Costs of the COVID-19 pandemic associated with obesity in Europe: A health-care cost model

Excess weight is associated with severe outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to estimate the total secondary care costs by body mass index (BMI, kg/m2 ) category when hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Europe during the first wave of the pandemic from January to June 2020. Building a health-care cost model, this study aimed to estimate the total costs of COVID-19. Information on risk of hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and risk of ventilation were based on published data. Average cost per patient and in total were calculated based on risks of admission to ICU, risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay when hospitalized and published costs associated with hospitalization. The total direct costs of secondary care during the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe were estimated at EUR 13.9 billon, whereof 76% accounted for treating people with overweight and obesity. The average cost per hospital admission increased with BMI, from EUR 15831 for BMI <25 kg/m2 to EUR 30982 for BMI ≥40 kg/m2 . This study reveals that excess weight contributes disproportionally to the costs of COVID-19. This might reflect that overweight and obesity caused the COVID-19 pandemic to result in more severe outcomes for citizens and higher secondary care costs throughout Europe.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Empagliflozin 25 mg for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK Setting

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes represents a continuing healthcare challenge, and choosing cost-effective treatments is crucial to ensure that healthcare resources are used efficiently. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of initiation of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg were based on an indirect comparison conducted using patient-level data, as there is currently no head-to-head clinical trial comparing these therapies. Modelled patients received treatments until glycated haemoglobin exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), at which point patients initiated basal insulin. The analysis captured pharmacy costs and costs of diabetes-related complications, expressed in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP). Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually. Scenario analyses were prepared to assess uncertainty around projected outcomes.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with increases in life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 years and 0.23 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, compared with empagliflozin 25 mg. Projected improvements in quality and duration of life resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with increased pharmacy costs, but this was partially offset by avoided costs of treating complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with an increase in costs of GBP 1017 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4439 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be a cost-effective treatment option from a healthcare payer perspective compared with empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK setting.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide Reduces HbA1c and Body Weight in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Regardless of Background Common OAD: a Subgroup Analysis from SUSTAIN 2-4 and 10

INTRODUCTION

Despite treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), achieving effective glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains a challenge. The objective of this post hoc analysis of data from the SUSTAIN 2, 3, 4 and 10 active-controlled trials was to assess the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide in patients on background treatment with metformin (MET), with or without a sulphonylurea (SU).

METHODS

Data from the randomised phase 3 trials SUSTAIN 2, 3, 4 and 10 for subjects who received background MET alone or MET + SU were analysed. Change from baseline in HbA_1c and body weight at the end of treatment visit (week 30 in SUSTAIN 4 and 10, week 56 in SUSTAIN 2 and 3), and rates of hypoglycaemia and adverse events leading to premature treatment discontinuation were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 3411 subjects were included in the full analysis set (3410 in the safety analysis set). Across the four trials, semaglutide significantly reduced HbA_1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] - 0.32 to - 0.79%-points for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and - 0.38 to - 1.07%-points for semaglutide 1.0 mg vs comparators; p < 0.01) in subjects receiving both MET and MET + SU. Regardless of background OAD, semaglutide significantly reduced body weight (ETD - 2.35 to - 4.72 kg for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and - 2.96 to - 6.76 kg for semaglutide 1.0 mg vs comparators; p < 0.0001). Across the trials, hypoglycaemic events were more common with background MET + SU than MET alone, in subjects receiving either semaglutide or a comparator. The rate of adverse events (AEs) leading to premature treatment discontinuations in subjects treated with semaglutide were generally consistent regardless of background therapy.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg significantly improve glycaemic control (HbA_1c) and body weight in subjects with T2D, with a similar tolerability profile, regardless of whether they receive background MET or MET + SU.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2), NCT01885208 (SUSTAIN 3), NCT02128932 (SUSTAIN 4) and NCT03191396 (SUSTAIN 10).

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme

INTRODUCTION

The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting.

METHODS

Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Physician-patient communication at prescription of an additional oral drug for type 2 diabetes and its links to patient outcomes - New findings from the global IntroDia® study

AIMS

To investigate experiences of people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) at the clinic visit when an additional oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) is prescribed, and how this affects their quality of life, self-management and key outcomes.

METHODS

We surveyed adults with T2DM from a large multinational study of patient-physician communication during early T2DM treatment (IntroDia®). We examined their experiences when an additional OAD is prescribed ("add-on") after initial OAD monotherapy, focusing on 24 key conversational elements, overall patient-perceived communication quality (PPCQ), and associations with current patient-reported outcomes. The links between PPCQ and people's efforts to delay add-on therapy were also assessed.

RESULTS

4235 people with T2DM prescribed an additional OAD, or a combination of two, were analysed. Exploratory factor analyses of the conversational elements during add-on yielded three coherent, meaningful factors: Encouraging (Cronbach's α = 0.62), Collaborative (α = 0.81), and Discouraging (α = 0.81). PPCQ was positively associated with Encouraging (β = +1.252, p < 0.001) and Collaborative (β = +1.206, p < 0.001), but negatively associated with Discouraging (β = -0.895, p < 0.001). Better PPCQ at add-on was associated with less diabetes distress, greater well-being and better self-care at the present time. Approximately 20% of people bargained (two-thirds successfully) with their physician to delay additional medication. Non-bargaining individuals reported significantly better mean PPCQ, diabetes distress, well-being and self-care than those who bargained.

CONCLUSIONS

Encouraging and patient-inclusive conversations at add-on moments may improve patient well-being and self-care outcomes. People with T2DM who attempted to delay additional medication reported poorer PPCQ and outcomes.

