Cost of achieving HbA1c and weight loss treatment targets with IDegLira vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the USA

Indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin glargine/lixisenatide and insulin degludec/insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes patients not controlled on basal insulin

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combinations of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) or insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) constitute treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

OBJECTIVES

Compare efficacy and safety of IGlarLixi and IDegAsp (as intensification from basal insulin), by indirect comparison of phase III trials, in the absence of head-to-head trials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies comparing treatment intensification by once-daily IDegAsp or IGlarLixi to basal insulin. Data were extracted from two trials (BOOST: Intensify-Basal and LixiLan-L) retained for analysis.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

Treatments were compared in terms of estimated treatment difference (ETD) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (FPG and PPG) change from baseline; in addition to hypoglycaemia incidence and weight changes.

RESULTS

In a fixed-effect model examining HbA1c control, IGlarLixi was more effective than IDegAsp in reducing HbA1c (ETD 0.53%, P<0.0001]), PPG (ETD 2.65%, P<0.0001), and body weight (ETD 1.73kg, P<0.0001). Patients on IGlarLixi were more likely to achieve HbA1c<7% than patients on IDegAsp (odds ratio [OR]=0.40, P<0.0001), with lower incidence of hypoglycaemia (OR=1.33, P<0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Limited number of studies; different baseline HbA1c and FPG.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily IGlarLixi is more efficient than once-daily IDegAsp in controlling HbA1c and PPG and associates with greater weight loss and lower hypoglycaemia incidence.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

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.