PCR-assisted impedimetric biosensor for colibactin-encoding pks genomic island detection in E. coli samples.

A fast PCR-assisted impedimetric biosensor was developed for the selective detection of the clbN gene from the polyketide synthase (pks) genomic island in real Escherichia coli samples. This genomic island is responsible for the production of colibactin, a harmful genotoxin that has been associated with colorectal cancer. The experimental protocol consisted of immobilizing the designated forward primer onto an Au electrode surface to create the sensing probe, followed by PCR temperature cycling in blank, positive, and negative DNA controls. Target DNA identification was possible by monitoring changes in the system's charge transfer resistance values (Rct) before and after PCR treatment through electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) analysis. Custom-made, flexible gold electrodes were fabricated using chemical etching optical lithography. A PCR cycle study determined the optimum conditions to be at 6 cycles providing fast results while maintaining a good sensitivity. EIS data for the DNA recognition process demonstrated the successful distinction between target interaction resulting in an increase in resistance to charge transfer (Rct) percentage change of 176% for the positive DNA control vs. 21% and 20% for the negative and non-DNA-containing controls, respectively. Results showed effective fabrication of a fast, PCR-based electrochemical biosensor for the detection of pks genomic island with a calculated limit of detection of 17 ng/µL.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide vs lixisenatide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK setting.

AIMS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 µg, in the UK setting based on the LIRA-LIXI trial (NCT01973231). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Projections of costs (in 2015 pounds sterling [£]) and clinical outcomes were made over patient lifetimes using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (IMS Health, Basel, Switzerland). The baseline cohort and treatment effects applied after initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists were taken from the LIRA-LIXI trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (8.87 vs 8.76 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) vs lixisenatide 20 µg. A greater reduction in glycated haemoglobin with liraglutide 1.8 mg led to fewer diabetes-related complications and delayed their time of onset. Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs (£37 153 vs £36 174), driven by higher acquisition costs, but this was partially offset by savings from diabetes-related complications avoided (£26 969 vs £27 912). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8901 per QALY gained vs lixisenatide 20 µg. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections suggest that treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered highly cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 µg treatment in the UK setting.

Second-Generation Cap Analogue Prodrugs for Targeting Aberrant Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Factor 4E (eIF4E) Activity in Drug-Resistant Melanoma.

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer with a 5-year survival rate of less than 20%. While significant strides have been made in the field of kinase-targeted and immune-based therapies for melanoma, the development of resistance to these therapeutic agents has hindered the success of treatment. Drug-resistant melanoma is particularly reliant on enhanced cap-dependent translation to drive the production of oncoproteins that promote growth and survival. The m7GpppX cap-binding protein eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) is the rate-limiting factor of cap-dependent translation initiation, and its overexpression in melanoma tumors has been shown to drive resistance to BRAFV600E kinase-targeted inhibitors. These findings point to eIF4E-targeted therapies as a promising strategy to overcome drug resistance in melanoma. Herein, we build upon our previous work of developing cell-permeable cap analogue inhibitors to design second-generation cap analogues that inhibit eIF4E-mediated cap-dependent translation in drug-resistant melanoma cells.

Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor projected survival and long-term health outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for F508del.

BACKGROUND: A series of phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated that elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) is safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) aged ≥12 years with ≥1 F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. The impact of this treatment on lifetime clinical outcomes and survival, however, has yet to be assessed. METHODS: We used a person-level microsimulation model to estimate the survival and lifetime clinical benefits of ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment versus other CFTR modulator combinations (tezacaftor plus ivacaftor [TEZ/IVA] or lumacaftor plus ivacaftor [LUM/IVA]) or best supportive care (BSC) alone in pwCF aged ≥12 years who are homozygous for F508del-CFTR. Disease progression inputs were derived from published literature; clinical efficacy inputs were derived from an indirect treatment comparison conducted using relevant phase 3 clinical trial data and extrapolations of clinical data. RESULTS: The median projected survival for pwCF homozygous for F508del-CFTR treated with ELX/TEZ/IVA was 71.6 years. This was an increase of 23.2 years versus TEZ/IVA, 26.2 years versus LUM/IVA, and 33.5 years versus BSC alone. Treatment with ELX/TEZ/IVA also reduced disease severity as well as the number of pulmonary exacerbations and lung transplants. In a scenario analysis, the median projected survival for pwCF initiating ELX/TEZ/IVA between the ages of 12 and 17 years was 82.5 years, an increase of 45.4 years compared with BSC alone. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our model suggest ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment may substantially increase survival for pwCF, with early initiation potentially allowing pwCF to achieve near-normal life expectancy.

Caregiver burden in cystic fibrosis: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) affects more than 80,000 people worldwide, having a considerable impact on the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, who assist patients with time-consuming treatment regimens. Despite this, a review of the available evidence has not been previously undertaken. This systematic literature review aimed to identify the humanistic and economic burdens of CF on caregivers. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Publications reporting outcomes for the caregivers of people with CF, including utility data, health status, and occupational impact, were reviewed. Sources searched were Embase (OvidSP), Medline (PubMed), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Epistemonikos database, from 2010 to March 2020. A subsequent search with updated terms identified articles up to April 2020. Electronic searches were supplemented by hand searches to capture all relevant literature. RESULTS: A total of 889 articles reporting humanistic burden and 310 reporting economic burden were identified. Following full-text screening by two independent reviewers, 72 articles were included in the review, of which 65 and 17 reported data on humanistic and economic burdens, respectively, with 10 reporting on both. The reviewed literature covered several outcomes and identified multiple key findings: greater disease severity is associated with the reporting of greater caregiver burden and lower utility scores of quality of life; reduced patient lung function is associated with increased caregiver depression and anxiety; and caregiving causes significant occupational impact, with pulmonary exacerbations decreasing caregiver productivity by up to a third compared with the patient being in a 'well' state. CONCLUSION: Findings from this systematic literature review highlight the substantial humanistic and economic burdens borne by the caregivers of people with CF. Future research would help to further inform on the link between disease severity and caregiver burden.

