Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis

Oral or injectable semaglutide for the management of type 2 diabetes in routine care: A multicentre observational study comparing matched cohorts

AIM

To investigate the real-world utilization and comparative clinical outcomes of injectable and oral semaglutide in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with the aim of enhancing understanding of the practical implications associated with choosing between these formulations.

METHODS

New users of oral or injectable semaglutide were selected from a cohort of 14 079 initiators of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was employed to create balanced groups, ensuring comparability. The analysis encompassed dose exposure, drug persistence, and clinical outcomes, including changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, with up to 18 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

We analysed two matched groups of 107 participants each, who comprised on average 63.6% men, aged 64 years, with diabetes duration of approximately 10 years, body mass index of 29 kg/m2 and HbA1c level of 7.7-7.8% (61-62 mmol/mol). The proportion of low, intermediate and high doses were similar with the oral and the injectable formulation. The change in HbA1c was similar between groups (-0.9% / -10 mmol/mol at 18 months) as was the proportion of individuals reaching HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol). The average change in body weight was similar in the two groups (-3.7 kg with injectable and -3.3 kg with oral at 18 months) but more new users of injectable semaglutide lost ≥5% body weight. Persistence on drug was longer with injectable than with oral semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, improvements in HbA1c and body weight were similar after initiation of oral or injectable semaglutide. These results may be specific to the features of the matched cohorts under investigation, with limited generalizability to populations with different characteristics.

A new trivalent recombinant protein for type 2 diabetes mellitus with oral delivery potential: design, expression, and experimental validation

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are increasingly used in clinical practice for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the extremely short half-life of GLP-1 and the need for subcutaneous administration limit its clinical application. Thus, half-life extension and alternative delivery methods are highly desired. DARPin domains with high affinity for human serum albumin (HSA) have been selected for the half-life extension of therapeutic peptides and proteins. In the present study, novel trivalent fusion proteins as long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists with potential for oral delivery were computationally engineered by incorporating a protease-resistant modified GLP-1, an anti-human serum albumin DARPin, and an approved cell-penetrating peptide (Penetratin, Tat, and Polyarginine) linked either by rigid or flexible linkers. Theoretical studies and molecular dynamics simulation results suggested that mGLP1-DARPin-Pen has acceptable quality and stability. Moreover, the potential affinity of the selected fusion proteins for GLP-1 receptor and human serum albumin was explored by molecular docking. The recombinant construct was cloned into the pET28a vector and expressed in Escherichia coli. SDS-PAGE analysis of the purified fusion protein matched its molecular size and was confirmed by western blot analysis. The results demonstrated that the engineered fusion protein could bind HSA with high affinity. Importantly, insulin secretion assays using a mouse pancreatic β-cell line (β-TC6) revealed that the engineered trivalent fusion protein retained the ability to stimulate cellular insulin secretion. Immunofluorescence microscopy analysis indicated the CPP-dependent cellular uptake of mGLP1-DARPin-Pen. These findings demonstrated that mGLP1-DARPin-Pen is a highly potent oral drug candidate that could be particularly useful in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Budget impact analysis for three glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus management in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study presents a budget impact analysis (BIA) conducted in Saudi Arabia, evaluating the cost implications of adopting semaglutide, tirzepatide, or dulaglutide in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. The analysis aims to assess the individual budgetary impact of these treatment options on healthcare budgets and provide insights for decision-makers.

METHODS

A prevalence-based BIA was developed using real-world and clinical trials data. The model considered disease epidemiology, medication prices, diabetes management expenses, cardiovascular (CV) complications costs, and weight reduction savings over a 5-year time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA, PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year period, the cumulative budget impact for semaglutide, tirzepatide, and dulaglutide were 85,923,089 USD, 169,790,195 USD, and 94,558,356 USD, respectively. Hypothetical scenarios considering price parity between semaglutide and tirzepatide are associated with financial impacts of 85,923,091 USD and 86,475,335 USD, respectively. In the public sector, semaglutide showed the lowest incidence of 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE), with tirzepatide leading in weight loss and HbA1c reduction, and dulaglutide presenting the highest 3P-MACE rates and least improvements in HbA1c and weight. A breakeven analysis suggested that tirzepatide's list price would need to be $199.91 lower than its current list price to achieve budget impact parity with semaglutide based on currently available evidence. Results from the OWSA suggested that risk reductions for CV events were key drivers of budget impact. PSA results were confirmatory of base-case analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

CV cost-offsets and drug acquisition considerations may make semaglutide a favorable use of resources for Saudi budget planners and decision-makers. These results were robust to assumptions regarding the list price of tirzepatide.

