Glucose-lowering treatment patterns in patients with diabetic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: Recent trials of glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) have drawn attention to renal outcomes. Our goal was to understand how patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) are treated in general practices in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using a national-level claims data set and electronic health records. METHODS: Patients (≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes, whose estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) were between 15 and 89 mL/min/1.73 m2 between 2016 and 2018, were selected. Use of different GLDs during a 12-month period was examined across all eGFR levels. RESULTS: Of the 25,486 sample patients, 69.2%, 18.9%, 9.6%, and 2.3% had an eGFR in the ranges of 60 to 89, 45 to 59, 30 to 44, and 15 to 29 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Metformin was used by nearly 33% of patients with an eGFR of 30 to 44 mL/min/1.73 m2 and by 10% of patients with an eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Less than 10% (across all eGFR levels) of patients used glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Use of insulin was more frequent among patients with a lower eGFR (P < .05). The findings were similar in subgroups with different hemoglobin A1c levels (< 7% and ≥ 7%). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world treatment of DKD in the United States is suboptimal. Inappropriate use of some GLD classes, especially in advanced DKD stages, was found along with lower than expected use of modern agents that are considered safe and effective to treat glycemic outcomes. Efforts may be needed to improve understanding of safety, glycemic efficacy, and overall clinical value of GLDs across DKD stages.

Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Oral Antidiabetics.

PURPOSE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of oral semaglutide (14 mg once daily) vs other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatments among adults with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with 1 to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A state-transition model with a competing risk approach was developed for diabetic complications and risk of cardiovascular events based on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 1 equations. Baseline population characteristics reflect the PIONEER 4 trial (Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide and Versus Placebo in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) of oral semaglutide. Model comparators included subcutaneous semaglutide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide. Treatment effects (change in glycosylated hemoglobin, weight, and systolic blood pressure) were estimated by network meta-analysis. Drug, management, and event costs (in 2019 US dollars), survival after nonfatal events, and utilities were obtained from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcomes were discounted at 3% annually over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Total estimated costs and QALYs were $144,065 and 12.98 for oral semaglutide, $145,721 and 12.96 for dulaglutide, $145,833 and 12.99 for SC semaglutide, and $149,428 and 12.97 for liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide was less costly and more effective than dulaglutide and liraglutide but less costly than subcutaneous semaglutide with similar effectiveness. Oral semaglutide was favored versus subcutaneous semaglutide in 52.10% of model replications at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Oral semaglutide is predicted to offer health benefits similar to subcutaneous semaglutide and ahead of dulaglutide and liraglutide. Oral semaglutide is a cost-effective glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment option.

Real-World Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide From a US Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Population.

PURPOSE: Patients managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often require combination therapy to meet their blood glucose control targets. With limited real-world evidence focused on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapies, the objective of this study was to describe the association between semaglutide once weekly (OW) initiation and changes in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) levels. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive cohort study used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment (HIRE) to examine commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who had T2DM while taking semaglutide OW from December 1, 2017, to April 30, 2019. The first semaglutide OW prescription fill was defined as the study index date. Changes in mean A1c levels and A1c target attainment were evaluated among an intention-to-treat (ITT) population (overall group). Furthermore, a persistent population (PP) analysis on the same outcomes was performed that was limited to ITT patients who were observed to continue to use semaglutide OW at the time of the postindex A1c measurement. In addition, these outcomes were explored in patients stratified based on prior use of GLP-1RA therapy (experienced vs naive) and baseline A1c values >9% (75 mmol/mol). FINDINGS: A total of 1888 patients were identified in the overall ITT group. The mean change in the overall ITT group between preindex and postindex A1c values was -0.9% percentage points (-9.8 mmol/mol) (mean preindex A1c, 8.2% [66.1 mmol/mol]) and -1.1 percentage points (-12.0 mmol/mol) (mean preindex A1c, 8.2% [66.1 mmol/mol]) in the PP subgroup (all P < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with a baseline A1c value >9% (75 mmol/mol), percentage point changes in A1c were -2.2 (-24.0 mmol/mol) and -2.4 (-26.2 mmol/mol) (all P < 0.001). When accounting for prior GLP-1RA use, the GLP-1RA-naive stratum had double the mean reduction in A1c compared with the GLP-1RA-experienced stratum (-1.2 [-13.1 mmol/mol] vs -0.6 [-6.6 mmol/mol] percentage points). IMPLICATIONS: Semaglutide OW is associated with clinically and statistically significant A1C reduction and increases in reaching A1 targets using real-world data, even in GLP-1RA-experienced patients, despite more frequent use of insulin or sodium glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors in this group. Target A1c attainment significantly increased overall and within all subgroups and strata, with approximately half of all patients attaining an A1c value <7% (53 mmol/mol) and three-quarters attaining an A1c value <8% (64 mmol/mol).

