Evaluation of the Cost Per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets with Oral Semaglutide: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States

Economic Evaluation of Fasting Mimicking Diet vs Standard Care in Diabetic Patients on Dual or Triple Medications at Baseline in the United States: A Cost-Utility Analysis

OBJECTIVES

According to most guidelines, dietary interventions are essential in the management of diabetes. Fasting has emerged as potential therapeutic regimes for diabetes. The proof-of-concept study and the fasting in diabetes treatment trial are the first to explore the clinical impact of the Fasting Mimicking Diet (FMD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Their results showed that FMD cycles improve glycemic management and can be integrated into usual care complementary to current guidelines. This economic evaluation aims to assess the 10-year quality-of-life effects, cost implications, and cost-effectiveness of adding a 3-year FMD program to diabetes standard care in diabetic population on dual or triple medications at baseline from the perspective of the US payer.

METHODS

We constructed a microsimulation model in TreeAge using a published US-specific diabetes model. The model was populated using FMD effectiveness outcomes and publicly available clinical and economic data associated with diabetes complications, use of diabetes medications, hypoglycemia incidence, direct medical costs in 2021 USD, quality of life, and mortality. All benefits were discounted by 3%.

RESULTS

This cost-utility analysis showed that the FMD program was associated with 11.4% less diabetes complications, 67.2% less overall diabetes medication use, and 45.0% less hypoglycemia events over the 10-year simulation period. The program generated an additional effectiveness benefit of 0.211 quality-adjusted life year and net monetary benefit of 41 613 USD per simulated patient. Thus, the FMD program is cost saving.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the FMD program is a beneficial first-line strategy in T2DM management.

Oral or injectable semaglutide for the management of type 2 diabetes in routine care: A multicentre observational study comparing matched cohorts

AIM

To investigate the real-world utilization and comparative clinical outcomes of injectable and oral semaglutide in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with the aim of enhancing understanding of the practical implications associated with choosing between these formulations.

METHODS

New users of oral or injectable semaglutide were selected from a cohort of 14 079 initiators of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was employed to create balanced groups, ensuring comparability. The analysis encompassed dose exposure, drug persistence, and clinical outcomes, including changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, with up to 18 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

We analysed two matched groups of 107 participants each, who comprised on average 63.6% men, aged 64 years, with diabetes duration of approximately 10 years, body mass index of 29 kg/m2 and HbA1c level of 7.7-7.8% (61-62 mmol/mol). The proportion of low, intermediate and high doses were similar with the oral and the injectable formulation. The change in HbA1c was similar between groups (-0.9% / -10 mmol/mol at 18 months) as was the proportion of individuals reaching HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol). The average change in body weight was similar in the two groups (-3.7 kg with injectable and -3.3 kg with oral at 18 months) but more new users of injectable semaglutide lost ≥5% body weight. Persistence on drug was longer with injectable than with oral semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, improvements in HbA1c and body weight were similar after initiation of oral or injectable semaglutide. These results may be specific to the features of the matched cohorts under investigation, with limited generalizability to populations with different characteristics.

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.

Cost per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets and Number Needed to Treat with Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide 1 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Achieving glycemic control can help reduce complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the pharmacy cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg versus semaglutide 1 mg to achieve glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints in patients with T2D in the United States.

METHODS

The proportions of patients achieving glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints were obtained from the phase 3 SURPASS-2 randomized clinical trial which compared tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg to semaglutide 1 mg. Annual pharmacy costs were calculated using 2022 wholesale acquisition costs. Cost per responder and NNT were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance (P ≤  0.05).

RESULTS

Tirzepatide had a lower cost per responder to achieve glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) endpoints of ≤ 6.5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses) and < 5.7% (all doses) and weight loss endpoints of ≥ 5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses), ≥ 10% (all doses), and ≥ 15% (all doses). The cost per responder to achieve HbA1c < 7% (all doses of tirzepatide) and ≤ 6.5% (5 mg tirzepatide) were not statistically significantly different between tirzepatide and semaglutide 1 mg. The cost per patient to achieve the composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5%, or < 5.7%/weight loss ≥ 10%/no hypoglycemia) was statistically significantly lower for all doses of tirzepatide than for semaglutide 1 mg. The NNTs for all doses of tirzepatide were statistically significantly lower than that for semaglutide 1 mg to achieve all individual and composite endpoints, with the exception of the 5 mg dose for HbA1c < 7.0% and HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, where tirzepatide had numerically lower NNTs that were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) that may offer the potential to achieve stringent glycemic goals, weight loss targets, and composite treatment goals at a lower cost per responder compared to semaglutide 1 mg among people with T2D.