Cost per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets and Number Needed to Treat with Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide 1 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Achieving glycemic control can help reduce complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the pharmacy cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg versus semaglutide 1 mg to achieve glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints in patients with T2D in the United States.

METHODS

The proportions of patients achieving glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints were obtained from the phase 3 SURPASS-2 randomized clinical trial which compared tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg to semaglutide 1 mg. Annual pharmacy costs were calculated using 2022 wholesale acquisition costs. Cost per responder and NNT were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance (P ≤  0.05).

RESULTS

Tirzepatide had a lower cost per responder to achieve glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) endpoints of ≤ 6.5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses) and < 5.7% (all doses) and weight loss endpoints of ≥ 5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses), ≥ 10% (all doses), and ≥ 15% (all doses). The cost per responder to achieve HbA1c < 7% (all doses of tirzepatide) and ≤ 6.5% (5 mg tirzepatide) were not statistically significantly different between tirzepatide and semaglutide 1 mg. The cost per patient to achieve the composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5%, or < 5.7%/weight loss ≥ 10%/no hypoglycemia) was statistically significantly lower for all doses of tirzepatide than for semaglutide 1 mg. The NNTs for all doses of tirzepatide were statistically significantly lower than that for semaglutide 1 mg to achieve all individual and composite endpoints, with the exception of the 5 mg dose for HbA1c < 7.0% and HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, where tirzepatide had numerically lower NNTs that were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) that may offer the potential to achieve stringent glycemic goals, weight loss targets, and composite treatment goals at a lower cost per responder compared to semaglutide 1 mg among people with T2D.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-daily oral semaglutide versus placebo and subcutaneous glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists added to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China

Introduction: Oral semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that improves glycated hemoglobin levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily oral semaglutide in comparison to placebo and injectable GLP-1 RAs in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on basal insulin. Methods: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (UKPDS OM2.1) was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Baseline characteristics of the simulation cohort were obtained from the PIONEER 8 trial. Utility and safety inputs were derived from a network meta-analysis of 12 trials. Direct medical costs were retrieved from published literature and discounted at an annual rate of 5%. We used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $36,528.3 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Scenario analysis, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: The effectiveness of oral semaglutide was 10.39 QALYs with a total cost of $30,223.10, while placebo provided 10.13 QALYs at a lower total cost of $20,039.19. Oral semaglutide was not cost-effective at an ICER of $39,853.22 and $88,776.61 per QALY compared to placebo and exenatide at the WTP. However, at an annual price of $1,871.9, it was cost-effective compared with dulaglutide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide. The model was most sensitive to the discount rate and annual cost of oral semaglutide. The price of oral semaglutide needed to be reduced to $1,711.03 per year to be cost-effective compared to placebo and other injectable GLP-1 RAs except for exenatide and semaglutide injection. Conclusion: We found that once-daily oral semaglutide, at a comparable price of semaglutide injection, proves to be a cost-effective add-on therapy to insulin for Chinese patients with T2DM, especially when compared to subcutaneous GLP-1 RAs other than injectable semaglutide and exenatide. However, to achieve cost-effectiveness in comparison to placebo, further cost reduction of oral semaglutide is necessary. The estimated annual cost of $1,711.03 for oral semaglutide demonstrates a more cost-effective option than placebo, highlighting its potential value in the management of T2DM.

Bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents, and insulin for type 2 diabetes and obesity: Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents (SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i), and insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bariatric surgery, SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, insulin, and/or placebo/usual care among patients with T2DM and obesity in the achievement of HbA1c < 7.0 per cent within one year, and 12-month changes in HbA1c and body weight.

