Cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for type 2 diabetes

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

BACKGROUND

In patients surviving stroke, approximately 15% and 60% exhibit concurrent diabetes mellitus and overweight/obesity, respectively, necessitating heightened secondary prevention efforts. Despite glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) demonstrating improved outcomes for those with diabetes mellitus or obesity, their underutilization persists among eligible individuals. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of GLP-1 RAs on stroke risk. The findings aim to optimize the implementation of this therapeutic strategy in patients surviving stroke with diabetes mellitus or obesity.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed MEDLINE and Scopus until 15 November 2023. Eligible studies included randomized cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with individuals, with or without type 2 diabetes, randomized to either GLP-1 RA or placebo. The outcomes were total strokes, non-fatal strokes, and fatal strokes. Analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Among 1369 screened studies, 11 were eligible, encompassing 82,140 participants (34.6% women) with a cumulative follow-up of 247,596 person-years. In the GLP-1 RAs group, the stroke rate was significantly lower compared to placebo (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.93; NNT: 200), showing no heterogeneity or interaction with administration frequency (daily vs weekly). In addition, the GLP-1 RAs group exhibited a significantly lower rate of non-fatal strokes compared to placebo (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95; NNT: 250), with no heterogeneity or interaction based on administration frequency, route (oral vs subcutaneous), or diabetes presence.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of 11 CVOTs with 82,140 participants, GLP-1 RAs demonstrated a 16% relative reduction in stroke risk compared to placebo. This finding may increase implementation of GLP-1 RAs by stroke specialists in individuals with stroke and comorbid diabetes mellitus or obesity.

DATA ACCESS STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion.

PURPOSE

To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English.

STUDY SELECTION

Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer.

DATA EXTRACTION

Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE).

LIMITATIONS

Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established.

CONCLUSION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).

Cost consequence analysis of adding semaglutide to treatment regimen for patients with Type II diabetes in Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Semaglutide, a Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist (GLP-1 RA), is often prescribed for managing type 2 diabetes, particularly in cases unresponsive to other hypoglycemic agents. Despite its popularity, the real-world efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Semaglutide relative to other treatments remain understudied.

Objective

This study aimed to examine the direct medical cost and consequences of adding Semaglutide to the treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) for adults with type 2 diabetes. Patients who had been on Semaglutide for at least three months were matched with those receiving alternative hypoglycemic therapies. Exclusions were made for patients with cancer, incomplete EMRs, or lacking prescription data. Investigated outcomes included changes in HbA1C levels and weight, and the direct costs comprised medications, clinic visits, and emergency care. Baseline adjustments were made through inverse probability treatment weighting, and uncertainty was assessed via bootstrapping with 10,000 replications.

Results

Out of 350 patients meeting the criteria, 116 were on Semaglutide. Predominantly females (62%), the cohort had an average age of 60 and a disease duration of 22 years. The difference in HbA1C (%) reductions between Semaglutide and non-Semaglutide users over 3,6, and 12 months were 0.154 (95% CI: -0.452-0.483), -0.031(95% CI: -0.754-0.239), -0.16(95% CI: -1.425-0.840), respectively. Semaglutide users did experience modest weight reductions ranging from 0.42 kg to 1.16 kg. The annual additional direct medical cost for Semaglutide was USD 4,086.82 (95% CI: $3,710.85 - $4,294.99).

Conclusion

Although Semaglutide induced modest weight reductions, it did not offer significant advantages in lowering HbA1C levels compared to other hypoglycemic treatments. These findings suggest the need for further research involving larger and more diverse cohorts to corroborate these findings.

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.

