A Plethora of GLP-1 Agonists: Decisions About What to Use and When

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.

A quinoxaline-based compound ameliorates bone loss in ovariectomized mice

DMB (6,7-dichloro-2-methylsulfonyl-3-Ntert-butylaminoquinoxaline) is a quinoxaline-based compound that has been investigated as a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist. To clarify anti-osteoporosis effect of DMB, an osteoporotic mice model was established by ovariectomy (OVX) operation. The OVX mice were given intraperitoneally DMB, exendin-4 (EX-4), or 17β-estradiol (E₂) for two months. Then bone mass and structure, and bone morphometric parameters were examined by micro-CT. Weight gain and food consumption, bone turnover markers, and biomechanical strength of the femur were tested, and bone histomorphometry was analyzed. The food intake and weight gain was obviously reduced by E₂ or EX-4, but not DMB. However, DMB or EX-4 treatment obviously inhibited skeletal deterioration and enhanced bone strength. The improvement involved in the increased osteoblast number and level of bone formation markers, and reduced osteoclasts number and level of bone resorption markers. In addition, DMB was found to stimulate osteoblastogenesis-related marker gene expression. These results demonstrated that DMB ameliorated bone loss mainly via induction of bone formation, which suggests that the small molecule compound might be applied to the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Regenerative medicine of pancreatic islets

The pancreas became one of the first objects of regenerative medicine, since other possibilities of dealing with the pancreatic endocrine insufficiency were clearly exhausted. The number of people living with diabetes mellitus is currently approaching half a billion, hence the crucial relevance of new methods to stimulate regeneration of the insulin-secreting β-cells of the islets of Langerhans. Natural restrictions on the islet regeneration are very tight; nevertheless, the islets are capable of physiological regeneration via β-cell self-replication, direct differentiation of multipotent progenitor cells and spontaneous α- to β- or δ- to β-cell conversion (trans-differentiation). The existing preclinical models of β-cell dysfunction or ablation (induced surgically, chemically or genetically) have significantly expanded our understanding of reparative regeneration of the islets and possible ways of its stimulation. The ultimate goal, sufficient level of functional activity of β-cells or their substitutes can be achieved by two prospective broad strategies: β-cell replacement and β-cell regeneration. The “regeneration” strategy aims to maintain a preserved population of β-cells through in situ exposure to biologically active substances that improve β-cell survival, replication and insulin secretion, or to evoke the intrinsic adaptive mechanisms triggering the spontaneous non-β- to β-cell conversion. The “replacement” strategy implies transplantation of β-cells (as non-disintegrated pancreatic material or isolated donor islets) or β-like cells obtained ex vivo from progenitors or mature somatic cells (for example, hepatocytes or α-cells) under the action of small-molecule inducers or by genetic modification. We believe that the huge volume of experimental and clinical studies will finally allow a safe and effective solution to a seemingly simple goal-restoration of the functionally active β-cells, the innermost hope of millions of people globally.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide Compared to Liraglutide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus has been always one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the last decades. There exist a wide range of pharmacological agents for controlling this disease. However, these agents fare differently in terms of efficacy and safety. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare dulaglutide and liraglutide, two glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, in terms of efficacy and safety, drawing on a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in January 2018. The articles were evaluated by two independent investigators and their quality was evaluated using Jadad scale and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools. Finally, the eligible articles entered the study. HbA1c and FBS were considered as efficacy outcomes. Safety profile was evaluated based on several outcomes such as serious side effects and vital signs. Three articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results indicated that the mean difference (MD) of HbA1c reduction was -0.10% (95% CI, -0.20% to -0.01%, P=0.03) in the patients who received dulaglutide in comparison with the patients who received liraglutide. In addition, dulaglutide was safer than liraglutide in terms of gastrointestinal problems (RR=0.85, 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99, P=0.04, I²=55%) and heart rate (RR=-1.14, 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38, P=0.003, I²=0%). Once-weekly dulaglutide showed a further reduction in HbA1c compared to once-daily liraglutide. However, comparisons between these regimens indicated no significant difference between groups in either FBS reduction or safety profile. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed in treatment discontinuation, hypoglycemia events, and vital signs.