RESULTS

A total of 376 eligible RCTs (149 824 patients) were analysed. Bariatric surgery had significantly higher rates of achieving HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than SGLT2i (RR = 2.46, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.28, 4.92), DPP4i (RR = 2.59, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.36, 5.13), insulin (RR = 2.27, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.18, 4.58) and placebo/usual care (RR = 4.02, 95 per cent c.i. = 2.13, 7.93), but had no statistically significant difference from GLP1RA (RR = 1.73, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.91, 3.44), regardless of oral (RR = 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.66, 2.79) or injectable (RR = 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.92, 3.45) administration. Significantly more GLP1RA patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than other non-surgical treatments. Bariatric surgery had the greatest reductions in HbA1c (∼1 per cent more) and body weight (∼15 kg more) at 12 months. Among novel glucose-lowering medications, GLP1RA was associated with greater reductions in HbA1c than SGLT2i (-0.39 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.55, -0.22) and DPP4i (-0.51 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.64, -0.39) at 12 months, while GLP1RA (-1.74 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -2.48, -1.01) and SGLT2i (-2.23 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -3.07, -1.39) showed greater reductions in body weight than DPP4i at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Bariatric surgery showed superiority in glycaemic control and weight management compared to non-surgical approaches. GLP1RA administered by oral or injectable form demonstrated reduced HbA1c and body weight at 12 months, and was preferable over other non-surgical treatments among patients with T2DM and obesity.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO

CRD42020201507.

Budget impact of introducing oral semaglutide to the public healthcare benefit package in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has embarked on a Health Sector Transformation Program as part of the Kingdom's Vision 2030 initiatives with the facilitation of access to healthcare services for the millions in KSA with diabetes an essential part of the Program. Decision-making tools, such as budget impact models, are required to consider the addition of new medications like oral semaglutide that have multifaceted health benefits and address barriers related to therapeutic inertia to reduce diabetes-related complications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the financial impact of the introduction of oral semaglutide as a treatment option for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in KSA.

METHODS

From the public payer's perspective, the budget impact model estimates the costs before and after the introduction of oral semaglutide over a 5-year time horizon. The budget impact of introducing oral semaglutide (primary comparator) compared with three different classes of diabetes medicines: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1), sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT 2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DDP-4i) have been calculated based on the projected market shares. The model includes the cost of care through the incorporation of health outcomes that have an impact on the national payer's budget in Saudi Riyals (SAR).

RESULTS

The budget impact over the five-year time horizon indicates a medication cost increase (17,424,788 SAR), and cost offsets which include a difference in diabetes management costs (-3,625,287 SAR), CV complications costs (-810,733 SAR) and weight loss savings of 453,936 SAR. The cumulative total cost difference is 12,427,858 SAR (0.66%).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of oral semaglutide 14 mg as a second-line treatment option after metformin is indicated as budget-neutral to slightly budget-inflating for the public pharmaceutical formulary of KSA. The price difference is offset by positive health outcomes and costs. This conclusion was confirmed through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Considerations in the developability of peptides for oral administration when formulated together with transient permeation enhancers

This paper reviews many of the properties of a peptide that need to be considered prior to development as an oral dosage form when co-formulated with a permeation enhancer to improve oral bioavailability, including the importance and implications of peptide half-life on variability in pharmacokinetic profiles. Clinical considerations in terms of food and drug-drug interactions are also discussed. The paper further gives a brief overview how permeation enhancers overcome barriers that limit oral absorption of peptides and thereby improve their oral bioavailability, albeit bioavailabilities are still low single digit and variability is high.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dulaglutide Versus Liraglutide for Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Diabetes mellitus (DM), as one of the most common metabolic diseases, is the ninth leading cause of death globally and imposes heavy costs on the health systems including both costs of treatment and management of secondary complications. This study intended to investigate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide compared with liraglutide in the management of patients with type 2 DM in Iran.

METHOD

We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a 5-state Markov model from the health system perspective, over a 10-year time horizon, in 2018 in Iran. Sensitivity of the model has been evaluated through tornado diagram and using one-way sensitivity analysis. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analysis has been accomplished using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

The average costs of treatment of patients with type 2 DM using the dulaglutide and liraglutide treatment regimens are 17 577.09 and 18 517.54 US dollars per patient, respectively, over a 10-year time horizon. In terms of effectiveness, the average discounted quality-adjusted life-year rates are estimated at 5.560 and 5.403 for the dulaglutide and liraglutide treatment regimens, respectively. The model is mostly sensitive to the price of dulaglutide and liraglutide, the hemoglobin A1c reduction of liraglutide, and the utility resulting from less injection frequency of dulaglutide, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide, in addition to being more effective, providing 0.156 more quality-adjusted life-years for the patients, reduces costs by 940.45 US dollars per patient over a 10-year time horizon. Therefore, due to the greater effectiveness and lower cost, it is concludable that dulaglutide is the cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = -6028.52) treatment alternative from the health system perspective.

