A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Once-Weekly Semaglutide with Other GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving 1-2 Oral Anti-Diabetic Drugs

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.

Real-World Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (OW GLP-1RAs) in Comparison with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors (DPP-4is) for Glycemic Control and Weight Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (RELATE)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of once-weekly (OW) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) has been established in several trials in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, real-world evidence on their effectiveness is limited. This study evaluated the effectiveness of OW GLP-1RA regarding glycemic and weight outcomes, and relative to DPP-4i in a comparator analysis.

METHODS

This observational cohort study evaluated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight outcomes in people with T2DM with two or more prescription claims for the same OW GLP-1RA using a pre-post study design (including for a semaglutide OW T2DM subgroup, hereafter referred to as semaglutide). Comparator analysis for the same outcome was performed for OW GLP-1RAs versus DPP-4i and semaglutide subgroup versus DPP-4i. A linked patient population from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database and the Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records (AEMR) database was analyzed using data from January 2017 to April 2022. HbA1c and weight were assessed at baseline and at the end of the 12-month post-index period. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics in the comparator analysis.

RESULTS

In the pre-post analysis, a greater numerical reduction in HbA1c and weight was observed for the semaglutide subgroup (N = 354) relative to the OW GLP-1RA cohort (N = 921). In the semaglutide subgroup, 52.5% and 34.2% of patients achieved HbA1c of < 7.0% and ≥ 5% weight loss, respectively. For the comparator analysis, the OW GLP-1RAs (N = 651) were significantly more effective (p < 0.001) in reducing HbA1c (- 1.5% vs. -  1.0%) and weight (- 3.2 kg vs. -  1.0 kg) than the DPP-4is (N = 431). Similarly, the semaglutide cohort (N = 251) also displayed more effectiveness (p < 0.001) in reducing HbA1c (- 1.7% vs. -  0.9%) and weight (- 4.1 kg vs. -  1.3 kg) than the respective DPP-4i cohort (N = 417). Patients initiating OW GLP-1RAs, including the semaglutide cohort, were at least twice as likely to achieve HbA1c and weight outcomes as well as composite outcomes compared with those initiating DPP-4is.

CONCLUSION

The study reinforces that OW GLP-1RAs are more effective in glycemic control and weight reduction compared with DPP-4is in people with T2DM in the real-world setting. These findings align with the recommendation in the current guidelines for utilizing glucose-lowering treatment regimens that support weight-management goals in people with T2DM.

Glycemic Control, Weight Management, Cardiovascular Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Rapid Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide is a high-profile glucose-lowering drug that medical decision-makers have acknowledged in recent years. This rapid review aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with semaglutide.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) compared to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or placebo in patients with T2DM. Prospective cohort real-world studies (RWS) were also retrieved and subjected to MA. Four databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ISPOR, were searched from inception to 5 March 2023. The outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years and total cost.

RESULTS

We identified 33 publications: 22 RCT-based MAs, 1 SR of CEAs, and 10 RWS. Evidence showed that semaglutide at usual doses was associated with superior reductions in HbA1c and weight compared to most GLP-1 RAs in patients with T2DM who were drug naive, receiving basal insulin, or using oral hypoglycemic agents, and it was also associated with a lower number of MACE and was more cost-effective. Further, once-weekly semaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (-1.1%) and body weight (-4.88 kg) in routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This review consolidates the positive current evidence base for prescribing semaglutide to patients with T2DM, but further rigorous studies are still urgently required to develop practice guidelines as innovative drugs become commercially available.

Comparative analysis of physicochemical properties, bioequivalence, safety and tolerability of the first domestic semaglutide

Semaglutide is a representative of analogues of the incretin hormone human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and is currently used in Russia for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; in monotherapy and in combination therapy), including patients with obesity and overweight.

The aim of the work was to conduct a comparative assessment of the physicochemical properties, a biological activity, bioequivalence and safety, including tolerability and immunogenicity, of the drug Quincent® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) and the drug Ozempic® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark) when administered to healthy volunteers.

Materials and methods. To assess the degree of similarity of the study drug Quincenta® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) with a chemically synthesized active substance to the original (reference) drug Ozempic® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark), a comparative study of physicochemical properties and a biological activity was carried out. To assess the bioequivalence of the study drug and the reference drug, an open randomized parallel comparative study with the participation of healthy volunteers (n=54), 54 participants of which had been included in the population, was conducted. The volunteers were randomized into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio, and received a single dose subcutaneously either of the study drug (domestic semaglutide at a dose of 0.5 mg) or the reference drug (foreign semaglutide at a dose of 0.5 mg). The mode of administration was in the morning on an empty stomach. A semaglutide concentration was determined in serum samples using a previously validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. A quantitative determination of antibodies to semaglutide in the human serum by ELISA was carried out with a microplate photometer using ready-made kits pre-validated by the manufacturer. The conclusion about the bioequivalence of the compared drugs was made using an approach based on the assessment of 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric mean values of the parameters Cmax, AUC(0–t) of semaglutide in the measurement original units.

