Cost-minimization analysis of degludec/liraglutide versus glargine/aspart: economic implications of the DUAL VII study outcomes

Delphi-Based Consensus on Treatment Intensification in Type 2 Diabetes Subjects Failing Basal Insulin Supported Oral Treatment: Focus on Basal Insulin + GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapies

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to elaborate a consensus on treatment intensification strategies in patients with type 2 diabetes failing basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT). The panel focused on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and basal insulin (BI) combinations.

METHODS

The authors developed a Delphi questionnaire organized into ten statements and 77 items that focused on: the definition of BOT and BOT failure, intensification strategies, fixed-dose combinations in general and the BI/GLP-1RA fixed combination. The survey was administered in two rounds to a panel of 80 Italian diabetes specialists, who rated their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as > 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing on any given item.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for 71 of the 77 items. The panel agreed that the use of sulfonylureas in the BOT regimen is inappropriate. BOT failure was defined as individualized targets not being met for glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and/or postprandial plasma glucose. There was agreement that postprandial hyperglycaemia and/or presence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia or weight gain define BOT failure. Addition of a GLP-1RA to BI therapy was considered to be the best option for BOT intensification. There was consensus for the use of BI/GLP-1RA fixed combinations as valuable options to increase compliance and safely improve glycaemic control. The panel agreed in considering the fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) to be preferable to the fixed-ratio combination insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in the control of glycaemia, body weight and cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSION

According to this Delphi consensus, the addition of a GLP-1RA may be the best option to intensify BOT. The BI/GLP-1RA fixed combinations may increase compliance and optimize the advantages of each of these molecules.

Association of glycosylated hemoglobin and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing type 2 diabetes: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of glycosylated hemoglobin on mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains uncertain. In this study, we aim to assess the effect of pre-hospital blood glucose regulation on patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing T2D.

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of association of glycosylated hemoglobin and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and T2D will be included in this review. PubMed, Embase, and CNKI will be searched for relevant literature, up to August 20, 2020 in English and Chinese language. Two reviewers will select trials independently for inclusion and assess trial quality. Two pairs of authors will independently extract information for each included trials. Primary outcomes are death and composite adverse outcomes: the number of participants who died or remained severely disabled. Revman 5.3 will be used for heterogeneity assessment, data synthesis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysisa and generating funnel-plots.

RESULTS

We will provide practical results about the association of glycosylated hemoglobin and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and T2D.

CONCLUSION

The stronger evidence about the association of glycosylated hemoglobin and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and T2D will be provided for clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020200574.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no need for ethical approval, and the review will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Saxagliptin/Dapagliflozin Versus Gliclazide and Insulin Glargine: Economic Implications of the Outcomes of the CVD-Real Studies I and II

Diabetes treatment cost represents an ever-growing problem. The adoption of new drugs in therapy, although they can guarantee an improvement in patient’s quality of life, can meet obstacles when it involves an increase in costs. We decided to compare the costs and benefits of the new saxagliptin and dapagliflozin combination versus traditional therapies. Bodyweight loss and the sharp reduction in hypoglycemic episodes were the 2 main clinical outcomes that emerged from registered studies of saxagliptin and dapagliflozin compared with the sulfonylureas. These results, combined with the good cardiovascular risk profile, led to develop a cost-utility analysis. We aimed to show the economic value of this new association therapy. We carried out a cost-utility analysis from the Italian National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective, focused on direct costs related to the treatment and management of main diabetes complications. Utility scores adopted have been measured based on the patient’s perception of weight changes. In light of the better durability profile of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin compared with gliclazide, we also considered a simulation scenario to assess the impact on costs of switching to basal insulin, starting from gliclazide and the fixed combination, respectively, and based on the related probabilities to switch. To assess the robustness of the results, a 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the main parameters by ±20%. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the results was tested considering the addition of a percent discount, because the purchase costs of drugs are usually subject to hidden discounts. We calculated the total direct annual cost per patient of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin versus gliclazide and insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not achieving glycemic control on metformin plus saxagliptin alone, dapagliflozin alone, or gliclazide at a lower dosage. Total treatment costs have been obtained adding the direct cost of the drug, needles, glycemic self-monitoring, hypoglycemic events, cardiovascular complications, and effect on consumption of other drugs. The total direct cost of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin fixed dose combination was €414.62 higher than gliclazide (€1.067.72 vs €653.10), and greater than basal insulin, with a difference of €166.99 (€1067.72 vs €900.72). Despite the higher annual direct total cost, the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, compared with gliclazide, has been €11 517, and €4639, when compared with insulin glargine in the base-case scenario, and the robustness of the results has been shown in the sensitivity analysis. The results of our cost-utility analysis, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, were fully compliant with the threshold adopted for Italy. Then, saxagliptin/dapagliflozin can be considered a cost-effective oral hypoglycemic agent. The positive effect of this drug on the quality of life, induced by the bodyweight loss, has allowed this outcome, despite the higher annual cost per patient, mainly determined by the drug purchase cost.

Safety, efficacy and cost of two direct-acting antiviral regimens: A comparative study in chronic hepatitis C Egyptian patients

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have become the most widely used treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection. Comparative studies on DAAs regimens approved by the Egyptian Ministry of Health for easy-to-treat genotype 4 (G4) Egyptian patients are still deficient. In this prospective study, we compared the efficacy and cost of two DAA regimens that are used in the treatment of Egyptian chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) G4. The cost-saving regimen is determined.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 (Gp 1) received sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir, and group 2 (Gp 2) received ombitasvir, paritaprevir and ritonavir plus ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks. Data were collected and evaluated at baseline and at weeks 4, 8 and 12. Sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR₁₂ ) was evaluated. Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Eligibility was achieved in 107 patients, Gp1 included 57 patients, and Gp 2 included 50 patients. Two patients dropped out from Gp 2 due to non-compliance. All patients in the two groups showed negative HCV blood levels at the end of treatment. At the 24th week, 3 relapsers (5.2%) were detected in Gp1 and 2 relapsers (4.1%) were detected in Gp 2. SVR₁₂ was 54/57 (94.7%) and 46/48 (95.8%) for Gp 1 and Gp 2, respectively. After the 12th week of treatment, a significant decrease in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and haemoglobin levels were observed in both groups. Albumin levels declined in Gp 2 only. CMA showed higher cost in Gp 2 than Gp 1, although similar efficacy and safety.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The two DAA regimens showed high SVR₁₂ and safety in Egyptian HCV G4 patients. Sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir is the cost-saving regimen.

Value For Money In The Treatment Of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Assessing The Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Of IDegLira Versus iGlarLixi In Italy

Objective

Italian treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) target good glycemic control but acknowledge the associated risk of hypoglycemia. Unlike traditional antidiabetic therapies, modern treatment options such as fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists are associated with improved glycemic control, reduced body weight and low risk of hypoglycemia. The cost-effectiveness of the fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists IDegLira and iGlarLixi was assessed for Italy in patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, to evaluate how short-term clinical benefits translate into long-term health economic outcomes.

Methods

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over patient lifetimes. Treatment effects were sourced from an indirect treatment comparison. The analysis captured direct medical costs (expressed in 2017 Euros) from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS) and patient-related quality of life. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

IDegLira was associated with gains of 0.09 life years and 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to iGlarLixi, due to a lower cumulative incidence and delayed onset of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with an incremental cost of EUR 930 over patient lifetimes, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 7,386 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

Over the lifetime of patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at higher costs relative to iGlarLixi. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, IDegLira was considered to be cost-effective versus iGlarLixi from the perspective of the Italian NHS.