Trends in insulin resistance: insights into mechanisms and therapeutic strategy

The centenary of insulin discovery represents an important opportunity to transform diabetes from a fatal diagnosis into a medically manageable chronic condition. Insulin is a key peptide hormone and mediates the systemic glucose metabolism in different tissues. Insulin resistance (IR) is a disordered biological response for insulin stimulation through the disruption of different molecular pathways in target tissues. Acquired conditions and genetic factors have been implicated in IR. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that the dysregulated metabolic mediators released by adipose tissue including adipokines, cytokines, chemokines, excess lipids and toxic lipid metabolites promote IR in other tissues. IR is associated with several groups of abnormal syndromes that include obesity, diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), cardiovascular disease, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and other abnormalities. Although no medication is specifically approved to treat IR, we summarized the lifestyle changes and pharmacological medications that have been used as efficient intervention to improve insulin sensitivity. Ultimately, the systematic discussion of complex mechanism will help to identify potential new targets and treat the closely associated metabolic syndrome of IR.

Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin and Sitagliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the Swedish Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg, using data from the head-to-head PIONEER 2 and 3 trials, respectively, in which these treatments were added to metformin (± sulphonylurea). Base-case and scenario analyses were conducted. Robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analyses, greater initial lowering of glycated haemoglobin levels with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin, respectively, resulted in reduced incidences of micro- and macrovascular complications and was associated with lower costs of complications and indirect costs. Treatment costs were higher for oral semaglutide, resulting in higher total lifetime costs than with empagliflozin (Swedish Krona [SEK] 1,245,570 vs. 1,210,172) and sitagliptin (SEK1,405,789 vs. 1,377,381). Oral semaglutide was shown to be cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK239,001 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with empagliflozin and SEK120,848 per QALY compared with sitagliptin, from a payer perspective. ICERs were lower at SEK191,721 per QALY compared with empagliflozin and SEK95,234 per QALY compared with sitagliptin from a societal perspective. Results were similar in scenario analyses that incorporated cardiovascular effects, and also in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Swedish setting, oral semaglutide was cost effective compared with empagliflozin and sitagliptin for patients with T2D inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered 11 August 2016) and NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered 18 November 2015).

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists – Potential Game Changers in the Treatment of Glaucoma?

Glaucoma is a common ocular neurodegenerative disease characterized by the progressive loss of retinal ganglion cells and their axons. It is the most common cause of irreversible blindness. With an increasing number of glaucoma patients and disease progression despite treatment, it is paramount to develop new and effective therapeutics. Emerging new candidates are the receptor agonists of the incretin hormone glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1), originally used for the treatment of diabetes. GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have shown neuroprotective effects in preclinical and clinical studies on neurodegenerative diseases in both the brain (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, stroke and diabetic neuropathy) and the eye (e.g., diabetic retinopathy and AMD). However, there are currently very few studies investigating the protective effects of GLP-1R agonists in the treatment of specifically glaucoma. Based on a literature search on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, this review aims to summarize current clinical literature on GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases to elucidate their potential in future anti-glaucomatous treatment strategies.

Economic Analysis of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists from the Saudi Arabia Payer Perspective

Objectives

To perform a cost of control analysis of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) in Saudi Arabia (SA) and determine the economic impact of adopting GLP1RAs.

Methods

A budget impact model that captures the cost of control model was constructed to simulate hypothetical patient on six treatment options: a current mix of 60% liraglutide and 40% dulaglutide, semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. We estimated the relative amounts of SAR spend to achieve HbA1c targets (≤6.5% or < 7.0%). For each treatment option, annual treatment cost, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets, and cost to treat major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were aggregated to estimate the cost of control per patient per year (CCPPPY) over 5-year horizon (2021–2025). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed as a confirmatory analysis.