Results. The results of the comparative analysis of the study drug and the reference drug demonstrate the comparability of their physicochemical properties and biological activity. The results of the clinical study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the test drug and the reference drug. Thus, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs were comparable to each other: the Cmax value for the study drug was 42.088±8.827 ng/ml, for the reference drug Ozempic® it was 42.2556±7.84. Herewith, the half-life for the study drug and the reference drug was 168.39±39.47 and 157.99±28.57 hours, respectively. The resulting 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the Cmax and AUC0–t values of the study drug and the reference drug were 90.89–109.15 and 91.66–111.27%, respectively. The tolerability of the drugs in the volunteers was notified as good. No adverse events were recorded during the study. No serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. According to the results of the immunogenicity analysis, no antibodies to Russian-made semaglutide were detected in the blood serum of the volunteers, which indicated the lack of Results. The results of a comparative analysis of the study drug and the reference drug demonstrate the comparability of physicochemical properties and biological activity. The results of the clinical study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the study drug and the reference drug. Thus, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs were comparable to each other: the Cmax value for the study drug was 42.088±8.827 ng/ml, for the reference drug Ozempic® this figure was 42.2556±7.84. At the same time, the half-life for the study drug and the reference drug was 168.39±39.47 and 157.99±28.57 hours, respectively. The resulting 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the Cmax and AUC0–t values of the study drug and the reference drug were 90.89–109.15 and 91.66–111.27%, respectively. Tolerability of the drugs in volunteers was noted as good. No adverse events were recorded during the study. No serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. According to the results of the immunogenicity analysis, no antibodies to Russian-made semaglutide were detected in the blood serum of the volunteers, which indicated the lack of the drug immunogenicity.

Conclusion. In the course of the study, the comparability of the physicochemical properties and biological activity of the studied Russian drug with the chemically synthesized active substance Quincenta® to the reference drug Ozempic® was confirmed: the activity range of the studied drugs was within 80–120% in relation to the standard sample of semaglutide. The bioequivalence and a similar safety profile, including the immunogenicity and tolerability of the Russian drug Quincenta® (semaglutide 1.34 mg/ml, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) were shown in comparison with the foreign drug Ozempic® (semaglutide 1.34 mg/ml, Novo Nordisk A/C, Denmark).

Once-weekly semaglutide use in glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist naïve patients with type 2 diabetes in North Macedonia: Real-world data from the MIRAGE study

AIMS

The MIRAGE study aimed to evaluate the real-world use of once weekly (OW) subcutaneous semaglutide in glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist naïve type 2 diabetes patients in routine clinical practice in North Macedonia.

METHODS

MIRAGE was a multicentre, single-arm, retrospective and 30-weeks study, conducted in North Macedonia. Primary [change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)] and secondary endpoints [change in body weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid parameters, blood pressure, waist circumference, glycaemic and weight-loss target achievement] were evaluated between baseline and end of study (EOS).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of 314 patients enrolled in the study were, mean age: 55.5 years, HbA1c: 9.0 %, diabetes duration: 7.8 years, body weight: 105.2 kg and waist circumference: 114 cm. Patients at EOS experienced statistically significant estimated mean change in HbA1c: -2.2 % points, body weight: -9.0 kg, and FPG: -4.1 mmol/L (all p < 0.0001). At EOS, 62.1 % patients achieved HbA1c < 7 %, and 79.3 % had ≥ 1 % HbA1c reduction. A weight reduction of ≥ 3 % and ≥ 5 % was noted in 88.3 % and 73.3 % patients, respectively. No new safety concern has emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from MIRAGE study demonstrated glycaemic and weight-loss benefits of semaglutide, with improvements in other cardiometabolic parameters. The study supports real-world OW subcutaneous semaglutide use in North Macedonia.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Liraglutide vs Semaglutide in a Veteran Population

Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are commonly prescribed medications for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on cardiovascular benefits. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of once daily liraglutide vs once weekly semaglutide on T2DM in a Veteran population. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study that included T2DM patients with a prescription for liraglutide or semaglutide between September 1st, 2019, and September 30th, 2020. Patients between groups were matched based on age and insulin use at baseline. The primary endpoint was the difference in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) between the most recent A1c in the study period and baseline A1c obtained prior to GLP-1 RA initiation. Results: There were 154 patients included in the study. While mean reduction in A1c was numerically higher in the liraglutide group (-1.1% vs. -.8%), this was not statistically significant (P = .22). The proportion of patients achieving A1c < 7%, < 8%, < 9%, or their patient-specific A1c goal did not differ between groups. Although baseline total daily doses of insulin were higher in the semaglutide group, these patients had numerically greater reductions in total daily dose of insulin and weight from baseline; however, no statistical difference was observed. Adverse drug reactions were more common in the semaglutide group (n = 14 vs. 9), leading to higher discontinuation rates as well (n = 11 vs. 8). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate no difference between liraglutide and semaglutide in terms of A1c-lowering potential, but it provides insights into key considerations for the Veteran population.