Impact of Weight Change in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Literature Review and Critical Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Weight reduction is a key component of diabetes management in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet the benefits of weight loss in T2DM patients have been difficult to quantify. We examined the medical literature regarding the relationships between weight change and 1) glycemic control and 2) cost and resource use. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in the electronic databases Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify publications regarding the impact of weight change on T2DM outcomes from 2007 onward. Identified publications were screened for relevance against predefined eligibility criteria, and methodological approaches and results were extracted. Evidence for the impact of weight change on outcomes was evaluated and used to identify strengths, limitations, and gaps in the current literature. RESULTS: The number of studies meeting eligibility criteria for each outcome was: glycemic control (n=38) and cost and resource use (n=11). The relationship between weight change and glycemic control was dependent on the interplay of multiple factors, eg, the weight loss interventions employed, the antidiabetic medication classes used, the time horizon, and baseline BMI and glycemic control. With respect to cost and resource use, the review indicated that savings were associated with weight loss, and increased costs were associated with weight gain. CONCLUSION: Studies regarding weight change in T2DM patients demonstrated varying effects on glycemic control and a positive association with costs and resource use, where weight loss was associated with decreased costs and resource use. Future studies may be able to clarify these relationships.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Economic Burden of Poor Glycemic Control Associated with Therapeutic Inertia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic inertia refers to the failure to initiate or intensify treatment in a timely manner and is widespread in type 2 diabetes (T2D) despite the well-established importance of maintaining good glycemic control. The aim of this analysis was to quantify the clinical and economic burden associated with poor glycemic control due to therapeutic inertia in patients with T2D in the USA. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate life expectancy, costs associated with diabetes-related complications, and lost workplace productivity in US patients. Baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), 11.0% (97 mmol/mol) 13.0% (119 mmol/mol), or 15.0% (140 mmol/mol), with targets of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), or 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) depending on baseline HbA1c, across several delayed intensification scenarios (values above target were defined as poor control). The burden associated with intensification delays of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 years was estimated over time horizons of 1-30 years. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: In a population of 13.4 million patients with T2D and baseline HbA1c of 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), delaying intensification of therapy by 1 year was associated with a loss of approximately 13,390 life-years and increased total costs of US dollars (USD) 7.3 billion (1-year time horizon). Longer delays in intensification were associated with a greater economic burden. Delaying intensification by 7 years was projected to cost approximately 3 million life-years and USD 223 billion over a 30-year time horizon. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic inertia is common in routine clinical practice and makes a substantial contribution to the burden associated with type 2 diabetes in the USA. Initiatives and interventions aimed at preventing therapeutic inertia are needed to improve clinical outcomes and avoid excess costs.