Oral semaglutide in type 2 diabetes mellitus: Comprehensive review, critical appraisal and clinical consideration of its use in India

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Oral semaglutide is the first glucagon-like petide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved for oral use in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aim to conduct a comprehensive review of literature to find out the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in T2DM, to lay out a clinical consideration for its use in India.

METHODS

We searched the electronic database of PubMed and Google Scholar from inception until January 31, 2022, using several MeSH keywords and retrieved all available granular details of phase 1, 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral semaglutide. Subsequently, we reviewed the results critically to lay down the clinical recommendation of its use.

RESULTS

Ten phase 3 randomized, placebo- and or active-controlled studies of oral semaglutide (PIONEER programs) are currently published. Seven global trials of oral semaglutide (PIONEER 1-5, 7 and 8) that exclusively studied the efficacy (lowering of HbA1c and body weight, achieving target of HbA1c <7% and other composites of HbA1c and weight) outcomes, found 14 mg oral semaglutide to be superior to placebo or active comparators (empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide). Efficacy was similar in Asians, although no separate data exists for Indians due to the low number of participants. Expectedly, gastrointestinal intolerance were the most commonly observed side effects with oral semaglutide and the main reason for drug discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide 14 mg is an effective agent in the treatment of T2DM. Real-world studies of semaglutide are clearly needed in India in absence of meaningful data from RCTs in Indians.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are widely used oral antidiabetic agents that exert antihyperglycemic effects in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without increased risk of weight gain or hypoglycemic events. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the latest evidence that was associated with the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a systematic literature search of eligible articles published since inception up to March 2021 in Web of Science, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and ECONLIT. Fifty-four eligible articles were included in our review, in which DPP-4i were compared to metformin (4 studies), sulphonylurea (SU) (16 studies), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) (3 studies), thiazolidinediones (TZD) (4 studies), other DPP-4i (3 studies), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) (10 studies), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (18 studies), insulin (5 studies), and other antidiabetic therapies (5 studies).

EXPERT OPINION

This study provided the updated evidence of systematic pharmacoeconomic evaluation associated with DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM. The evidence from the literature suggested that DPP-4i may be more cost-effective compared to SU and insulin as second-line therapy after metformin but not a cost-effective alternative compared to SGLPT-2i and GLP-1RA.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States

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.

Efficacy of Semaglutide in a Subcutaneous and an Oral Formulation

Despite the benefits of early and effective glycemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets is challenging in some patients. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) provide effective reductions in HbA1c and body weight. Semaglutide is the only GLP-1RA that is available in both an injectable and oral formulation. The efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and once-daily oral semaglutide has been investigated in the global SUSTAIN and PIONEER phase III clinical trial programs in a range of clinical settings, including early T2D managed with diet and exercise only, more established T2D uncontrolled on one to three oral antidiabetic drugs, and advanced disease treated with insulin. Across the SUSTAIN program, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.5-1.8% after 30-56 weeks, which was significantly more than sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide extended release, dulaglutide, canagliflozin, or insulin glargine. Across the PIONEER program, once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.0-1.4%, significantly more than sitagliptin or empagliflozin, and to a similar extent as liraglutide after 26 weeks. In addition, subcutaneous semaglutide reduced body weight significantly more than all active comparators tested, while oral semaglutide reduced body weight more than sitagliptin and liraglutide, and to a similar extent as empagliflozin. Neither formulation of semaglutide has been associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and both improve various measures of health-related quality of life. Semaglutide offers the benefits of a highly effective GLP-1RA in both injectable and oral formulations. Selection of the most appropriate formulation can be made on an individual basis to best suit the patient's preferences and needs.

Exploring the Appropriate Price of Semaglutide for Type 2 Diabetes Patients Based on Cost-Utility Analysis in China

Introduction: Semaglutide is the first and only oral version of a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This research was designed to explore the appropriate price of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide for T2D patients in China based on cost-utility analysis.

Methods: The baseline patient cohorts of OW semaglutide and once-daily (OD) empagliflozin were sourced from a patient-level meta-analysis integrating the SUSTAIN 2, SUSTAIN 3, SUSTAIN 8 and PIONEER 2 trials. The long-term health and economic outcomes were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 from the Chinese healthcare provider’s perspective. The appropriate price of semaglutide was explored by binary search. One-way sensitivity analysis (one-way SA), probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were applied to solve the uncertainty.