Weight loss with subcutaneous semaglutide versus other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce elevated blood glucose levels and induce weight loss. Multiple GLP-1 RAs and one combined GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist are currently available. This review was conducted with the aim of summarising direct comparisons between subcutaneous semaglutide and other GLP-1 RAs in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly with respect to efficacy for inducing weight loss and improving other markers of metabolic health. This systematic review of PubMed and Embase from inception to early 2022 was registered on PROSPERO and was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Of the 740 records identified in the search, five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Comparators included liraglutide, exenatide, dulaglutide and tirzepatide. In the identified studies, multiple dosing regimens were utilised for semaglutide. Randomised trials support the superior efficacy of semaglutide over other GLP-1 RAs with respect to weight loss in T2D, but tirzepatide is more effective than semaglutide.

Effect of semaglutide versus other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on cardio-metabolic risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head, phase 3, randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have emerged as a cornerstone treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess whether semaglutide exerts greater effects on glycemia and other cardio-metabolic risk factors compared to other GLP-1RAs.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, along with grey literature sources, were searched form inception to 8th February 2023, in order to retrieve head-to-head, phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of semaglutide versus other GLP-1RAs on glycemia and other cardio-metabolic risk factors in T2DM.

RESULTS

We finally pooled data from 5 RCTs in a total of 3760 randomized participants. Semaglutide compared to other GLP-1RAs provided a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c levels by 0.44 %, in fasting plasma glucose by 0.48 mmol/L, in body weight by 2.53 kg and in body mass index by 0.91 kg/m². Subjects receiving semaglutide experienced significantly greater odds for achieving target and optimal HbA1c, along with significantly greater odds for weight loss >5 % and 10 %. However, subjects randomized to semaglutide also experienced significantly greater odds for gastrointestinal adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide is more effective than rest GLP-1RAs, in terms of improvement in glycemia and other cardio-metabolic risk factors, among individuals with T2DM.

Safety and efficacy of anti-hyperglycemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews based on network meta-analysis

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has caused a huge clinical and economic burden worldwide. The management strategy of T2DM has been mentioned in many guidelines. However, controversy still exists in the recommendation of anti-hyperglycemic agents. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will make an overview of systematic reviews based-on network meta-analysis firstly that report on safety and efficacy of different category of anti-hyperglycemic agents for T2DM patients. We will identify network meta-analysis by applying a robust and standardized search strategy within Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) will be defined as the primary outcomes. We will assess the methodological quality of included reviews by applying the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool, and quality of evidence for all outcomes will be judged by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). This will provide an accessible narrative synthesis to clinicians, patients, policy makers, and developers of clinical guidelines based on published high-quality network meta-analysis. We will submit our results for peer-review publication and presentation at domestic and international conferences. We will also disseminate our results through established clinical networks and consumer networks, using pamphlet where appropriate. Ethics approval is not required for this overview as we will analysis published network meta-analysis only. Trial registration number: INPLASY202070118.

Injectable semaglutide and reductions in HbA1c and weight in the real world in people switched from alternative glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

The ABCD semaglutide audit was designed to capture the routine clinical outcomes of people commenced on semaglutide in the UK. Previous work showed differential reductions in HbA1c and weight dependent on previous glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) exposure. The analysis, in this research letter, shows that decreases in HbA1c and weight associated with semaglutide occur irrespective of previous GLP-1RA use. However, HbA1c reductions were less if switched from dulaglutide or liraglutide and weight changes were attenuated if switched from dulaglutide or exenatide, potentially suggesting differing potencies between GLP-1RAs. Dedicated studies with head-to-head comparisons are needed to confirm these findings.

The Longer-Term Benefits and Harms of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses of the benefits and harms of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have been limited to specific outcomes and comparisons and often included short-term results. We aimed to estimate the longer-term effects of GLP1RAs on cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, mortality, and adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov (inception-July 2019) for randomized controlled trials ≥ 52 weeks' duration that compared a GLP1RA to placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medication and included at least one outcome of interest. Outcomes included cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, and treatment-related adverse events. We performed random effects meta-analyses to give summary estimates using weighted mean differences (MD) and pooled relative risks (RR). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias in randomized trials tool. Quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The study was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42018090506).

RESULTS

Forty-five trials with a mean duration of 1.7 years comprising 71,517 patients were included. Compared to placebo, GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular complications (including renal events, RR 0.85, 0.80-0.90), macrovascular complications (including stroke, RR 0.86, 0.78-0.95), and mortality (RR 0.89, 0.84-0.94). Compared to other anti-hyperglycemic medications, GLP1RAs only reduced cardiovascular risk factors. Increased gastrointestinal events causing treatment discontinuation were observed in both comparisons.

DISCUSSION

GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors and increased gastrointestinal events compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. GLP1RAs also reduced MACE, stroke, renal events, and mortality in comparisons with placebo; however, analyses were inconclusive for comparisons with other anti-hyperglycemic medications. Given the high costs of GLP1RAs, the lack of long-term evidence comparing GLP1RAs to other anti-hyperglycemic medications has significant policy and clinical practice implications.