Cost-Effectiveness of Liraglutide Versus Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: To date there is a lack of economic analysis comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) to sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Liraglutide and dapagliflozin are the most commonly prescribed GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in the UK. This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg/day compared to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day for the treatment of T2DM in the UK in patients on dual and triple antidiabetic therapy. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM). The model estimated expected costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon using the UK national payer perspective. Liraglutide efficacy estimates and patient characteristics were sourced from a trial in patients on prior metformin monotherapy, and from a trial in patients on prior combination therapy. Comparative efficacy data for the other interventions were derived from a network meta-analysis. Utility inputs were extracted from a systematic literature review. Costs are presented in Great British Pound (GBP), 2016 values. RESULTS: In dual and triple therapy, liraglutide 1.2 mg was less costly and more effective compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg, providing a QALY gain of 0.04 and cost savings of GBP 11 per patient in dual therapy, and a QALY gain of 0.06 and cost savings of GBP 71 per patient in triple therapy. For liraglutide 1.8 mg, increased efficacy and costs compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg were observed in both dual and triple therapy. In dual therapy, a QALY gain of 0.07 and additional costs of GBP 888 per patient yielded an ICER of GBP 13,227, whereas in triple therapy a QALY gain of 0.07 and additional cost of GBP 791 per patient gave an ICER of 11,857. CONCLUSION: This long-term modelling analysis found that both dosages of liraglutide may be cost-effective treatment alternatives as part of a dual or a triple antidiabetic therapy in patients for whom an SGLT-2i therapy is considered. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Effectiveness of Liraglutide and Lixisenatide in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Real-World Evidence from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists liraglutide and lixisenatide are effective at reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Although liraglutide has demonstrated superior efficacy in head-to-head clinical trials, real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness is lacking. This observational study aimed to assess the effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in UK clinical practice. METHODS: Electronic medical records from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) UK primary care database were analyzed. Patients aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with T2DM, and prescribed liraglutide or lixisenatide between 01 May 2013 and 31 December 2015 were included in the study. Adjusted linear regression models compared the difference in mean change in HbA1c, body mass index (BMI), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) after 12-month follow-up. The proportion of patients achieving glycemic control (HbA1c <6.5%, <7.0%, <7.5%); HbA1c reduction >1%; and weight reduction ≥3% within 12 months were determined. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on time to achieving HbA1c and weight reduction targets. Healthcare resource use (HCRU) (GP, secondary care, hospitalizations) was compared using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The primary outcome was assessed in 579 liraglutide and 213 lixisenatide new users. Fully adjusted linear regression indicated that liraglutide reduced HbA1c significantly more than lixisenatide (mean treatment difference -0.30; 95% CI -0.56, -0.04; p = 0.025). Compared to lixisenatide, liraglutide recipients were 2.5 times more likely to achieve HbA1c <6.5% (p = 0.0002). Liraglutide users were also more likely to achieve HbA1c <7.0% (HR 2.10; p < 0.0001), <7.5% (HR 1.65; p < 0.0001), and >1% HbA1c reduction (HR 1.29; p = 0.0002). BMI and SBP reductions were greater for the liraglutide group but results were not significant. HCRU was comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: These results from the THIN database indicate that liraglutide treatment provided better outcomes related to glycemic control. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 µg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with lixisenatide 20 µg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 µg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 µg. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 µg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.

Patients' with type 2 diabetes willingness to pay for insulin therapy and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed patient preferences, using willingness to pay as a method to measure different treatment characteristics or attributes associated with injectable insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes in 12 countries, diagnosed >6 months prior and receiving insulin for >3 months, were recruited through a representative online panel. Data were collected via online questionnaire and analyzed using a standard choice model for discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: A total of 3758 patients from North America (n=646), South America (n=1537), and Europe (n=1575) completed the study. Mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in North America, South America, and Europe were 63 mmol/mol (7.9%), 75 mmol/mol (9.0%), and 64 mmol/mol (8.0%), respectively. In the three regions, monthly willingness to pay was US$116, US$74, and US$92, respectively, for a 1%-point decrease in HbA1c; US$99, US$80, and US$104 for one less major hypoglycemic event per year; and US$64, US$37 and US$60 for a 3 kg weight decrease. To avoid preinjection preparation of insulin, the respective values were US$47, US$18, and US$37, and US$25, US$25, and US$24 for one less injection per day. Among respondents on basal-only insulin who had previously tried a more intensive regimen, reasons for switching back included difficulty in handling multiple injections and risk of hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing HbA1c, frequency of major hypoglycemic events and weight decrease were the highest valued outcomes in each region. The administrative burden of injections was also considered important.