Real-world Effectiveness of Liraglutide vs. Sitagliptin Among Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan: A Retrospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Liraglutide and sitagliptin were compared on glycemic control and all-cause healthcare costs over a 1-year period among older adults with type 2 diabetes (65-89 years) enrolled in a national Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug health plan. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in which the index date was the first prescription fill for liraglutide or sitagliptin between 25 January 2010 and 31 December 2014. Post-index treatment persistence and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline and 1 year (± 90 days) post-index date were required. Patients were excluded if their record included use of insulin during the baseline period. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using stabilized weights was employed with final covariate adjusted regression modeling to estimate the primary outcome (mean change in HbA1c) and secondary outcomes (achieving glycemic goal and costs), each at 1-year post-index date. RESULTS: Overall, 3056 patients met the selection criteria, of whom 218 filled prescriptions for liraglutide and 2838 for sitagliptin. Adjusted mean change in HbA1c at 1 year post-index was - 0.42 with liraglutide versus - 0.12 with sitagliptin (P = 0.0012). Adjusted odds of achieving the treatment goals of HbA1c < 7% and achieving an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% were higher for  those on liraglutide than for those on sitagliptin (1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.24 and 1.76, 95% CI 1.31-2.36), respectively. Total healthcare costs in those achieving an HbA1c of < 7% were not significantly different between treatment groups but were higher within the liraglutide group for those achieving an HbA1c < 8%. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to sitagliptin, liraglutide was associated with greater achievement of an HbA1c < 7% over a 1-year period in an older population. This finding was not associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause total healthcare costs, although costs were slightly higher in the liraglutide group than in the sitagliptin group.

Evaluation of the Cost Per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets with Oral Semaglutide: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and has been evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program. These trials assessed the proportions of patients achieving single and composite endpoints, encompassing glycemic control [defined in terms of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)], weight loss, and hypoglycemia. The present study assessed the cost of control with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. METHODS: Four endpoints were evaluated: (1) HbA1c ≤ 6.5%; (2) HbA1c < 7.0%; (3) ≥ 1.0%-point HbA1c reduction and weight loss ≥ 3.0%; and (4) HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain. The proportions of patients achieving each endpoint were sourced from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 trials. Treatment costs were accounted over an annual time-period in 2019 US dollars (USD), based on wholesale acquisition cost. Cost of control was calculated by dividing treatment costs by the proportion of patients achieving each target. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was consistently associated with the lowest cost of control for all four endpoints. For the targets of HbA1c ≤ 6.5% and HbA1c < 7.0%, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with lower cost of control than empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg by USD 15,036, 14,697, and 6996, respectively, and USD 931, 346 and 4497, respectively. For the double composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 525, 32,277 and 13,011, respectively versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg. For the triple composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 1255, 7510 and 5774, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide was associated with lower cost of bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to four clinically-relevant treatment targets versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving 1-2 Oral Antidiabetics: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Orally administered semaglutide is the first glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for oral administration. As head-to-head trials assessing orally administered semaglutide as an add-on to 1-2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) vs other GLP-1 RAs are limited, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of orally administered semaglutide 14 mg once-daily (QD) vs injectable GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in patients inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. Data at 26 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes feasible for the NMA: change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, HbA1c target levels (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%), blood pressure, and any gastrointestinal adverse events specified in system organ class. Data were synthesised using NMA and a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included in the analyses. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c vs most comparators, and numerically greater reductions vs semaglutide 0.5 mg once-weekly (QW), dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW and liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. HbA1c reductions with semaglutide 1 mg QW were numerically greater than those with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD. Reductions in body weight for orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD were significantly greater than all comparators except semaglutide QW (both doses). Orally administered semaglutide QD 14 mg was associated with statistically similar odds of experiencing gastrointestinal adverse events vs injectable GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSION: Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD as an add-on to 1-2 OADs is one of the most efficacious GLP-1 RAs for reducing HbA1c and body weight at 26 ± 4 weeks. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD is well tolerated, with a safety profile in line with the GLP-1 RA class. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Correction to: A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release and Dulaglutide for Bringing Patients to HbA1c and Weight Loss Treatment Targets in the USA.

The article "A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release and Dulaglutide for Bringing Patients to HbA1c and Weight Loss Treatment Targets in the USA", written by Pierre Johansen, Barnaby Hunt, Neeraj N. Iyer, Tam Dang-Tan, Richard F. Pollock was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on November 27, 2018 without Open Access.