Clinical Impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists in veterans receiving basal-bolus insulin

BACKGROUND

In 2017, an estimated 7.4 million Americans used insulin to treat diabetes. Insulin is proven to lower A1c but can result in hypoglycemia and weight gain. Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1-RA) may provide additional blood glucose control while limiting undesirable effects including weight gain.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinical impact of adding a GLP-1-RA to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used national Veteran's Health Administration data to identify patients with an existing basal-bolus insulin regimen who initiated a GLP-1-RA between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2017. A1c, insulin total daily dose (TDD), and weight were collected at GLP-1-RA initiation (baseline), 3-, 6-, and 12-month time points and then analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach with the last observation carried forward. Decreases in A1c ≥ 0.5% and weight ≥2 kg were deemed clinically significant.

RESULTS

Among 7651 patients initiating GLP-1-RA therapy, mean A1c had a clinically significant decline at 3, 6, and 12 months by -0.5%, -0.7%, and -0.7%, respectively, from a mean baseline of 9%. Patients with lower baseline A1c levels did not have clinically significant changes in A1c, whereas patients with baseline A1c ≥9% had more clinically significant declines. Insulin TDD decreased by -32, -38, and -42 units/day at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, where the mean decrease in insulin TDD at 12 months was 79 units/day among patients who discontinued bolus insulin (52.3%) compared with a mean decrease of 2 units/day among those who continued bolus insulin. Mean weight reductions at 3, 6, and 12 months were -1.2, -2.3, and -2.9 kg, respectively, from a mean baseline of 120.6 kg.

CONCLUSION

Combining a GLP-1-RA with basal-bolus insulin had a clinically significant improvement on blood glucose control, lowered insulin TDD, and reduced weight. These outcomes were achieved within 3 to 6 months following GLP-1-RA initiation and were maintained through 1 year.

Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Oral Antidiabetics

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.

Weekly Semaglutide vs. Liraglutide Efficacy Profile: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is a class of hypoglycemic medications. Semaglutide once-weekly (QW) and liraglutide once-daily (OD) significantly improved glycemic control compared to placebo. To date, no long-term phase III trials directly comparing semaglutide and liraglutide are available. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the long-term efficacy of semaglutide and liraglutide.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until June 2019 to identify relevant articles. Nine long-term randomized controlled trials comparing once-weekly semaglutide or liraglutide with placebo or other active comparisons were identified. The outcomes of interest were changes in HbA1c and weight after 52 weeks. A Bayesian framework and NMA were used for data synthesis. This is a sub-study of the protocol registered in PROSPERO (number CRD42018091598).

RESULTS

The data showed significant superiority in HbA1c reduction of semaglutide 1 mg QW over liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg with a treatment difference of 0.47% and 0.3%, respectively. Semaglutide 0.5 mg QW was found to be significantly superior to liraglutide 1.2 mg in HbA1c reduction with a treatment difference of 0.17%. Regarding weight reduction analysis, semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg QW were significantly associated with a greater reduction than liraglutide 0.6 mg with a treatment difference of 2.42 and 3.06 kg, respectively. However, no significant reduction was found in comparison to liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide improved the control of blood glucose and body weight. The capacity of long-term glycemic control and body weight control of semaglutide appears to be more effective than other GLP-1 RAs, including liraglutide. However, considering the number of included studies and potential limitations, more large-scale, head-to-head, well-designed randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparative efficacy and safety of 8 GLP-1RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis

AIMS

To inform clinical practice by comparing and ranking the lowing blood glucose and weight-loss abilities of 8 glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to April 13, 2021. The outcomes were Δ HbA_1c, Δ weight, adverse events [AE] withdrawals, and incidence of hypoglycemia. We estimated standardized mean differences [SMD] and summary odds ratios (ORs) using frequentist network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

Retrieved trials included 11,126 patients, the overall mean age was 56.7 ± 10.36 years old. In terms of efficacy, all GLP-1RAs were more effective than the placebo except albiglutide-30 mg QW (Δ weight: SMD -0.26 kg [95 %CI: -1.10, 0.59 kg). When it came to safety, oral semaglutide-14mgQD, semaglutide-1mgQW, Liraglutide-1.8mgQD, and Exenatide-2ugBID were associated with an increased risk of AE withdrawals. And GLP-1RAs were associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia than placebo except albiglutide-30mgQW and orally administered semaglutide-14mgQD.

CONCLUSION

Overall GLP-1RAs were more efficacious than placebo in patients with T2D on efficacy. Unfortunately, differences between GLP1-RAs regarding safety were mostly not significant. We may realize the individualized GLP-1RAs administration based on blood glucose level and obesity degree.

Effects of Switching from Liraglutide or Dulaglutide to Subcutaneous Semaglutide on Glucose Metabolism and Treatment Satisfaction in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Blinded-Endpoint, Parallel-Group Comparison Study (The SWITCH-SEMA 1 Study)

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists exert potent hypoglycemic effects in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a blood glucose concentration-dependent manner. Once-weekly subcutaneous administration of the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide has beneficial effects on glycemic and body weight control, but it is currently unclear if semaglutide provides superior glycemic control compared to conventional GLP-1 receptor agonists in the Japanese population. We aim to compare the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide with those of liraglutide or dulaglutide administration in Japanese patients with T2D.