Results: Under the assumption that the annual cost of semaglutide is equal to that of OD empagliflozin, OW semaglutide was superior to OD empagliflozin due to its higher quality adjusted life years and lower total costs. After binary search, the incremental cost-utility ratio of OW semaglutide vs. OD empagliflozin was approximately equal to 3λ with an annual cost of semaglutide of $1,007.18 and approximately equal to λ with an annual cost of semaglutide of $708.11. Subsequently, the incremental cost-utility ratio of OW semaglutide vs. OD empagliflozin was approximately 3λ and λ, with annual costs of semaglutide of $877.43 and $667.04, respectively, adjusted by one-way SA. Ultimately, the cost-utility results with annual costs of semaglutide of $877.43 and $667.04 were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the annual cost of semaglutide appears to be appropriate between $667.04 and $877.43 for T2D patients in China.

A Pharmacological and Clinical Overview of Oral Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus®) is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with 94% homology to human GLP-1. It is the first GLP-1RA developed for oral administration, and it comprises a co-formulation of the peptide semaglutide with the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate, which overcomes the challenges of peptide absorption in the acidic conditions of the stomach. Oral semaglutide is indicated for use as an add-on combination therapy (with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin) or as a monotherapy (in patients who are intolerant to metformin) for type 2 diabetes when diet and exercise do not provide adequate glycemic control. In an extensive phase III clinical program including patients from across the disease spectrum, treatment with oral semaglutide resulted in effective glycemic control, reductions in body weight, and decreases in systolic blood pressure when used as monotherapy or in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies. Studies showed that oral semaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the GLP-1RA drug class. The risk of hypoglycemia was low, and the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, with nausea and diarrhea generally being the most frequently reported manifestations. Cardiovascular (CV) safety was shown to be noninferior to placebo and observations suggest that the CV profile of oral semaglutide is likely to be similar to that of subcutaneous semaglutide. The evolution of the GLP-1RA class to include an oral agent could facilitate the use of these agents earlier in the diabetes treatment cascade owing to wider acceptance from patients and healthcare professionals.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide Treatment in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease

INTRODUCTION

The increasing financial burden associated with diabetes treatment presents a challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Recently, clinical guidelines have focussed on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) and recommend a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as second-line treatment after metformin or independently of baseline glycated haemogloblin A1c (HbA1c). In Danish clinical guidelines, empagliflozin and liraglutide are highlighted owing to their positive impact on mortality. Thus, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin plus standard of care (SoC) versus liraglutide plus SoC in Danish patients with T2D and established CVD using a lifetime and 5-year horizon.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the clinical event rates observed in the cardiovascular outcome trial EMPA-REG OUTCOME. Network meta-analysis provided the relative risks for cardiovascular outcomes with empagliflozin versus liraglutide. Microvascular outcomes were predicted by standard CDM risk equations. The relative treatment effect was assumed for 9 years after which treatment was switched to basal-bolus therapy. The CDM was populated with Danish costs of events and drug costs at price-level 2019. Discounting of 4% was applied.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, CDM projected 9.858 and 9.667 life years, 6.162 and 5.976 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and DKK 478,026 (€64,079) and DKK 500,025 (€67,027) in total costs for empagliflozin plus SoC and liraglutide plus SoC, respectively. For a 5-year horizon, the results were 4.189 and 4.140 life years, 2.746 and 2.655 QALY, as well as DKK 123,413 (€16,543) and DKK 161,783 (€21,687), respectively. Empagliflozin was the dominant treatment alternative. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of these results.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that empagliflozin plus SoC is dominant compared to liraglutide plus SoC in Denmark over both lifetime and 5-year horizons.

Management of type 2 diabetes with oral semaglutide: Practical guidance for pharmacists

PURPOSE

To provide pharmacists with information on counseling patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving oral semaglutide.

SUMMARY

Oral semaglutide, the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), was approved for the treatment of adults with T2D by the US Food and Drug Administration in September 2019. Semaglutide has been coformulated with the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate to improve bioavailability of semaglutide following oral administration. Oral semaglutide has been shown to have efficacy and safety profiles similar to those of other GLP-1RAs. Many patients with T2D have a complex oral medication regimen to manage their T2D and concomitant chronic comorbid conditions. Therefore, it is important that patients follow the dose administration instructions closely: oral semaglutide should be taken on an empty stomach upon waking with a sip (≤120 mL) of plain water and at least 30 minutes before the first food, beverage, or other oral medications of the day. The most common adverse effects of oral semaglutide are gastrointestinal (typically nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting). It is important for pharmacists to counsel patients prescribed oral semaglutide about optimal oral dosing, why correct dosing conditions are necessary, expected therapeutic response, and effective strategies to mitigate potential gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Information and practical strategies provided by pharmacists may facilitate initiation and maintenance of oral semaglutide therapy and ensure that each patient achieves an optimal therapeutic response.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin

BACKGROUND

Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin.

