Comparative efficacy of exenatide versus insulin glargine on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients inadequately treated with metformin monotherapy

Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China

AIMS

To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effects of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. Patient profiles and treatment effects required for the model were obtained from literature reviews (English and Chinese databases) and from a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials comparing exenatide twice daily with insulin glargine once daily add-on to OADs for T2DM in China. Medical expenditure data were collected from 639 patients with T2DM (aged ≥18 years) with and without complications incurred between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015 from claims databases in Shandong, China. Costs (2014 Chinese Yuan [¥]) and benefits were estimated, from the payers' perspective, over 40 years at a discount rate of 3%. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Patients on exenatide twice daily + OAD had a lower predicted incidence of most cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic events and lower total costs compared with those on insulin glargine once daily + OAD. A greater number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 1.94) at a cost saving of ¥117 706 gained was associated with exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. (i.e. cost saving of ¥60 764/QALY) per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by OADs, exenatide twice daily is a cost-effective add-on therapy alternative to insulin glargine once daily, and may address the problem of an excess of medical needs resulting from weight gain and hypoglycaemia in T2DM treatment.

Treatment Strategy for Type 2 Diabetes with Obesity: Focus on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

PURPOSE

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) calls for step-wise intensification of therapy for maintaining normal glycemic levels and lowering cardiovascular (CV) risk. Because obesity is a prominent risk factor and comorbidity of T2DM, it further elevates the CV risk in T2DM. Therefore, it is vital to manage weight, obesity, and glycemic parameters for effective T2DM management. Few oral antidiabetic drugs (sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones) and insulin are not suitable for obese patients with T2DM because these drugs cause weight gain. The present review discusses the place of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in the treatment of obese patients with T2DM and the significance of these drugs in the prevention of future CV risk in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was conducted by using the search terms T2DM, GLP-1RAs, obesity, and cardiovascular complication. Randomized controlled trials measuring the effect of GLP-1RAs versus that of placebo on CV outcomes were included in the review.

FINDINGS

GLP-1RAs have emerged as a therapeutic alternative; these drugs exert their actions by providing glycemic control, improving insulin resistance and ö̇-cell function, and reducing weight. The risk of hypoglycemia with GLP-1RAs is minimal; however, GLP-1RAs are associated with gastrointestinal adverse events and raise concerns regarding pancreatitis. Combining GLP-1RAs with insulin analogues results in higher efficacy, a lowered insulin dose, and reduced insulin-related hypoglycemia and weight gain. Longer acting GLP-1RAs are also associated with improvement in medication adherence. Improvement in CV risk factors such as blood pressure and lipid profile further increases their usability for improving CV outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

Overall, the properties of GLP-1RAs make them suitable for combination with oral antidiabetic drugs in the early stages of T2DM and with insulins in the later stages for optimizing comprehensive management of the disease.

A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap: comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs

Aim

To identify a potential efficacy–effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted.

Results

From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from −0.43 to 0.91 and from −0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from −0.13 to 2.70 and −0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias.

Conclusions

Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy–effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies

OBJECTIVE

To estimate cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients not well controlled by oral anti-diabetic (OAD) agents.

METHODS

The Cardiff model was populated with data synthesized from three head-to-head randomized clinical trials of up to 30 weeks in China comparing exenatide BID vs insulin glargine as add-on therapies to oral therapies in the Chinese population. The Cardiff model generated outputs including macrovascular and microvascular complications, diabetes-specific mortality, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were estimated with a time horizon of 40 years at a discount rate of 3% from a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Compared with insulin glargine plus OAD treatments, patients on exenatide BID plus OAD gained 1.88 QALYs, at an incremental cost saving of Chinese Renminbi (RMB) 114,593 (i.e., cost saving of RMB 61078/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The variables with the most impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio included HbA1c level at baseline, health utilities decrement, and BMI at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin glargine QD, exenatide BID as add-on therapy to OAD is a cost-effective treatment in Chinese patients inadequately controlled by OAD treatments.