METHODS

This study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group trial. In total, 100 participants with T2D who have been treated with liraglutide (0.9-1.8 mg/day in plan A) or dulaglutide (0.75 mg/week in plan B) for more than 12 weeks and have a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 6.0-9.9% and a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 22 kg/m² will be randomized to either continue using their existing GLP-1 receptor agonist or switch to subcutaneous semaglutide once weekly for 24 weeks. Biochemical analysis, physical assessment, and a quality-of-life questionnaire (DTSQ) will be completed at baseline and at the end of the study. The primary endpoint is the effect of semaglutide on the change in HbA1c. The secondary endpoints are the mean changes in total DTSQ score, body mass, abdominal circumference, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, factors associated with improvement in HbA1c and secondary endpoints, side effects, and other laboratory parameters.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The results of the study will provide useful information regarding the effects of switching to semaglutide from other GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycemic control in patients with T2D.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Hokkaido University Certified Review Board (CRB no. 1180001) has approved the protocol (no. 018-005). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000042369 in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN); jRCT1011200008 in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT); pre-results.

Switching between GLP-1 receptor agonists in clinical practice: Expert consensus and practical guidance

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are an established treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Differences between GLP-1RAs in pharmacokinetics, dosing regimens and clinical effects, including cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, mean there may be benefits to switching from one to another. However, clinical guidance on switching is lacking and data from clinical trials are limited. This article provides a clinical perspective and consensus on the benefits of switching between GLP-1RAs, the triggers for switching and how best to manage this in clinical practice. Once weekly (OW) semaglutide is used as an example to illustrate how the authors might switch to a different GLP-1RA in clinical practice.

METHODS

Literature was searched and perspectives from 10 healthcare professionals with experience in switching patients with T2D to OW semaglutide from another GLP-1RA were collated.

RESULTS

Medical triggers for switching to another GLP-1RA included HbA_1c targets not being met, a desire for additional weight loss, poor adherence, patients moving to increased CV risk status and adverse effects with the current GLP-1RA. Non-medical triggers for switching included patient preference, cost, formulary changes and insurance mandates. Once the decision to switch is made, an individualised approach is recommended, based on considerations that include reimbursement requirements, treatment duration with (and dose of) previous GLP-1RA, the patient's experience initiating the prior GLP-1RA, any concomitant treatment and clinical characteristics. When switching, it is important to emphasise that treatment burden will not increase and that if gastrointestinal adverse effects occur, they are typically transient. Any transient gastrointestinal adverse effects that may occur (or recur) when switching to another GLP-1RA can be reduced by slow up-titration and advising patients to reduce food portion sizes and fat intake.

CONCLUSION

Switching from one GLP-1RA to another, such as OW semaglutide, can provide clinical benefits and may delay the need for treatment intensification.

Oral GLP1 Analog: Where Does the Tide Go?

T2D is a potentially preventable disease that has been ranked the seventh leading cause of mortality in the United States. There is strong evidence demonstrating that preventing type 2 diabetes is, in many cases, attainable through lifestyle intervention. Unfortunately, prediabetes is mostly overlooked and awareness with diabetes prevention tools is lacking among primary care physicians. Nationally, efforts were not successful in reversing this epidemic even with an array of diabetes medications. Among the most effective medications for T2D are glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), which have been shown to reduce both A1C and body weight. Dulaglutide, liraglutide and injectable semaglutide also reduced cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality in patients with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors. In this review, we will examine the first FDA approved oral GLP-1 RA; semaglutide. Moreover, this review will discuss the potential impact oral semaglutide may have on glycemic control, weight loss and cardiovascular comorbidities. It also examines the factors that may impact patient compliance, including cost, side effects and clinical issues. Finally, it deliberates the optimism surrounding the development of oral semaglutide in the treatment of diabetes as well as related conditions, such as obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 Diabetes: a systematic literature review

Introduction: As a novel glucagon-like peptide-1receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment, the economic value of once-weekly semaglutide had been assessed in several country settings. The authors' objective was to systematically review the existing pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness associated with once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs and provide implications for further researches.Areas covered: We conducted a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) published up to 25 July 2020 in PubMed, web of science, and the ISPOR presentation database, compared once-weekly semaglutide with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D. Nineteen studies were identified, including 8 short-term and 11 long-term studies. General characteristics and main results of the included studies were summarized.Expert opinion: This review provided references for other countries to overview the value of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D in the healthcare decision-making process and to conduct their CEA studies associated with once-weekly semaglutide. The authors found that the cardiovascular (CV) benefit of once-weekly semaglutide was under-estimated in current studies and suggested that the methods of economic evaluations for novel anti-diabetic drugs with CV benefit should be improved in future researches.

