Comparing once-weekly semaglutide to incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel once-a-week dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that is used as an addition to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose in adults with type 2 diabetes. It is the first dual glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The SURPASS-2 clinical trial demonstrated superiority of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg over semaglutide 1 mg in glycated hemoglobin A1c reduction and weight loss from baseline to week 40. Economic analyses to support coverage and access decision-making for tirzepatide are limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg vs semaglutide 1 mg injection over 52 weeks of treatment regarding A1c reduction and weight loss from the perspective of the US health care payer. METHODS: A decision tree model over a 52-week time horizon was developed to identify incremental treatment-related costs of once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg vs semaglutide 1 mg injection. Costs were divided by mean reduction in A1c and change in body weight from baseline to week 52 observed in the SURPASS-2 clinical trial. In addition to efficacy, probabilities of adverse events, discontinuation, and need for rescue therapy were derived from the SURPASS-2 study. Drug costs in 2022 US dollars were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Costs associated with adverse events were sourced from the published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment with once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg injection was associated with a higher cost and larger reduction in A1c and body weight after 52 weeks, compared with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg injection. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for tirzepatide vs semaglutide was $2,247 per 1% reduction in A1c and $237 per 1 kg weight loss. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the drug costs and treatment effect on A1c and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg was associated with higher cost and greater reduction in A1c and weight vs semaglutide. Tirzepatide 10 mg is cost-effective compared with semaglutide 1 mg if payers' willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $2,247 for 1% reduction in A1c level and $237 for 1 kg weight loss.

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.

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.

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.

Transitioning to non-insulin therapy in a patient receiving high dose insulin

In people with type 2 diabetes with evidence of obesity-related insulin resistance, use of insulin to treat hyperglycemia has not been shown to reduce macrovascular complications, despite widespread use for many years. However, newer classes of diabetes medications, designed to address the prevalent pathophysiologic defect of type 2 diabetes, have emerged. Consequently, in many patients, reduction of insulin doses or even total elimination is possible after the addition of these newer agents. The authors suggest a cautious approach in which people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who are on high insulin doses (>1.0 unit/kg/day) be treated with diabetes medications that showed evidence of cardiovascular benefit (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]), on whom close monitoring is crucial because they may be at particular risk for developing hypoglycemia. This approach can be labor intensive and may be challenging for busy primary care providers for who may have limited time to evaluate and follow the patient. The authors present a case report of adding a GLP-1RA to high insulin doses. If the hemoglobin A1c is <8.0% when GLP-1RA is added, insulin doses should be reduced by 20%. Patients should be monitored at least every 4 weeks initially until it is confirmed there is no hypoglycemia risk. If glycemic targets (defined as fasting or preprandial glucose level between 80 and 130 mg/dl) are consistently achieved, providers may consider proactively reducing insulin doses by 10-20% to avoid hypoglycemia. The authors recommend creating appropriate goals and expectation before initiating this process.

Incorporating and interpreting regulatory guidance on estimands in diabetes clinical trials: The PIONEER 1 randomized clinical trial as an example

Regulatory guidelines describe the use of estimands in designing and conducting clinical trials. Estimands ensure alignment of the objectives with the design, conduct and analysis of a trial. An estimand is defined by four inter-related attributes: the population of interest, the variable (endpoint) of interest, the way intercurrent events are handled and the population level summary. A trial may employ multiple estimands to evaluate treatment effects from different perspectives in order to address different scientific questions. As estimands may be an unfamiliar concept for many clinicians treating diabetes, this paper reviews the estimand concept and uses the PIONEER 1 phase 3a clinical trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs placebo, as an example of the way in which estimands can be implemented and interpreted. In the PIONEER 1 trial, two estimands were employed for each efficacy endpoint and were labelled as: (a) the treatment policy estimand, used to assess the treatment effect regardless of use of rescue medication or discontinuation of trial product, and provides a broad perspective of the treatment effect in the population of patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice; and (b) the trial product estimand, used to assess the treatment effect if all patients had continued to use trial product for the planned duration of the trial without rescue medication, thereby providing information on the anticipated treatment effect of the medication. Both approaches are complementary to understanding the effect of the studied treatments.

Effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists on comorbidities in older patients with diabetes mellitus

Elderly patients with diabetes are at high risk of polypharmacy because of multiple coexisting diseases and syndromes. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug–drug and drug–disease interactions in these patients, who may already have age-related sensory and cognitive deficits; such deficits may delay timely communication of early symptoms of adverse drug events. Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved for diabetes: liraglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide, dulagluatide, semaglutide, and albiglutide. Some are also approved for treatment of obesity. The current review of literature along with clinical case discussion provides evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs as diabetes medications for polypharmacy reduction in older diabetes patients because of their multiple pleiotropic effects on comorbidities (e.g. hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and fatty liver) and syndromes (e.g. osteoporosis and sleep apnea) that commonly co-occur with diabetes. Using one medication (in this case, GLP-1 RAs) to address multiple conditions may help reduce costs, medication burden, adverse drug events, and medication nonadherence.

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.