RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Obesity and overweight are a significant public health concern. Subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg injection is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue approved by the European Medicines Agency as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity (diet and exercise, D&E) for the treatment obesity and overweight in the presence of at least one weight related comorbidity. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in combination with D&E compared to D&E alone for the Portuguese setting. METHODS: Analysis were conducted using the Core Obesity Model (COM) version 18, a Markov state transition cohort model, to predict the health outcomes and costs of weight related complications based on changes in surrogate endpoints. Efficacy and safety data were sourced from the STEP trials (Body Mass Index, systolic blood pressure and glycemic status) from a cohort of adults aged on average 48 years with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and ≥ 1 obesity-related comorbidities, over a time horizon of 40 years. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the Portuguese National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results across a range of assumptions. RESULTS: On a patient level, Semaglutide 2.4 mg in addition to D&E compared to D&E alone, improved QALYs by 0.098 and yielded higher costs by 1,325 EUR over a 40-year time horizon, with an ICER of 13,459 EUR per QALY gained and 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at the given WTP. Semaglutide 2.4 mg remained cost-effective across all different scenarios and sensitivity analysis at a WTP of 20,000 EUR per QALY. Among the subpopulations examined, Semaglutide 2.4 mg yielded ICERs of 18,459 EUR for patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and of 22,657 EUR for patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 2.4 mg was cost-effective compared to D&E alone for patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and weight related comorbidities in Portugal, over a 40-year time horizon.
RESUMO
In this article, we present a case of retroperitoneal schwannoma localized in the pelvic cavity mimicking ovarian carcinoma. A 60-year-old woman presented with a feeling of pelvic heaviness and dyspareunia for 3 months. On physical examination, a hardened mass is palpated on the cul-de-sac of Douglas, measuring approximately 10 cm. The sonographic study showed a retro-uterine solid mass, containing cystic areas, measuring 14 cm. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a solid left tumor in the small pelvis, posterior to the uterus, suspicious of an ovarian malign tumor. Surgery revealed a retroperitoneal pelvic tumor and uterus and adnexa without macroscopic changes. Pathology examination of the pelvic mass confirmed the diagnosis of schwannoma. In the present case, it is emphasized that it is easy to misdiagnose a pelvic mass as an ovarian tumor. While prompt recognition of ovarian cancer remains essential, awareness of processes that mimic ovarian tumors can avoid potential misdiagnosis. The pelvis has a complex anatomy and there are some imaging signs that help assessing the origin of a mass, especially in cases of masses abutting the ovary.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog that has been associated with improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in the PIONEER 2 clinical trial and in a recent network meta-analysis (NMA), respectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in Portugal. METHODS: In two separate analyses, outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 4% per annum. Clinical data were sourced from the PIONEER 2 trial and the NMA for the comparisons versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, respectively. Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to solely basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a National Healthcare Service perspective in Portugal and expressed in 2021 euros (EUR). Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.10 and 0.03 years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.03 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. Improved clinical outcomes were due to a reduced cumulative incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications with oral semaglutide. Total costs were projected to be EUR 2548 and EUR 814 higher with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, with higher acquisition costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 23,571 and EUR 23,927 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Portugal.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Analyze the impact of endovascular revascularization on major amputation rates and wound healing for patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective study from 2014-2018 including 314 patients with DFUs submitted to endovascular revascularizations. Group A-patients with a successful endovascular revascularization (n = 285; 90.8%); Group B-patients submitted to a failed attempt of endovascular revascularization (n = 29; 9.2%). Baseline data were not significantly different between the 2 groups (p > 0.05). Both groups were compared regarding: major amputation rates; wound healing, mortality and adverse events. Survival and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 734.1 ± 610.2 days. Major amputation rates were 3.9% versus 24.1% (p < 0.0001) and complete wound healing was 53.7% versus 20.7% (p < 0.0001) for patients from Group A versus Group B, respectively. Major adverse events were registered in 2 patients (one from each group); minor adverse events included 10 patients from Group A and 2 patients from Group B (p = 0.3654). Major amputation rates were: 3.9% versus 27.5% at 1 year; 4.6% versus 27.5% at 2-5 years for Group A versus Group B, respectively (p < 0.0001). Survival rates were: 87.8% at 1 year; 84.4% at 2 years; and 77.9% at 5 years with no significant differences between groups. Predictors for major amputation included failed revascularization (p < 0.0001), older age (p = 0.0394), prior stroke (0.0018), dialysis (0.0476). Predictors for mortality included older age (p < 0.0001) and coronary artery disease (p = 0.0388). CONCLUSION: Endovascular revascularization for patients with DFUs is safe and has a significant impact on limb salvage and wound healing.