Clinical review of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes considered for injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy or currently on insulin therapy

Injectable therapies such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and insulin are high-efficacy options for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who require treatment intensification. In addition to high glycemic efficacy, GLP-1RAs offer weight loss benefits, and some agents have been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk. This article summarizes data from two clinical studies with the first oral GLP-1RA, oral semaglutide, in situations where injectable therapy is often considered, and provides guidance on use in primary care. PIONEER 4 compared oral semaglutide 14 mg with an injectable GLP-1RA, liraglutide 1.8 mg, or placebo in patients uncontrolled on oral glucose-lowering therapies. PIONEER 8 compared oral semaglutide with placebo in patients with T2D already on insulin therapy. Treatment with oral semaglutide gave similar reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_{1 c}) compared with liraglutide at 26 weeks, and significantly greater reductions at 52 weeks. Changes in body weight with oral semaglutide were significantly greater compared with liraglutide after 26 and 52 weeks. Adding oral semaglutide 7 or 14 mg to insulin resulted in significant reductions in HbA_{1 c} and body weight at both 26 and 52 weeks compared with placebo, and facilitated a decrease in total daily insulin dosage. Oral semaglutide was associated with low proportions of patients experiencing severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia when added to oral glucose-lowering therapies, and did not increase the incidence of such events when added to insulin. The tolerability profile of oral semaglutide was consistent with that seen for injectable GLP-1RAs, with gastrointestinal side effects seen most frequently; most were transient and tended to occur during dose escalation. For patients requiring treatment intensification after oral therapy or as add-on to insulin, oral semaglutide provides effective glucose lowering and body weight loss, with low risk of hypoglycemia, thus broadening the range of therapeutic options for treatment of T2D in primary care.

Levels of evidence supporting European and American community-acquired pneumonia guidelines

Optimal clinical decisions should be supported by clinical practice guidelines (CPG) based on evidence generated from randomized clinical trials (RCT). We aimed to evaluate the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting the international community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines and their variation over time. The 2019 Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS) and the 2011 European Respiratory Society/European Society Clinical Microbiology Infectious Diseases (ERS/ESCMID) CPG and its immediate predecessors (2007 and 2005) were evaluated. The number of recommendations and distribution as LOE A (supported by multiple RCT or a single, large RCT), B (supported by data from a single RCT or observational studies) and C (expert opinion, case studies, or standard of care) was identified. Overall, recommendations for diagnosis, management, and prevention were graded as strong in 51.4%, 62.9%, and 23.5% in spite that they were supported by LOE A in 5.7%, 11.1%, and 52.9%, respectively. In the 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines (39 recommendations), 7.7% (n = 3) recommendations were classified as LOE A, 30.8% (n = 12) as LOE B, and 61.5% (24%) as LOE C. Across the 2011 ERS/ESCMID guidelines (68 recommendations), 21.2% (n = 14) recommendations were classified as LOE A, 4.6% (n = 3) as LOE B, and 74.2% (n = 49) as LOE C. When comparing with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not significantly increase in ERS/ESCMID (21.2% vs 20%) and decreased in ATS/IDSA (7.7% vs 32.0%). In conclusion, large randomized trials or network meta-analysis including comparison of regimens to identify high probability of best cure and mortality is an unmet clinical need on CAP.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Sitagliptin and Once-Weekly Dulaglutide for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cost of Control Analysis in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Once-weekly semaglutide has been associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than sitagliptin and dulaglutide in the SUSTAIN 2 and 7 clinical trials, respectively. These trials also assessed the proportions of patients achieving treatment targets capturing glycemic control and avoidance of hypoglycemia and weight gain. This study assessed the cost of bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to three clinically relevant endpoints with semaglutide versus sitagliptin and dulaglutide in Spain.

METHODS

The proportions of patients achieving endpoints of HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain, and a ≥ 1.0% HbA1c reduction with ≥ 5.0% weight loss were taken from SUSTAIN 2 and 7. Cost of control was calculated as the annual per patient cost of each medication, expressed in 2019 euros (EUR), divided by the proportion of patients achieving each endpoint.

RESULTS

Based on SUSTAIN 2, cost of control was lower for sitagliptin for the HbA1c < 7.0% endpoint, results were comparable for the HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain endpoint, and both doses of semaglutide were associated with lower costs of control for the ≥ 1.0% HbA1c reduction with ≥ 5.0% weight loss endpoint. Based on SUSTAIN 7, both doses of semaglutide were associated with lower costs of control for all three endpoints.

CONCLUSION

Both doses of semaglutide were associated with comparable or lower costs of control versus sitagliptin when considering endpoints incorporating hypoglycemia and weight loss alongside glycemic control, and lower costs of control versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg for all endpoints in Spain. Plain language summary available for this article.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a once-weekly GLP-1 analogue versus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the Spanish setting: Once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin

Aims: Controlling costs while maximizing healthcare gains is the predominant challenge for healthcare providers, and therefore cost-effectiveness analysis is playing an ever-increasing role in healthcare decision making. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg and 1 mg) versus empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) in the Spanish setting for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications.Material and methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project outcomes over patient lifetimes with once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin, with treatment effects based on a network meta-analysis. The analysis captured treatment costs, costs of diabetes-related complications, and the impact of complications on quality of life, based on published sources. Outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per annum.Results: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 and 0.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg and improvements of 0.11 and 0.14 QALYs, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg. Treatment costs were higher with once-weekly semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, but this was partially offset by cost savings due to avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 2,285 and EUR 161 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg, and EUR 3,090 and EUR 625 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg.Conclusions: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were projected to be cost-effective versus empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg for the treatment of patients with T2D with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications in the Spanish setting, irrespective of patients' BMI at baseline.

Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving 1-2 Oral Antidiabetics: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

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 (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%), blood pressure, and any gastrointestinal adverse events specified in system organ class. Data were synthesised using NMA and a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included in the analyses. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c vs most comparators, and numerically greater reductions vs semaglutide 0.5 mg once-weekly (QW), dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW and liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. HbA1c reductions with semaglutide 1 mg QW were numerically greater than those with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD. Reductions in body weight for orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD were significantly greater than all comparators except semaglutide QW (both doses). Orally administered semaglutide QD 14 mg was associated with statistically similar odds of experiencing gastrointestinal adverse events vs injectable GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD as an add-on to 1-2 OADs is one of the most efficacious GLP-1 RAs for reducing HbA1c and body weight at 26 ± 4 weeks. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD is well tolerated, with a safety profile in line with the GLP-1 RA class.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide, Exenatide ER, Liraglutide and Lixisenatide: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Danish Setting

INTRODUCTION

Once-weekly semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that has been associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus GLP-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release (ER), liraglutide and lixisenatide in the SUSTAIN trial program and a network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide versus all available GLP-1 receptor agonists in Denmark, using a clinically orientated treatment approach.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the corresponding SUSTAIN trials and the NMA. Patients were assumed to initiate GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy and subsequently treatment-intensify according to clinical treatment guidelines, with addition of basal insulin and switching to basal-bolus insulin occurring when HbA1c exceeded recommended targets. Patients were assumed to receive a GLP-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin therapy once HbA1c levels reached 7.5% and a basal-bolus insulin regimen once HbA1c exceeded 8.0%. Costs were captured in 2017 Danish kroner (DKK), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

Primary analyses indicated that semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.34 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus dulaglutide, achieved at cost savings of DKK 289 and DKK 13,416, respectively. Supporting analyses indicated that both doses of semaglutide were either cost-effective or dominant versus exenatide ER, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg and lixisenatide.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide represents a cost-effective alternative to other GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies available in Denmark, demonstrating clinical benefits versus dulaglutide, exenatide ER, liraglutide and lixisenatide for the treatment of patients with T2D.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S. Plain language summary available for this article.

The Management of Type 2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide: A Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Slovakia

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists represent a class of treatments for type 2 diabetes that offer multifactorial benefits, including glycemic control, weight loss and low hypoglycemia risk. Once-weekly semaglutide is a novel GLP-1 analog that has been associated with improved glycemic control and reduced body mass index (BMI) versus once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in SUSTAIN 7, which is reimbursed in patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m² in Slovakia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg in Slovakia.

METHODS

Clinical and cost outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on the sub-group of patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m² in SUSTAIN 7. Patients were modeled to receive once-weekly semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Treatment effects associated with once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide were maintained for the first 3 years before HbA1c increased to 7.0% and BMI reverted to baseline. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in Slovakia and expressed in euros (EUR). Utilities relating to quality of life were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Lifetime medical costs were similar, with cost savings of EUR 20 and EUR 140 per patient with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were therefore considered dominant versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg.

CONCLUSION

Both doses of once-weekly semaglutide represent cost-saving treatment options versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg for obese patients with type 2 diabetes in Slovakia.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

Cardiovascular risk reduction with once-weekly semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of gender, age, and baseline CV risk profile in the SUSTAIN 6 trial

Background

The SUSTAIN 6 trial demonstrated that once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 and 1.0 mg) significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events (MACE) vs placebo in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high CV risk. The effects of gender, age and baseline CV risk on outcomes are important considerations for further study.

Methods

Subjects were grouped according to gender, age (50–65 years and > 65 years), and CV risk profile at baseline (prior myocardial infarction [MI] or stroke vs no prior MI or stroke, and established CV disease [CVD] vs CV risk factors alone, including subjects with chronic kidney disease). Time to MACE and its individual components (CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke), hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure, and revascularization (coronary and peripheral) were analyzed for all subgroups. Additional analyses were performed for gender and age to investigate change from baseline in HbA_1c and body weight, as well as tolerability.

Results

A total of 3297 subjects were included. The majority of subjects (60.7%) were male; 43% were > 65 years of age; 41.5% had a history of MI or stroke; and 76.8% had established CVD. Compared with placebo, semaglutide reduced the risk of the first occurrence of MACE and each MACE component consistently across all subgroups (gender, age, and baseline CV risk profile). Revascularizations, HbA_1c and body weight were also reduced consistently across all subgroups compared with placebo. Gastrointestinal adverse events in all treatment groups were more common among women than men, but rates of premature treatment discontinuation were similar for both genders.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis of SUSTAIN 6, once-weekly semaglutide vs placebo reduced the risk of MACE in all subjects included in the trial, regardless of gender, age, or baseline CV risk profile.

