Search

Background: The introduction of injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk, Plainsboro, NJ) and Wegovy (Novo Nordisk Inc.) has transformed weight loss in plastic surgery patients, often leading to excess skin and soft tissue amenable to body contouring procedures., Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist use and the growing need for body contouring surgeries, focusing on trunk and extremity procedures., Methods: A retrospective analysis of the PearlDiver database (PearlDiver, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO) was conducted, examining prescription data for Ozempic, Wegovy, and liraglutide, and correlating these with body contouring procedures across 30 US states from 2011 to 2022. Multimodal statistics were used to compare surgery rates and assess dosage and time interval patterns among GLP-1 receptor agonist users and nonusers., Results: Significant correlations between GLP-1 receptor agonist use (881 Ozempic, 59 Wegovy, and 4655 liraglutide users) and increased body contouring surgeries were found. Ozempic showed weak correlations with brachioplasty (r = 0.23) and panniculectomy (r = 0.21), and Wegovy with breast procedures (r = 0.28), while liraglutide showed consistent correlations across surgeries. Time to surgery varied from 87 days (Wegovy) to 1018 days (liraglutide), with higher surgery rates among users (P < .01) and dose-related differences, especially in Ozempic and Wegovy users., Conclusions: This study demonstrates a dose-dependent link between the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and an increase in subsequent aesthetic body contouring surgeries, highlighting the need for surgeons to adapt to the merging of medicinal body transformation and aesthetic plastic surgery., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management., Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338)., Interventions: Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points., Results: Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was -15.8% with semaglutide vs -6.4% with liraglutide (difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was -1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common and serious comorbidity of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment has become an important aspect of evaluating new therapies for T2DM before approval by the FDA. Since 2008, in order to establish safety, new therapies for T2DM have been required to demonstrate that they will not result in an unacceptable increase in CV risk. Studies performed for this purpose are termed CV outcome trials, or CVOTs. This article reviews CVOTs completed to date for the class of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs; liraglutide, exenatide extended-release, albiglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide injectable, semaglutide oral) and implications for clinical management of T2DM. All CVOTs have confirmed long-acting GLP-1RAs to be noninferior to (not worse than) placebo with regard to first occurrence of a primary outcome of three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke). Further, a number of the studies demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in primary outcomes of three-point MACE with GLP-1RA treatment compared with placebo. As a result, the product labeling for liraglutide, semaglutide injectable, and dulaglutide has been updated with an indication for reducing the risk of MACE in adults with T2DM and established CVD (all) or multiple CV risk factors (dulaglutide only). These findings have brought about an exciting paradigm shift from concern about not inflicting CV harm to the exciting prospect of reducing risks of CV outcomes. Major diabetes care guidelines now encourage early consideration of GLP-1RA use in patients with atherosclerotic CVD.

Background: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions., Objective: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer., Results: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% ( P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% ( P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets ( P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy., Conclusions: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy., Disclosures: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Major cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are currently available. These agonists have proven their CV safety, in harmony with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendation for antidiabetic drugs. The potential cardioprotective effect of incretin-based therapies is attributed to their multiple non-glycaemic actions in the CV system, including changes in insulin resistance, weight loss, reduction in blood pressure, improved lipid profile and direct effects on the heart and vascular endothelium. Liraglutide, semaglutide and albiglutide have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), whereas lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide had a neutral effect. Thus, it is conceivable that there are different drug-specific properties across the class of GLP-1 RAs. In this review, we discuss the results of the five recently published randomised CV outcome trials with GLP-1 RAs, along with the potential differences and the pleiotropic actions of these agents on the CV system., (Copyright © 2018 Hellenic Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Greater adherence to medications has been broadly demonstrated to be associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, there is limited real-world evidence on adherence to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used United States administrative claims data to compare adherence to GLP-1RAs in T2DM patients initiating exenatide once weekly (QW), exenatide twice daily (BID), or once-daily liraglutide (initiated therapy = index therapy). Patients were included if they had T2DM, were GLP-1RA-naïve, initiated a GLP-1RA from 02/01/2012-01/31/2013 (date of initiation = index), were ≥18 years at index, and had continuous enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) to 6 months after index (follow-up). Study outcome was index GLP-1RA adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] during follow-up, dichotomized at ≥80% vs. <80%, and at ≥90% vs. <90%). Multivariable logistic regressions compared adherence between the GLP-1RAs, adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed separating liraglutide by dose (1.2 mg/1.8 mg)., Results: Study sample included 4,041 exenatide QW, 4,586 exenatide BID, and 14,211 liraglutide (6,641 1.2 mg, 7,570 1.8 mg) patients. Median unadjusted PDC values were 0.783 for exenatide QW, 0.500 exenatide BID, 0.722 liraglutide, 0.761 liraglutide 1.2 mg, and 0.683 liraglutide 1.8 mg. Compared with patients treated with either exenatide BID or liraglutide, patients treated with exenatide QW had a statistically significantly greater multivariable-adjusted odds of achieving adherence of ≥80% (odds ratio vs. exenatide QW (OR) = 0.41 for exenatide BID; 0.80, liraglutide; 0.87, liraglutide 1.2 mg; 0.75, liraglutide 1.8 mg) and ≥90% (OR = 0.31 for exenatide BID; 0.60 liraglutide; 0.66 liraglutide 1.2 mg; 0.56 liraglutide 1.8 mg) (all P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients initiating exenatide QW had significantly higher adjusted odds of adherence compared with patients initiating other GLP-1RAs. Given differences in adherence across the GLP-1RAs, research correlating these factors with clinical and economic outcomes is warranted.