recent evidence of their cardiovascular and renal benefits. Based on this definition we have designed a SIMPLE approach in order to assist primary care teams in selecting the most appropriate therapy for their patients. We believe that most subjects newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes should initiate early combination therapy with metformin and a prognosis changing DMD. The decision whether to use GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i should be made based on specific patient’s risk factors and preferences. Importantly, DMDs are known to have a generally safe side-effect profile, with lower risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, further promoting their wider usage. Early combination therapy with DMDs may improve the multiple pathophysiological abnormalities responsible for type 2 diabetes and its complications, thus resulting in the greatest long term benefits.

GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes - state-of-the-art

BACKGROUND

GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with exenatide b.i.d. first approved to treat type 2 diabetes in 2005 have been further developed to yield effective compounds/preparations that have overcome the original problem of rapid elimination (short half-life), initially necessitating short intervals between injections (twice daily for exenatide b.i.d.).

SCOPE OF REVIEW

To summarize current knowledge about GLP-1 receptor agonist.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

At present, GLP-1 RAs are injected twice daily (exenatide b.i.d.), once daily (lixisenatide and liraglutide), or once weekly (exenatide once weekly, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide). A daily oral preparation of semaglutide, which has demonstrated clinical effectiveness close to the once-weekly subcutaneous preparation, was recently approved. All GLP-1 RAs share common mechanisms of action: augmentation of hyperglycemia-induced insulin secretion, suppression of glucagon secretion at hyper- or euglycemia, deceleration of gastric emptying preventing large post-meal glycemic increments, and a reduction in calorie intake and body weight. Short-acting agents (exenatide b.i.d., lixisenatide) have reduced effectiveness on overnight and fasting plasma glucose, but maintain their effect on gastric emptying during long-term treatment. Long-acting GLP-1 RAs (liraglutide, once-weekly exenatide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide) have more profound effects on overnight and fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, both on a background of oral glucose-lowering agents and in combination with basal insulin. Effects on gastric emptying decrease over time (tachyphylaxis). Given a similar, if not superior, effectiveness for HbA1c reduction with additional weight reduction and no intrinsic risk of hypoglycemic episodes, GLP-1RAs are recommended as the preferred first injectable glucose-lowering therapy for type 2 diabetes, even before insulin treatment. However, GLP-1 RAs can be combined with (basal) insulin in either free- or fixed-dose preparations. More recently developed agents, in particular semaglutide, are characterized by greater efficacy with respect to lowering plasma glucose as well as body weight. Since 2016, several cardiovascular (CV) outcome studies have shown that GLP-1 RAs can effectively prevent CV events such as acute myocardial infarction or stroke and associated mortality. Therefore, guidelines particularly recommend treatment with GLP-1 RAs in patients with pre-existing atherosclerotic vascular disease (for example, previous CV events). The evidence of similar effects in lower-risk subjects is not quite as strong. Since sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor treatment reduces CV events as well (with the effect mainly driven by a reduction in heart failure complications), the individual risk of ischemic or heart failure complications should guide the choice of treatment. GLP-1 RAs may also help prevent renal complications of type 2 diabetes. Other active research areas in the field of GLP-1 RAs are the definition of subgroups within the type 2 diabetes population who particularly benefit from treatment with GLP-1 RAs. These include pharmacogenomic approaches and the characterization of non-responders. Novel indications for GLP-1 RAs outside type 2 diabetes, such as type 1 diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, and psoriasis, are being explored. Thus, within 15 years of their initial introduction, GLP-1 RAs have become a well-established class of glucose-lowering agents that has the potential for further development and growing impact for treating type 2 diabetes and potentially other diseases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 Inhibitors Added to Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in China

PURPOSE

Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, including linagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, are used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in China. This study assessed the economic outcomes of different DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin in the Chinese context.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, the validated Chinese Outcomes Model for T2DM (COMT) was conducted to project economic outcomes from the perspective of Chinese healthcare service providers. Efficacy and safety, medical expenditure, and utility data were derived from the literature, which were assigned to model variables. The primary outputs of the model included the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the potential uncertainties of parameters.

RESULTS

Of the five competing strategies, alogliptin 25 mg strategy yielded the most significant health outcome, which associated with improvements in discounted QALY of 0.007, 0.014, 0.011, and 0.022 versus linagliptin 5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and vildagliptin50 mg, respectively. The sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was the cheapest option. The ICER of alogliptin 25 mg against sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was $6,952 per additional QALY gained, and the rest of the strategies were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the cost of DPP-4 inhibitors and their treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggested that alogliptin was a preferred treatment option compared with other DPP-4 inhibitors for Chinese patients whose T2DM are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Insights from VERIFY: Early Combination Therapy Provides Better Glycaemic Durability Than a Stepwise Approach in Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes

The treatment aims for type 2 diabetes are to prevent complications and premature mortality, and improve quality of life. Glycaemic control is central to these aims; clinical guidelines have sought to achieve this with a stepwise approach starting with lifestyle measures and metformin, adding further medications once glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels rise above a predefined threshold. However, treatment intensification can be delayed when HbA_1c levels increase, and HbA_1c levels become inadequately controlled in many patients. Clinical inertia can result in sustained elevated levels of HbA_1c; when combined with a late diagnosis, this negatively impacts patients' prognosis. Early combination therapy using medications with complementary modes of action could achieve optimal glycaemic targets and alter the course of the disease more than metformin alone. The multinational VERIFY study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01528254) provided evidence accrued over 5 years, demonstrating the potential of early combination therapy: time to loss of glycaemic control was nearly doubled, and more than twice the number of patients experienced extended glycaemic control, with a vildagliptin-metformin combination therapy versus metformin alone. The study also showed a delay in secondary treatment failure in patients receiving the combination. Early combination therapy therefore offers a different trajectory to the stepwise approach. Translating these findings into clinical practice will require early detection and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes plus a shift in disease management. Nonetheless, the potential benefits of sustained and continuous disease control that early combination therapy offers represent the start of a new era in early diagnosis and intensive management, to achieve the treatment aims of type 2 diabetes.

Management of type 2 diabetes: now and the future

There are about 4.7 million people living with diabetes mellitus in the UK and 90% have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This burden will only get worse as there are currently about 12.3 million more at risk of T2DM. Moreover, up to 30% of diagnosed patients already have eye, foot, kidney or nerve complications. This impacts the NHS considerably as it spends about £10 billion annually on diabetes (80% on complications alone). Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the leading cause of death in diabetes, contributes significantly to this. Therefore, there is significant emphasis on the prevention of T2DM especially in at-risk groups with the setting up of initiatives like the Diabetes Prevention Programme. When prevention fails, it is essential to commence glucose-lowering agents to reduce the burden of disease, prevent associated complications and improve quality of life. A patient-centred approach is required to ensure efficacy of treatment strategies and the presence of co-morbidities such as cardiovascular and renal disease should be considered.

Managing the multifaceted nature of type 2 diabetes using once-weekly injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

As a highly prevalent chronic condition associated with complications and high mortality rates, it is important for pharmacists to have a comprehensive understanding of the impact of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and available treatment options. The use of injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is recommended as an effective and convenient treatment regimen for improving glycaemic control in individuals with T2D, with a good safety profile; however, the wider extent of its potential benefits often are unknown to clinical pharmacists. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the impact of T2D on individuals and to discuss the multifaceted role of once-weekly (QW) GLP-1 RAs in addressing these challenges.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of the published literature regarding the use of injectable GLP-1 RAs in managing health complications in people with T2D.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Recent findings reveal additional benefits of GLP-1 RAs in managing T2D complications, including atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease, retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy. Dulaglutide and semaglutide have been shown to provide additional CV benefit in patients at high risk of CV events compared with standard of care/placebo and may offer renal protection in patients with chronic kidney disease. Cost-effectiveness studies, taking into consideration these different complications, have shown that QW GLP-1 RAs were cost-effective compared with other therapies. GLP-1 RAs may also help to improve overall health-related quality of life, reducing the risk of depression and 'diabetes distress', and limiting the risk of hypoglycaemia.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

From the literature, this appears to be the first review of the evidence supporting the multifaceted role of QW GLP-1 RAs in T2D, with particular emphasis on their use in comorbid conditions, as well as associated potential financial and well-being benefits. The results suggest that QW GLP-1 RAs may be an attractive treatment option for improving glycaemic control in T2D, especially in individuals with (or at risk of) additional comorbidities or health complications.

Does the Encounter Type Matter When Defining Diabetes Complications in Electronic Health Records?

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) and claims records are widely used in defining type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complications across different types of health care encounters.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates whether using different EHR encounter types to define diabetes complications may lead to different results when examining associations between diabetes complications and their risk factors in patients with T2DM.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The study cohort of 64,855 adult patients with T2DM was created from EHR data from the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet), using the Surveillance Prevention, and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) definitions. Incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke events were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 codes and grouped by encounter types: (1) inpatient (IP) or emergency department (ED) type, or (2) any health care encounter type. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate associations between diabetes complications (ie, CHD and stroke) and risk factors (ie, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A1c).

RESULTS

The incidence rates of CHD and stroke in all health care settings were more than twice the incidence rates of CHD and stroke in IP/ED settings. The age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for incident CHD and stroke across different levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A1c were similar between IP/ED and all settings.

CONCLUSION

While there are large variations in incidence rates of CHD and stroke as absolute risks, the associations between both CHD and stroke and their respective risk factors measured by hazard ratios as relative risks are similar, regardless of alternative definitions.