A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release and Dulaglutide for Bringing Patients to HbA1c and Weight Loss Treatment Targets in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: The SUSTAIN 3 and 7 clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide relative to exenatide extended-release (ER) and dulaglutide, respectively, in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The trials included a series of clinically relevant single and composite endpoints focused on improving glycemic control and reducing body weight, while avoiding hypoglycemia. The present study combined SUSTAIN 3 and 7 outcomes with short-term treatment costs to evaluate the relative cost of control of once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER and dulaglutide. METHODS: Proportions of patients reaching three endpoints were taken from SUSTAIN 3 and 7 for comparisons with exenatide ER and dulaglutide, respectively. The endpoints investigated were HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain, and a ≥ 1.0% HbA1c reduction with ≥ 5.0% weight loss. Annual per patient treatment costs were based on US wholesale acquisition costs from July 2018. Relative cost of control was calculated by plotting the ratio of the treatment costs and the ratio of the proportions of patients reaching each endpoint on the cost-efficacy plane. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg were most effective at bringing patients to each of the three endpoints across both SUSTAIN trials. The efficacy-to-cost ratios for once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg were also superior to all comparators when assessing both the single endpoint of HbA1c < 7.0% and the two composite endpoints including weight loss and hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg offer superior cost of control versus exenatide ER and dulaglutide in terms of achieving single and composite endpoints, based on an analysis of retrieved dropout data. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg would therefore represent good value for money in the USA, particularly in the attainment of multi-model T2D treatment goals. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Effect of Weight Change on Economic Outcomes Among Persons with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States: Beyond Glycemic Control.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies report weight loss to be associated with significantly lower total health care costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The effect of weight change on health care costs, independent of glycemic control and after controlling for time-varying covariates among T2DM patients, remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of weight change, independent of glycemic control, on all-cause and T2DM-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among T2DM patients in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a linked data extract composed of IQVIA's RWI Data Adjudicated Claims-US and Ambulatory Electronic Medical Record data. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with T2DM receiving ≥ 1 oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) medication, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and/or short- or long-acting insulin between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014 were included (the date of the first observed medical claim with a diagnosis code or medication prescription claim was the index date). Baseline characteristics were evaluated in the 6-month pre-index period. Weight loss (3%, 5%, or 7% from baseline) was evaluated over two 6-month periods (months 1-6 and 7-12) following the index date. Covariates included time-varying weight, hemoglobin A1c (A1c), costs, and HCRU within each 6-month period. Outcomes of interest (all-cause and T2DM-related HCRU and costs) were evaluated in the 6-month (months 13-18) and 12-month (months 13-24) periods following the initial 1- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month post-index periods. Structural nested mean models were used to evaluate the effect of weight change on these outcomes, independent of glycemic control. RESULTS: 1,407 patients were included (mean age = 55 years; 55% male), with a mean baseline weight of 102.2 kg (median = 99.7 kg) and a mean baseline A1c of 7.4% (median = 6.9%). In adjusted analysis, weight loss was associated with significantly lower all-cause and T2DM-related annual total health care costs. Compared with those showing no weight change, a 3%, 5%, and 7% weight loss resulted in approximately $500, $800, and $1,100 in savings, respectively, in all-cause annual total health care costs per patient in the year following the weight loss. Similarly, compared with those with no weight change, a 3%, 5%, and 7% weight loss resulted in approximately $200, $300, and $400 in savings, respectively, in T2DM-related annual total health care costs per patient in the following year. Even greater savings (up to ~$2,000 and ~$800 in all-cause and T2DM-related annual costs per patient, respectively) were experienced by those who lost weight compared with those who gained weight. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for glycemic control, this study found that weight loss was associated with additional significant reductions in all-cause and T2DM-related annual total health care costs. Understanding the role of weight loss in T2DM may provide useful evidence for decision makers as they evaluate therapy options for T2DM. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dang-Tan, Smolarz, and Iyer are employees of Novo Nordisk. Karkare and DeKoven (employees of IQVIA) and Fridman (employed by AMF Consulting) were contracted by Novo Nordisk to conduct this study. Fridman also reports personal fees from Shire, GSK, and CSL Behring, outside of the submitted work. Lu, an employee of IQVIA, accessed the database and conducted the statistical analysis for this study.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients with elevated cardiovascular risk: a US-managed care perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes Results (LEADER) clinical trial demonstrated that liraglutide added to standard-of-care (SoC) therapy for type 2 diabetes (T2D) with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk was associated with lower rates of death from CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke than SoC alone. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact of liraglutide vs SoC in T2D patients with established CVD or elevated CV risk, over a lifetime horizon from a US managed care perspective. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model (costs and benefits discounted at 3% per year) was used to predict diabetes-related complications and death (CV and all-cause). Events, treatment effects, and discontinuation rates were from LEADER trial; utility and cost data (US$, 2017) were from literature. Sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty on results. Additionally, a budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of liraglutide use in this population, with displacement from dulaglutide, assuming a health care plan with 1 million members. RESULTS: Liraglutide patients experienced 6.3% fewer events, had event-related cost-savings of $15,182, gained additional life-years of 0.67 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.57, and had additional total costs ($60,928) vs SoC. Liraglutide was cost-effective with an incremental CE ratio of $106,749/QALY which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY accepted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Research. Liraglutide was cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses, except when the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality varied. The budget impact was neutral, with a per-plan-per-year and per-member-per-month cost-savings of $266,334 and $0.02, respectively. CONCLUSION: From a US-managed care perspective, for T2D patients with established CVD or elevated CV risk, liraglutide is a cost-effective and a budget neutral treatment option for health care plans.

Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Savings of Liraglutide Versus Sitagliptin in Treating Type 2 Diabetes for 1 and 2 Years.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes of long-term use of liraglutide versus sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in real-world practice in the USA. METHODS: We identified adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with T2DM who initiated liraglutide or sitagliptin in 2010-2014 using a large claims database. Quarterly glycemic control measures and annual healthcare costs were assessed during the 1st and 2nd years of persistent medication use. Their associations with medication use (liraglutide or sitagliptin) were estimated using multivariable regression models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3113 patients persistently used liraglutide (N = 493) or sitagliptin (N = 2620) for ≥ 1 year [mean age (standard deviation, SD): 53 (8.5) vs. 56 (9.7) years; 48.3% vs. 62.3% males; both p < 0.05]; 911 (including 113 liraglutide users) were persistent users for ≥ 2 years. During the 1st-year follow-up, liraglutide users (versus sitagliptin users, after adjustment) experienced larger glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions from baseline (ranging from 0.34%-point in quarter 1 to 0.21%-point in quarter 4); higher likelihoods of obtaining HbA1c reductions of ≥ 1%-points or ≥ 2%-points [odds ratios (ORs) range 1.47-2.04]; and higher likelihoods of reaching HbA1c goals of < 6.5% or < 7% (ORs range 1.51-2.12) (all p < 0.05). Liraglutide users also experienced HbA1c reductions from baseline in the 2nd-year follow-up (0.53-0.33%-point, all p < 0.05). Although liraglutide users incurred higher healthcare costs than sitagliptin users during the 1st-year follow-up, they had $2674 (per patient) lower all-cause medical costs (adjusted cost ratio: 0.67, p < 0.05) and similar total costs (all-cause and diabetes-related) in the 2nd year. CONCLUSION: Long-term use of liraglutide for 1 or 2 years was associated with better glycemic control than using sitagliptin. Savings in medical costs were realized for liraglutide users during the 2nd year of persistent treatment, which offset differences in pharmacy costs. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk Inc.

Cost of Achieving HbA1c Treatment Targets and Weight Loss Responses with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys show that many people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the USA fail to achieve recommended treatment targets. In the SUSTAIN 7 randomized controlled trial, once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 and 1.0 mg) was superior to comparative doses of dulaglutide (0.75 and 1.5 mg) in reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in people with T2D. The present study estimated the cost per patient achieving HbA1c treatment targets and weight loss responses with once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide in the USA. METHODS: Numbers needed to treat and annual cost per patient achieving HbA1c targets (including a triple composite endpoint of HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain) or weight loss responses were calculated on the basis of data from SUSTAIN 7 and the annual cost of treatment from a US healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: More patients reached HbA1c targets with once-weekly semaglutide than with dulaglutide, and once-weekly semaglutide showed lower costs of control for all modeled endpoints. The cost per patient achieving the triple composite endpoint was USD 11,916 with once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and USD 15,204 with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, representing a 28% larger cost with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. The cost of reaching the target was 68% larger with dulaglutide 0.75 mg versus once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg. For each patient achieving an HbA1c < 7%, the cost would be 18% larger with dulaglutide 1.5 mg than with once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of bringing one patient to the triple composite endpoint of an HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain would be 28% and 68% higher with dulaglutide 1.5 mg relative to once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 0.75 mg relative to once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg, respectively. Once-weekly semaglutide therefore provides better value for money than dulaglutide for the treatment of people with T2D in the USA. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