Physician experiences when discussing the need for additional oral medication with type 2 diabetes patients: Insights from the cross-national IntroDia® study

AIMS

Physician-patient communication when discussing the need for additional oral medication for type 2 diabetes (add-on) may affect the self-care of people with this condition. We aimed to investigate physicians' recalled experiences of the add-on consultation.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians treating people with type 2 diabetes in 26 countries, as part of a large cross-national study of physician-patient communication during early treatment of type 2 diabetes (IntroDia®). The survey battery included novel questions about physician experiences at add-on and the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy.

RESULTS

Of 9247 eligible physicians, 6753 responded (73.0% response rate). Most (82%) agreed that physician-patient discussions at add-on strongly influence patients' disease acceptance and treatment adherence. Half the physicians reported ≥1 challenge in most or all add-on conversations, with a significant inverse relationship between frequency of challenges and Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy score (standardised β coefficient: -0.313; p < 0.001). Physicians estimated that only around half their patients with type 2 diabetes follow their self-care advice. Exploratory factor analysis of physician beliefs about why their patients did not follow recommendations yielded two distinct dimensions: psychosocial barriers (e.g. depressed mood) and personal failings of the patient (e.g. not enough willpower) (r = 0.37, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' empathy and beliefs about their patients may play a significant role in their success with the add-on conversation and, consequently, promotion of patient engagement and self-care. Although the study was limited by its retrospective, cross-sectional nature, the findings from IntroDia® may inform efforts to improve diabetes care.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA_1c at week 56.

RESULTS

Mean HbA_1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA_1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

Challenges faced by physicians when discussing the Type 2 diabetes diagnosis with patients: insights from a cross-national study (IntroDia® )

AIMS

To investigate physicians' recalled experiences of their conversations with patients at diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes, because physician-patient communication at that time may influence the patient's subsequent self-care and outcomes.

METHODS

As part of a large cross-national study of physician-patient communication during early treatment of Type 2 diabetes (IntroDia^® ), we conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians treating people with Type 2 diabetes in 26 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, North America and Oceania. The survey battery was designed to evaluate physician experiences during diagnosis conversations as well as physician empathy (measured using the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy).

RESULTS

A total of 6753 of 9247 eligible physicians completed the IntroDia^® survey (response rate 73.0%). Most respondents (87.5%) agreed that the conversation at diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes impacts the patient's acceptance of the condition and self-care. However, almost all physicians (98.9%) reported challenges during this conversation. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two related yet distinct types of challenges (r = 0.64, P < 0.0001) associated with either patients (eight challenges, α = 0.87) or the situation itself at diagnosis (four challenges, α = 0.72). There was a significant inverse association between physician empathy and overall challenge burden, as well as between empathy and each of the two types of challenges (all P < 0.0001). Study limitations include reliance on accurate physician recall and inability to assign causality to observed associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, most physicians indicated that conversations with patients at diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes strongly influence patient self-care. Higher physician empathy was associated with fewer challenges during the diagnosis conversation.

Physician-patient communication at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and its links to patient outcomes: New results from the global IntroDia® study

AIMS

To investigate patient experiences during the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), focusing on how physician-patient communication at diagnosis influences patients' psychosocial stress and subsequent self-management and outcomes.

METHODS

We surveyed adults with T2DM in 26 countries in a large cross-national study of physician-patient communication during early T2DM treatment (IntroDia®). The self-report questionnaire assessed retrospectively patient experiences during diagnosis conversations (focusing on 43 possible conversational elements, and communication quality) and potential effects on patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Data from 3628 people with T2DM who had been prescribed oral treatment at diagnosis were analysed. Exploratory factor analyses of the conversational elements yielded four coherent, meaningful factors: Encouraging (Cronbach's α=0.86); Collaborative (α=0.88); Recommending Other Resources (α=0.75); and Discouraging (α=0.72). Patient-perceived communication quality (PPCQ) at diagnosis was positively associated with Encouraging (β=+1.764, p<0.001) and Collaborative (β=+0.347, p<0.001), negatively associated with Discouraging (β=-1.181, p<0.001) and not associated with Recommending Other Resources (β=+0.087, p=0.096), using a stable path model. PPCQ was associated with less current diabetes distress, greater current well-being and better current self-care. Conversation elements comprising factors associated with better PPCQ (Encouraging and Collaborative) were recalled more frequently by patients than elements associated with poor PPCQ (Discouraging).

CONCLUSIONS

Better physician-patient communication at T2DM diagnosis may contribute to subsequent greater patient well-being and self-care, and may be enhanced by greater physician use of Collaborative and Encouraging conversation elements.

Evaluation of a multidisciplinary Tier 3 weight management service for adults with morbid obesity, or obesity and comorbidities, based in primary care

A multidisciplinary Tier 3 weight management service in primary care recruited patients with a body mass index ≥40 kg·m(-2) , or 30 kg·m(-2) with obesity-related co-morbidity to a 1-year programme. A cohort of 230 participants was recruited and evaluated using the National Obesity Observatory Standard Evaluation Framework. The primary outcome was weight loss of at least 5% of baseline weight at 12 months. Diet was assessed using the two-item food frequency questionnaire, activity using the General Practice Physical Activity questionnaire and quality of life using the EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. A focus group explored the participants' experiences. Baseline mean weight was 124.4 kg and mean body mass index was 44.1 kg·m(-2) . A total of 102 participants achieved 5% weight loss at 12 months. The mean weight loss was 10.2 kg among the 117 participants who completed the 12-month programme. Baseline observation carried forward analysis gave a mean weight loss of 5.9 kg at 12 months. Fruit and vegetable intake, activity level and quality of life all improved. The dropout rate was 14.3% at 6 months and 45.1% at 1 year. Focus group participants described high levels of satisfaction. It was possible to deliver a Tier 3 weight management service for obese patients with complex co-morbidity in a primary care setting with a full multidisciplinary team, which obtained good health outcomes compared with existing services.