Results

The CCPPPY to achieve HbA1c ≤ 6.5%/<7.0% using current mix, semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide were SAR 17,097/SAR 14,113, SAR 12,889/SAR 11,123, SAR 15,594/SAR 12,892, SAR 19,184/SAR 15,940, SAR 580,211/SAR 380,936, and SAR 246,570/SAR 143,759, respectively. The relative amounts of SAR spend to achieve HbA1c ≤ 6.5%/<7.0% relative to 1 SAR on semaglutide in case of adopting current mix, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide were SAR 1.42/SAR 1.18, SAR 1.30/SAR 1.07, SAR 1.60/SAR 1.33, SAR 48.33/SAR 31.73, and SAR 20.54/SAR 11.97, respectively. These results were confirmed in the PSA.

Conclusions

Semaglutide 1 mg once weekly was the most economically favorable GLP1RA; associated with the least CCPPPY, and amount of SAR spent to achieve HbA1c of ≤6.50%/<7.00% versus all other GLP1RAs.

Targeted oral peptide delivery using multi-unit particulates: Drug and permeation enhancer layering approach

Oral delivery of peptides is a challenge due to their instability and their limited transport and absorption characteristics within the gastrointestinal tract. In this work, we used layering techniques in a fluidized bed dryer to create a configuration in which the active peptide, permeation enhancers, and polymers are coated to control the release of the peptide. Formulations were developed to disintegrate at pH values of 5.5 and 7.0. In addition, sustained-release or mucoadhesive polymers were coated to trigger release at a desired site in the gastrointestinal tract. Dissolution studies with a USP Type I (basket) apparatus confirmed the duration of release. Pharmacokinetic studies were performed in beagle dogs to evaluate bioavailability. A high-disintegration pH was found to be advantageous in enhancing bioavailability.

Efficacy of Semaglutide in a Subcutaneous and an Oral Formulation

Despite the benefits of early and effective glycemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets is challenging in some patients. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) provide effective reductions in HbA1c and body weight. Semaglutide is the only GLP-1RA that is available in both an injectable and oral formulation. The efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and once-daily oral semaglutide has been investigated in the global SUSTAIN and PIONEER phase III clinical trial programs in a range of clinical settings, including early T2D managed with diet and exercise only, more established T2D uncontrolled on one to three oral antidiabetic drugs, and advanced disease treated with insulin. Across the SUSTAIN program, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.5-1.8% after 30-56 weeks, which was significantly more than sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide extended release, dulaglutide, canagliflozin, or insulin glargine. Across the PIONEER program, once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.0-1.4%, significantly more than sitagliptin or empagliflozin, and to a similar extent as liraglutide after 26 weeks. In addition, subcutaneous semaglutide reduced body weight significantly more than all active comparators tested, while oral semaglutide reduced body weight more than sitagliptin and liraglutide, and to a similar extent as empagliflozin. Neither formulation of semaglutide has been associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and both improve various measures of health-related quality of life. Semaglutide offers the benefits of a highly effective GLP-1RA in both injectable and oral formulations. Selection of the most appropriate formulation can be made on an individual basis to best suit the patient's preferences and needs.

Exploring the Appropriate Price of Semaglutide for Type 2 Diabetes Patients Based on Cost-Utility Analysis in China

Introduction: Semaglutide is the first and only oral version of a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This research was designed to explore the appropriate price of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide for T2D patients in China based on cost-utility analysis.

Methods: The baseline patient cohorts of OW semaglutide and once-daily (OD) empagliflozin were sourced from a patient-level meta-analysis integrating the SUSTAIN 2, SUSTAIN 3, SUSTAIN 8 and PIONEER 2 trials. The long-term health and economic outcomes were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 from the Chinese healthcare provider’s perspective. The appropriate price of semaglutide was explored by binary search. One-way sensitivity analysis (one-way SA), probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were applied to solve the uncertainty.