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation on Targeted Therapies for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Quality Evaluation

Background

Evolving practices in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy inevitably affect health care budgets, especially through the introduction of targeted therapies. This results in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEEs) in this domain. This article reviews the quality of the economic evidence of targeted therapies used in metastatic NSCLC.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and CRD (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) databases to identify topical original articles published between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2019. A quality of reporting assessment using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement) checklist was converted into a quantitative score and compared with the results of a QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) evaluation. Components of QHES were also used to analyze the validity of primary outcomes, consideration of heterogeneity and rationality of main assumptions of models in modeling studies.

Results

In total, 25 HEEs were obtained and analyzed. From the CHEERS assessment, it was found that method description integrity (including setting, perspective, time horizon and discount rate), justification of data sources and a heterogeneity description were often absent or incomplete. Only five examined studies met the accepted standard of good quality. Modeled articles were examined with the QHES instrument, and a lack of illustrated structure, population variability, formula of the transitioning probability and justification for the choice of the model were the most frequently observed problems in the selected studies. After quantification, the CHEERS scores and QHES scores did not differ significantly.

Conclusion

Current NSCLC models generally lack consideration for demographic heterogeneity and transparency of data description, and it would be difficult to transfer or generalize from the scientific literature to real-world evidence-based decision-making. Frameworks of future models should be informed and justified based on the validity of model results and the improvement of modeling accuracy.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Inhibitors for Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are the most recently approved class of drugs (since 2012) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but their economic merits have yet been fully confirmed. The objective of this review was to evaluate the most updated evidence that examined the cost-effectiveness of SGLT2i for T2DM.

RECENT FINDINGS

We systematically searched Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science for eligible articles from January 1, 2011, to October 31, 2019, using combinations of search words. A supplementary search using reference lists of eligible articles and other review articles was also performed. A multistage screening process was carried out with duplicates removal, abstract screening, and full-text reading to confirm eligibility. Two reviewers independently screened the eligible articles and assessed reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. A total of 24 studies were included in the final review. All studies showed good quality according to the CHEERS checklist (scored 21-24). Seven studies compared SGLT2i vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), 3 studies compared SGLT2i vs. sulfonylureas (SU), 3 compared SGLT2i vs. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), 2 compared SGLT2i vs. SGLT2i, 3 compared SGLT2i vs. other antidiabetic therapies including thiazolidinediones (TZD), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) or insulin, and 5 compared SGLT2i vs. standard care/metformin. Most studies concluded SGLT2i was cost-effective relative to its comparator except GLP-1 RA, where two studies suggested GLP-1 RA was the favorable treatment option relative to SGLT2i. The literature demonstrated that SGLT2i may be cost-effective compared to many antidiabetic therapies including DPP-4i, SU, TZD, AGI, insulin, and standard care .

Epidemiological characteristics, medical costs and healthcare resource utilization of diabetes-related complications among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objectives: To estimate the direct medical costs (DMCs) and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)-related complications in China. Methods: Data from a total of 74,507 patients were extracted from the 2015 China Health Insurance Research Association Claims Database. The complications determined by primary diagnoses were categorized into three groups: 1) for mild acute and local chronic complications, both outpatients and inpatients were considered; 2) for severe acute complications, only inpatiens were considered; 3) for systemic chronic complications, a 1:1 propensity-score matching was performed to calculate the incremental DMCs and HRU of preexisting and new-onset patients. Results: Among the mild acute and local chronic complications, the DMCs and HRU per event were the highest for gangrene and laser treatment. Of the severe acute complications, the DMCs and HRU per event were highest for hyperosmotic nonketonic diabetic coma (HNDC), followed by severe hypoglycemia and ketosis. For systemic chronic complications, the DMCs and HRU associated with dialysis and myocardial infarction were the highest both in patients with new-onset complications and preexisting complications. Conclusions: The estimated economic data are required for policy decisions to optimize resource allocation and to evaluate different approaches for disease management.

Initial injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes: Key considerations when choosing between glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and insulin

Managing type 2 diabetes is complex and necessitates careful consideration of patient factors such as engagement in self-care, comorbidities and costs. Since type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease, many patients will require injectable agents, usually insulin. Recent ADA-EASD guidelines recommend glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as first injectable therapy in most cases. The basis for this recommendation is the similar glycemic efficacy of GLP-1 RAs and insulin, but with GLP-1 RAs promoting weight loss instead of weight gain, at lower hypoglycemia risk, and with cardiovascular benefits in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. GLP-1 RAs also reduce burden of glucose self-monitoring. However, tolerability and costs are important considerations, and notably, rates of drug discontinuation are often higher for GLP-1 RAs than basal insulin. To minimize risk of gastrointestinal symptoms patients should be started on lowest doses of GLP-1 RAs and up-titrated slowly. Overall healthcare costs may be lower with GLP-1 RAs compared to insulin. Though patient-level costs may still be prohibitive, GLP-1 RAs can replace 50-80 units of insulin daily and reduce costs associated with glucose self-monitoring. Decisions regarding initiating injectable therapy should be individualized. This review provides a framework to guide decision-making in the real-world setting.