Trial registry Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifying number: NCT01720446, Date of registration: October 29, 2012

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-019-0871-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Semaglutide as a promising antiobesity drug

Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) with a long elimination half-life, allowing subcutaneous (sc) administration once per week. Both the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved once-weekly sc semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The weight loss efficacy of once-weekly sc semaglutide appears to be superior compared with the other once-weekly GLP-1 RAs in patients with T2DM. Semaglutide was recently evaluated as an antiobesity drug in a phase II dose-finding trial, which demonstrated superior weight loss efficacy of once daily sc semaglutide compared with both placebo and once daily 3.0 mg liraglutide in patients with obesity but without T2DM. The magnitude of semaglutide-induced weight loss in this study exceeded the criteria of both the EMA and FDA for antiobesity drugs, and there were no safety concerns, indicating the eligibility of once daily sc semaglutide as a future antiobesity drug.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK

AIMS

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose-lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head-to-head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes-related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with treatment with dulaglutide, once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Estonia

INTRODUCTION

Once-weekly semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that was associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) versus once-daily GLP-1 analogue liraglutide in a recent network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus liraglutide 1.2 mg in Estonia.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline cohort characteristics sourced from SUSTAIN 3 and changes in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and BMI associated with once-weekly semaglutide and liraglutide derived from the NMA. Patients were assumed to receive once-weekly semaglutide or liraglutide for 5 years before intensifying to basal insulin. Treatment effects were applied for the first 5 years, after which HbA1c increased to 7.0%, SBP followed a natural progression, and BMI reverted to baseline for the remainder of the analysis. Costs were expressed in euros (EUR) and estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. Utilities associated with diabetes and diabetes-related complications were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus liraglutide 1.2 mg. Direct costs were EUR 67 higher with once-weekly semaglutide, due to the increased acquisition cost, but this was mostly offset by cost savings due to avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 523 per QALY gained versus liraglutide 1.2 mg, which falls well below a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 52,390 per QALY gained (three times the Estonian GDP per capita).

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide was considered highly cost-effective versus liraglutide 1.2 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Estonia.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S. Plain language summary available for this article.

The safety and efficacy of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide as monotherapy or add-on to other antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception to January 18, 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing semaglutide with placebo or other AHAs in T2DM patients were included in our meta-analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies with 9519 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results revealed that compared with placebo or other AHAs, semaglutide had further reduced the level of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) [MD 1.03%, 95% CI (0.85%, 1.22%), p < 0.00001], self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) [MD 1.19 mmol/L, 95% CI (0.84 mmol/L, 1.53 mmol/L), p < 0.00001], fasting plasma glucose (FPG) [MD 1.33 mmol/L, 95% CI (0.97 mmol/L, 1.69 mmol/L), p < 0.00001] and weight [MD 3.61 kg, 95% CI (3.05 kg, 4.17 kg), p < 0.00001] and significantly increased participants who achieved HbA1c < 7.0% [RR 2.26, 95% CI (1.89, 2.70), p < 0.00001] in T2DM patients. Semaglutide had a significant increase in the incidence of adverse events (AEs) [RR 1.06, 95% CI (1.02, 1.11), p < 0.0001] and an analogous incidence in serious adverse events (SAEs) [RR 0.94, 95% CI (0.86, 1.02), p = 0.11] and hypoglycaemic events (severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed symptomatic) [RR 0.93, 95% CI (0.74, 1.16), p = 0.50] compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This article revealed that semaglutide had a favourable efficacy and safety in treating T2DM patients. It maybe a superior choice for T2DM patients who have obesity or a poor adherence to daily AHAs.

A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Once-Weekly Semaglutide with Other GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving Basal Insulin

INTRODUCTION

Once-weekly semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue that is currently available as 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg dose for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Currently, no head-to-head trial investigating once-weekly semaglutide as an add-on to basal insulin vs other GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is available. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide vs other GLP-1 RAs in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify all trials of GLP-1 RAs as an add-on to basal insulin in patients with T2D. Data at 24 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes (feasible for analysis in an NMA), including the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, and systolic blood pressure, and the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Data were synthesized using a NMA and a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

In total, eight studies were included across the base-case analyses. The results demonstrate that once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c (- 0.88% to - 1.39% vs comparators) and weight (- 1.49 to - 4.69 kg vs comparators) and similar odds of experiencing nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea vs all GLP-1 RA comparators. Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg was also equally effective at reducing systolic blood pressure compared with liraglutide 1.8 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs the majority of other GLP-1 RAs, except liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. The odds of experiencing nausea were significantly lower with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg compared with all GLP-1 RA comparators.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg as an add-on to basal insulin is likely to be the most efficacious GLP-1 RA for reducing HbA1c and weight from baseline after 6 months of treatment. The efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide is not associated with a significant increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal side-effects vs other GLP-1 RAs.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.