Cardioprotective anti-hyperglycaemic medications: a review of clinical trials

Despite extensive clinical efforts to achieve stricter glycaemic control over the past few decades, cardiovascular (CV) disease remains the leading cause of death among diabetic patients. Recently, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1-R) agonists have gained attention due to their apparent effects in reducing CV mortality. Four CV randomized controlled trials: EMPA-REG, CANVAS, LEADER, and SUSTAIN-6, found a decrease in CV events among patients with type 2 diabetes on empagliflozin, canagliflozin, liraglutide, and semaglutide, respectively. In light of this data, the US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved empagliflozin for CV mortality reduction in type 2 diabetic patients, making it the first diabetes medication approved for such an indication. The purpose of this review is to summarize the results of novel anti-hyperglycaemic medication trials, and shed light on their mode of action and cardioprotective pathways.

Clinical pharmacology of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are an important asset in the armamentarium for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM). Incretin failure is a critical etiopathogenetic feature of type 2 DM, which, if reversed, results in improved glycaemic control. GLP-1 RAs are injectable peptides that resemble the structure and function of endogenous incretin GLP-1, but as they are not deactivated by the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), their half-life is prolonged compared with native GLP-1. Based on their ability to activate GLP-1 receptor, GLP-1 RAs are classified as short-acting (exenatide twice-daily and lixisenatide once-daily), and long-acting (liraglutide once-daily and the once-weekly formulations of exenatide extended-release, dulaglutide, and albiglutide). Semaglutide, another long-acting, once-weekly GLP-1 RA, was recently approved by the FDA and EMA. Although all of these agents potently reduce haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), there are unique features and fundamental differences among them related to fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia reduction, weight loss potency, cardiovascular protection efficacy, and adverse events profile. It is imperative that current evidence be integrated and applied in the context of an individualised patient-centred approach. This should include not only glucose management but also targeting as many as possible of the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for type 2 DM development and progression.

Semaglutide Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 5): A Randomized, Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Combination therapy with insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) is important for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D). This trial assesses the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a GLP-1RA, as an add-on to basal insulin.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the superiority of semaglutide vs placebo on glycemic control as an add-on to basal insulin in patients with T2D.

DESIGN

Phase 3a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 30-week trial.

SETTING

This study included 90 sites in five countries.

PATIENTS

We studied 397 patients with uncontrolled T2D receiving stable therapy with basal insulin with or without metformin.

INTERVENTIONS

Subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 or 1.0 mg once weekly or volume-matched placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint was change in glycated Hb (HbA1c) from baseline to week 30. Confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight from baseline to week 30.

RESULTS

At week 30, mean HbA1c reductions [mean baseline value, 8.4% (67.9 mmol/mol)] with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg were 1.4% (15.8 mmol/mol) and 1.8% (20.2 mmol/mol) vs 0.1% (1.0 mmol/mol) with placebo [estimated treatment difference (ETD) vs placebo, -1.35 (14.8 mmol/mol); 95% CI, -1.61 to -1.10 and ETD, -1.75% (19.2 mmol/mol); 95% CI, -2.01 to -1.50; both P < 0.0001]. Severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemic episodes were reported in 11 patients (17 events) and 14 patients (25 events) with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs seven patients (13 events) with placebo (estimated rate ratio vs placebo, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.67 to 6.51 and estimated rate ratio vs placebo, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.84 to 6.96 for 0.5 and 1.0 mg; both P = nonsignificant). Mean body weight decreased with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs placebo from baseline to end of treatment: 3.7, 6.4, and 1.4 kg (ETD, -2.31; 95% CI, -3.33 to -1.29 and ETD, -5.06; 95% CI, -6.08 to -4.04 kg; both P < 0.0001). Premature treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was higher for semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs placebo (4.5%, 6.1%, and 0.8%), mainly due to gastrointestinal disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide, added to basal insulin, significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight in patients with uncontrolled T2D vs placebo.

Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)

BACKGROUND

EXSCEL is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining the effect of exenatide once-weekly (EQW) versus placebo on time to the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) risk.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled at 688 sites in 35 countries. We describe their baseline characteristics according to prior CV event status and compare patients with those enrolled in prior glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) outcomes trials.

RESULTS

Of a total of 14,752 participants randomized between June 2010 and September 2015, 6,788 (46.0%) patients were enrolled in Europe; 3,708 (25.1%), North America; 2,727 (18.5%), Latin America; and 1,529 (10.4%), Asia Pacific. Overall, 73% had at least one prior CV event (70% coronary artery disease, 24% peripheral arterial disease, 22% cerebrovascular disease). The median (IQR) age was 63 years (56, 69), 38% were female, median baseline HbA1c was 8.0% (7.3, 8.9) and 16% had a prior history of heart failure. Those without a prior CV event were younger with a shorter duration of diabetes and better renal function than those with at least one prior CV event. Compared with prior GLP-1RA trials, EXSCEL has a larger percentage of patients without a prior CV event and a notable percentage who were taking a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor at baseline (15%).

CONCLUSIONS

EXSCEL is one of the largest global GLP-1RA trials, evaluating the safety and efficacy of EQW with a broad patient population that may extend generalizability compared to prior GLP-1RA trials (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338).

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial

BACKGROUND

Despite a broad range of pharmacological options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, optimum glycaemic control remains challenging for many patients and new therapies are necessary. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in phase 3 development for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide monotherapy, compared with placebo, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes who had insufficient glycaemic control with diet and exercise alone.

METHODS

We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, international, placebo-controlled phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 1) at 72 sites in Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA (including hospitals, clinical research units, and private offices). Eligible participants were treatment-naive individuals aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with only diet and exercise alone for at least 30 days before screening, with a baseline HbA_1c of 7·0%-10·0% (53-86 mmol/mol). We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) to either once-weekly subcutaneously injected semaglutide (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), or volume-matched placebo (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), for 30 weeks via prefilled PDS290 pen-injectors. Participants did their own injections and were encouraged to administer them on the same day of each week in the same area of their body; the time of day and proximity of meal times was not specified. We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response system. Investigators, participants, and the funder of the study remained masked throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was the change in mean HbA_1c from baseline to week 30, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug); both placebo groups were pooled for assessment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02054897.

FINDINGS

Between February 3, 2014, and August 21, 2014, we randomly assigned 388 participants to treatment; 387 received at least one dose of study medication (128 0·5 mg semaglutide, 130 1·0 mg semaglutide, 129 placebo). 17 (13%) of those assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 16 (12%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 14 (11%) assigned to placebo discontinued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea. Mean baseline HbA_1c was 8·05% (SD 0·85); at week 30, HbA_1c significantly decreased by 1·45% (95% CI -1·65 to -1·26) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·43%, 95% CI -1·71 to -1·15; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 1·55% (-1·74 to -1·36) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·53%, -1·81 to -1·25; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·02% (-0·23 to 0·18) with placebo. Mean baseline bodyweight was 91·93 kg (SD 23·83); at week 30, bodyweight significantly decreased by 3·73 kg (95% CI -4·54 to -2·91) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -2·75 kg, 95% CI -3·92 to -1·58; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 4·53 kg (-5·34 to -3·72) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -3·56 kg, -4·74 to -2·38; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·98 kg (-1·82 to -0·13) with placebo. No deaths were reported in any of the study groups and most reported adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 31 (24%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 10 (8%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 16 (13%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 14 (11%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and three (2%) who received placebo.

INTERPRETATION

Semaglutide significantly improved HbA_1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo, and showed a similar safety profile to currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists, representing a potential treatment option for such patients.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 μg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.