Expected Health Benefits of SGLT-2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Older Adults

Background. Older and sicker adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were underrepresented in randomized trials of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor-agonist (GLP1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2I), and thus, health benefits are uncertain in this population. Objective. To assess the impact of age, health status, and life expectancy in older adults with T2D on health benefits of GLP1RA and SGLT2I. Design. We used the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) model to simulate lifetime health outcomes. We calibrated the UKPDS model to improve mortality prediction in older adults using a common geriatric prognostic index. Participants. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2018 participants 65 y and older with T2D, eligible for GLP1RA or SGLT2I according to American Diabetes Association guidelines. Interventions. GLP1RA or SGLT2I use versus no additional medication. Main Measures. Lifetime complications and weighted life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across overall treatment arms and life expectancies. Key Results. The overall older adult population was predicted to experience significant health benefits from GLP1RA (+0.29 LY [95% confidence interval: 0.27, 0.31], +0.15 QALYs [0.14, 0.16]) and SGLT2I (+0.26 LY [0.24, 0.28], +0.13 QALYs [0.12, 0.14]) as compared with no added medication. However, expected benefits declined in subgroups with shorter life expectancies. Participants with <4 y of life expectancy had minimal gains of <0.05 LY and <0.03 QALYs from added medication. Accounting for injection-related disutility, GLP1RA use reduced QALYs (-0.03 QALYs [-0.04, -0.02]). Conclusions. While GLP1RA and SGLT2I have substantial health benefits for many older adults with type 2 diabetes, benefits are not clinically significant in patients with <4 y of life expectancy. Life expectancy and patient preferences are important considerations when prescribing newer diabetes medications.

Highlights

On average, older adults benefit significantly from SGLT2I and GLP1RA use. However, the benefits of these drugs are not clinically significant among older patients with life expectancy less than 4 y.There is potential harm in injectable GLP1RA use in the oldest categories of adults with type 2 diabetes.Heterogeneity in life expectancy and patient preferences for injectable versus oral medications are important to consider when prescribing newer diabetes medications.

Swiss recommendations of the Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes (SGED/SSED) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (2023)

As a first step, the authors emphasise lifestyle changes (increased physical activity, stopping smoking), blood pressure control, and lowering cholesterol). The initial medical treatment should always be a combination treatment with metformin and a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like 1 peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist. Metformin is given first and up-titrated, followed by SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. In persons with type 2 diabetes, if the initial double combination is not sufficient, a triple combination (SGLT-2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and metformin) is recommended. This triple combination has not been officially tested in cardiovascular outcome trials, but there is more and more real-world experience in Europe and in the USA that proves that the triple combination with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitor, and GLP-1 receptor agonist is the best treatment to reduce 3-point MACE, total mortality, and heart failure as compared to other combinations. The treatment with sulfonylurea is no longer recommended because of its side effects and higher mortality compared to the modern treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. If the triple combination is not sufficient to reduce the HbA1c to the desired target, insulin treatment is necessary. A quarter of all patients with type 2 diabetes (sometimes misdiagnosed) require insulin treatment. If insulin deficiency is the predominant factor at the outset of type 2 diabetes, the order of medications has to be reversed: insulin first and then cardio-renal protective medications (SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists).

Oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events: cost per outcome analysis of SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER-6

BACKGROUND

Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1a), reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). An oral version of semaglutide is now available, and patients may prefer it over the subcutaneous form. Our objective was to compare the value for money of the two modalities by assessing the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent MACE.

METHODS

The CNT to prevent MACE was figured by multiplying the one-year number needed to treat (NNT) with either oral or subcutaneous semaglutide by the annual cost of therapy. Efficacy estimates and the resulting NNT figures were extracted from the published results of the SUSTAIN-6 and the PIONEER-6 trials for the injectable and oral versions of semaglutide, respectively. Drug costs were estimated as 75% of the United States national average drug acquisition cost listing in June 2021. We performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the populations in the two trials. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of price changes of the interventions.

RESULTS

The CNT to prevent one MACE with subcutaneous semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6 was $966,693 ($594,888-$5,035,302) compared to $948,689 ($463,465-∞) with oral semaglutide in PIONEER-6. The scenario analysis demonstrated a 17% lower CNT for oral semaglutide. The difference between CNTs was sensitive to price fluctuations of the two interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral and subcutaneous semaglutide prescribed to prevent MACE in patients with T2DM provide similar value for money. The choice between both therapies should be guided mainly by patient preferences.