METHODS

This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

[An orally administered glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogue: A landmark in the treatment of type 2 diabetes]

Semaglutide is the first peptide to receive European marketing authorization for oral administration in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The active molecule is the same as the one marketed for weekly subcutaneous administration. It is associated with a new excipient, which protects it from degradation by gastric pepsin and allows its absorption in the stomach. This article presents the pharmacological characteristics of this drug, as well as a critical analysis of the results of the main phase III clinical trials.

Oral Semaglutide, A New Option in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review

According to current guidelines, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are the antidiabetic agent of choice in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) and are also the preferable antidiabetic agent in patients with T2DM without CVD but with indicators of high cardiovascular risk. A limitation in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they are delivered by subcutaneous injections. In this context, the development of an orally administered formulation of semaglutide offers an additional option in the management of patients with T2DM. In the present review, we discuss the findings of the main trials that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide. Oral semaglutide appears to be more effective in reducing HbA1c levels and body weight than other antidiabetic agents and similarly effective to other GLP-1 receptor agonists. The safety profile of oral semaglutide is also comparable with other members of its class. Even though oral semaglutide did not reduce the incidence of the composite primary endpoint in a randomized controlled trial, a reduction in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality was observed. Therefore, oral semaglutide appears to represent a useful tool in the management of patients with TD2M, particularly those with established CVD or high cardiovascular risk and unwilling to receive injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis

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 in the PIONEER clinical trial program, and a recently published network meta-analysis allowed comparison with further injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly exenatide 2 mg, twice-daily exenatide 10 µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg, once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, in terms of the cost per patient achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets (cost of control).Materials and methods: Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists. Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.Results: For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively. Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%. All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.Conclusions: Oral semaglutide 14 mg is likely to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide, exenatide (once weekly and twice daily), liraglutide, and lixisenatide in terms of bringing people with type 2 diabetes to glycemic control targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% in the US.

Systemic delivery of peptides by the oral route: Formulation and medicinal chemistry approaches

In its 33 years, ADDR has published regularly on the po5tential of oral delivery of biologics especially peptides and proteins. In the intervening period, analysis of the preclinical and clinical trial failures of many purported platform technologies has led to reflection on the true status of the field and reigning in of expectations. Oral formulations of semaglutide, octreotide, and salmon calcitonin have completed Phase III trials, with oral semaglutide being approved by the FDA in 2019. The progress made with oral peptide formulations based on traditional permeation enhancers is against a background of low and variable oral bioavailability values of ~1%, leading to a current perception that only potent peptides with a viable cost of synthesis can be realistically considered. Desirable features of candidates should include a large therapeutic index, some stability in the GI tract, a long elimination half-life, and a relatively low clearance rate. Administration in nanoparticle formats have largely disappointed, with few prototypes reaching clinical trials: insufficient particle loading, lack of controlled release, low epithelial particle uptake, and lack of scalable synthesis being the main reasons for discontinuation. Disruptive technologies based on engineered devices promise improvements, but scale-up and toxicology aspects are issues to address. In parallel, medicinal chemists are synthesizing stable hydrophobic macrocyclic candidate peptides of lower molecular weight and with potential for greater oral bioavailability than linear peptides, but perhaps without the same requirement for elaborate drug delivery systems. In summary, while there have been advances in understanding the limitations of peptides for oral delivery, low membrane permeability, metabolism, and high clearance rates continue to hamper progress.

Oral semaglutide in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Previously, the only available glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) were injectable. Approval of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus®) represents the first orally available GLP-1 RA.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature and describe pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamics properties; clinical safety; and efficacy of oral semaglutide, a newly approved oral GLP-1 RA.

METHODS

A MEDLINE (1995-October 2019) and ClinicalTrials.gov search was conducted using the terms oral semaglutide, semaglutide, PIONEER, and a combination of those terms. Reference citations from publications identified were also reviewed. All English-language studies, including abstracts, evaluating oral semaglutide use in humans were included in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

The approval of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus®) represents a paradigm shift in the management of T2D as this is the first FDA-approved oral GLP-1 RA. Oral semaglutide may be an attractive option for patients with T2D who require improved glycemic control, would like to lose weight, and who are not interested in injectable therapy. However, the lack of positive cardiovascular (CV) and renal data are significant limitations to its use.