Search

Aims: The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for oral administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, was evaluated i...

Introduction Liraglutide and sitagliptin were compared on glycemic control and all-cause healthcare costs over a 1-year period among older adults with type 2 diabetes (65–89 years) enrolled in a national Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug health plan. Methods This was a retrospective study in which the index date was the first prescription fill for liraglutide or sitagliptin between 25 January 2010 and 31 December 2014. Post-index treatment persistence and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline and 1 year (± 90 days) post-index date were required. Patients were excluded if their record included use of insulin during the baseline period. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using stabilized weights was employed with final covariate adjusted regression modeling to estimate the primary outcome (mean change in HbA1c) and secondary outcomes (achieving glycemic goal and costs), each at 1-year post-index date. Results Overall, 3056 patients met the selection criteria, of whom 218 filled prescriptions for liraglutide and 2838 for sitagliptin. Adjusted mean change in HbA1c at 1 year post-index was − 0.42 with liraglutide versus − 0.12 with sitagliptin (P = 0.0012). Adjusted odds of achieving the treatment goals of HbA1c

Introduction Orally administered semaglutide is the first glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for oral administration. As head-to-head trials assessing orally administered semaglutide as an add-on to 1–2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) vs other GLP-1 RAs are limited, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of orally administered semaglutide 14 mg once-daily (QD) vs injectable GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on 1–2 OADs. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in patients inadequately controlled on 1–2 OADs. Data at 26 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes feasible for the NMA: change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, HbA1c target levels (

Introduction Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and has been evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program. These trials assessed the proportions of patients achieving single and composite endpoints, encompassing glycemic control [defined in terms of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)], weight loss, and hypoglycemia. The present study assessed the cost of control with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. Methods Four endpoints were evaluated: (1) HbA1c ≤ 6.5%; (2) HbA1c

Introduction This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes of long-term use of liraglutide versus sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in real-world practice in the USA. Methods We identified adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with T2DM who initiated liraglutide or sitagliptin in 2010–2014 using a large claims database. Quarterly glycemic control measures and annual healthcare costs were assessed during the 1st and 2nd years of persistent medication use. Their associations with medication use (liraglutide or sitagliptin) were estimated using multivariable regression models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Results A total of 3113 patients persistently used liraglutide (N = 493) or sitagliptin (N = 2620) for ≥ 1 year [mean age (standard deviation, SD): 53 (8.5) vs. 56 (9.7) years; 48.3% vs. 62.3% males; both p

Purpose To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of oral semaglutide (14 mg once daily) vs other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatments among adults with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with 1 to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs from a US payer perspective. Methods A state-transition model with a competing risk approach was developed for diabetic complications and risk of cardiovascular events based on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 1 equations. Baseline population characteristics reflect the PIONEER 4 trial (Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide and Versus Placebo in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) of oral semaglutide. Model comparators included subcutaneous semaglutide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide. Treatment effects (change in glycosylated hemoglobin, weight, and systolic blood pressure) were estimated by network meta-analysis. Drug, management, and event costs (in 2019 US dollars), survival after nonfatal events, and utilities were obtained from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcomes were discounted at 3% annually over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Findings Total estimated costs and QALYs were $144,065 and 12.98 for oral semaglutide, $145,721 and 12.96 for dulaglutide, $145,833 and 12.99 for SC semaglutide, and $149,428 and 12.97 for liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide was less costly and more effective than dulaglutide and liraglutide but less costly than subcutaneous semaglutide with similar effectiveness. Oral semaglutide was favored versus subcutaneous semaglutide in 52.10% of model replications at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY. Implications Oral semaglutide is predicted to offer health benefits similar to subcutaneous semaglutide and ahead of dulaglutide and liraglutide. Oral semaglutide is a cost-effective glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment option.

Dhvani Shah,1 Nancy A Risebrough,2 Johnna Perdrizet,1 Neeraj N Iyer,3 Cory Gamble,4 Tam Dang-Tan3 1ICON, Commercialisation and Outcomes, Health Economics, New York, NY, USA; 2ICON, Commercialisation and Outcomes, Health Economics, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3HEOR & Data Analytics, Novo Nordisk Inc, Plainsboro, NJ, USA; 4Medical and Scientific Affairs, Novo Nordisk, Plainsboro, NJ, USA Background: The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes Results (LEADER) clinical trial demonstrated that liraglutide added to standard-of-care (SoC) therapy for type 2 diabetes (T2D) with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk was associated with lower rates of death from CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke than SoC alone.Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact of liraglutide vs SoC in T2D patients with established CVD or elevated CV risk, over a lifetime horizon from a US managed care perspective.Methods: A cohort state-transition model (costs and benefits discounted at 3% per year) was used to predict diabetes-related complications and death (CV and all-cause). Events, treatment effects, and discontinuation rates were from LEADER trial; utility and cost data (US$, 2017) were from literature. Sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty on results. Additionally, a budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of liraglutide use in this population, with displacement from dulaglutide, assuming a health care plan with 1 million members.Results: Liraglutide patients experienced 6.3% fewer events, had event-related cost-savings of $15,182, gained additional life-years of 0.67 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.57, and had additional total costs ($60,928) vs SoC. Liraglutide was cost-effective with an incremental CE ratio of $106,749/QALY which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY accepted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Research. Liraglutide was cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses, except when the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality varied. The budget impact was neutral, with a per-plan-per-year and per-member-per-month cost-savings of $266,334 and $0.02, respectively.Conclusion: From a US-managed care perspective, for T2D patients with established CVD or elevated CV risk, liraglutide is a cost-effective and a budget neutral treatment option for health care plans. Keywords: liraglutide, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cost-effectiveness, budget impact

Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs lixisenatide 20 μg for five end-points.Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 μg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 μg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 μg for targets of HbA1c 7.0%, HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, HbA1c 7.0% and no weight gain, HbA1c 7.0% with no weight gain and no confirmed hypoglycemia, and HbA1c 7.0% with no weight gain and systolic blood pressure140 mmHg, respectively.Once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.