Results: Under the assumption that the annual cost of semaglutide is equal to that of OD empagliflozin, OW semaglutide was superior to OD empagliflozin due to its higher quality adjusted life years and lower total costs. After binary search, the incremental cost-utility ratio of OW semaglutide vs. OD empagliflozin was approximately equal to 3λ with an annual cost of semaglutide of $1,007.18 and approximately equal to λ with an annual cost of semaglutide of $708.11. Subsequently, the incremental cost-utility ratio of OW semaglutide vs. OD empagliflozin was approximately 3λ and λ, with annual costs of semaglutide of $877.43 and $667.04, respectively, adjusted by one-way SA. Ultimately, the cost-utility results with annual costs of semaglutide of $877.43 and $667.04 were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the annual cost of semaglutide appears to be appropriate between $667.04 and $877.43 for T2D patients in China.

A Pharmacological and Clinical Overview of Oral Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus®) is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with 94% homology to human GLP-1. It is the first GLP-1RA developed for oral administration, and it comprises a co-formulation of the peptide semaglutide with the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate, which overcomes the challenges of peptide absorption in the acidic conditions of the stomach. Oral semaglutide is indicated for use as an add-on combination therapy (with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin) or as a monotherapy (in patients who are intolerant to metformin) for type 2 diabetes when diet and exercise do not provide adequate glycemic control. In an extensive phase III clinical program including patients from across the disease spectrum, treatment with oral semaglutide resulted in effective glycemic control, reductions in body weight, and decreases in systolic blood pressure when used as monotherapy or in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies. Studies showed that oral semaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the GLP-1RA drug class. The risk of hypoglycemia was low, and the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, with nausea and diarrhea generally being the most frequently reported manifestations. Cardiovascular (CV) safety was shown to be noninferior to placebo and observations suggest that the CV profile of oral semaglutide is likely to be similar to that of subcutaneous semaglutide. The evolution of the GLP-1RA class to include an oral agent could facilitate the use of these agents earlier in the diabetes treatment cascade owing to wider acceptance from patients and healthcare professionals.

Management of type 2 diabetes with oral semaglutide: Practical guidance for pharmacists

PURPOSE

To provide pharmacists with information on counseling patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving oral semaglutide.

SUMMARY

Oral semaglutide, the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), was approved for the treatment of adults with T2D by the US Food and Drug Administration in September 2019. Semaglutide has been coformulated with the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate to improve bioavailability of semaglutide following oral administration. Oral semaglutide has been shown to have efficacy and safety profiles similar to those of other GLP-1RAs. Many patients with T2D have a complex oral medication regimen to manage their T2D and concomitant chronic comorbid conditions. Therefore, it is important that patients follow the dose administration instructions closely: oral semaglutide should be taken on an empty stomach upon waking with a sip (≤120 mL) of plain water and at least 30 minutes before the first food, beverage, or other oral medications of the day. The most common adverse effects of oral semaglutide are gastrointestinal (typically nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting). It is important for pharmacists to counsel patients prescribed oral semaglutide about optimal oral dosing, why correct dosing conditions are necessary, expected therapeutic response, and effective strategies to mitigate potential gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Information and practical strategies provided by pharmacists may facilitate initiation and maintenance of oral semaglutide therapy and ensure that each patient achieves an optimal therapeutic response.

Oral Semaglutide, A New Option in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review

According to current guidelines, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are the antidiabetic agent of choice in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) and are also the preferable antidiabetic agent in patients with T2DM without CVD but with indicators of high cardiovascular risk. A limitation in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they are delivered by subcutaneous injections. In this context, the development of an orally administered formulation of semaglutide offers an additional option in the management of patients with T2DM. In the present review, we discuss the findings of the main trials that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide. Oral semaglutide appears to be more effective in reducing HbA1c levels and body weight than other antidiabetic agents and similarly effective to other GLP-1 receptor agonists. The safety profile of oral semaglutide is also comparable with other members of its class. Even though oral semaglutide did not reduce the incidence of the composite primary endpoint in a randomized controlled trial, a reduction in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality was observed. Therefore, oral semaglutide appears to represent a useful tool in the management of patients with TD2M, particularly those with established CVD or high cardiovascular risk and unwilling to receive injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists.

A Review on Semaglutide: An Oral Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist in Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a well-established class of glucose-lowering drugs. GLP-1 RAs can be classified according to their structure, duration of action and mode of administration. This review describes the basic and clinical pharmacology of orally administered semaglutide. It highlights the PIONEER clinical trial programme results, and reviews the efficacy, safety and tolerability.