The Burden of Illness Related to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations in Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prevalence in Canada has risen over time. COPD-related exacerbations contribute to the increased health care utilization (HCU) in this population. This study investigated the impact of exacerbations on COPD-related HCU. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used patient data from the Québec provincial health insurance databases. Eligible patients with a new HCU claim with a diagnostic billing for COPD during 2001-2010 were followed until March 31, 2011. Exacerbation rates and time to first exacerbation were assessed. Unadjusted analyses and multivariable models compared the rate of HCU by exacerbation classification (any [moderate/severe], moderate, or severe). RESULTS: The exacerbation event rate in patients with an exacerbation was 34.3 events/100 patient-years (22.7 for moderate exacerbations and 11.6 for severe exacerbations). Median time to first exacerbation of any classification was 37 months. In unadjusted analyses, COPD-related HCU significantly increased with exacerbation severity. In the multivariable, HCU rates were significantly higher after exacerbation versus before exacerbation (p < 0.01) for patients with an exacerbation or moderate exacerbations. For severe exacerbations, general practitioner, respiratory specialist, emergency room, and hospital visits were significantly higher after exacerbation versus before exacerbation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbations were associated with increased HCU, which was more pronounced for patients with severe exacerbations. Interventions to reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with COPD may reduce disease burden.

Clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Canada: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic, irreversible disease and a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. In Canada, COPD is the fourth leading cause of death. This systematic review was undertaken to update healthcare professionals and decision makers regarding the recent clinical, humanistic and economic burden evidence in Canada. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify original research published January 2000 through December 2012 on the burden of COPD in Canada. Each search was conducted using controlled vocabulary and key words, with "COPD" as the main search concept and limited to Canadian studies, written in English and involving human subjects. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies and systematic reviews/meta-analyses that reported healthcare resource utilization, quality of life and/or healthcare costs. RESULTS: Of the 972 articles identified through the literature searches, 70 studies were included in this review. These studies were determined to have an overall good quality based on the quality assessment. COPD patients were found to average 0-4 annual emergency department visits, 0.3-1.5 annual hospital visits, and 0.7-5 annual physician visits. Self-care management was found to lessen the overall risk of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization and unscheduled physician visits. Additionally, integrated care decreased the mean number of hospitalizations and telephone support reduced the number of annual physician visits. Overall, 60-68 % of COPD patients were found to be inactive and 60-72 % reported activity restriction. Pain was found to negatively correlate with physical activity while breathing difficulties resulted in an inability to leave home and reduced the ability to handle activities of daily living. Evidence indicated that treating COPD improved patients' overall quality of life. The average total cost per patient ranged between CAN $2444-4391 from a patient perspective to CAN $3910-6693 from a societal perspective. Furthermore, evidence indicated that COPD exacerbations lead to higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical, humanistic and economic burden of COPD in Canada is substantial. Use of self-care management programs, telephone support, and integrated care may reduce the overall burden to Canadian patients and society.

Determinants of delays in treatment initiation in children and adolescents diagnosed with leukemia or lymphoma in Canada.

Minimizing delays that may occur along the cancer care pathway requires an understanding of their determinants. Few studies on childhood cancers have been published on the factors that influence the time it takes for patients to get a first medical consultation (patient delay) and treatment (health care system [HCS] delay) once cancer symptoms have been recognized. Our objective was to assess factors related to disease, patient and HCS on patient and HCS delay for children and adolescents with leukemias and lymphomas in Canada. A prospective cohort study was conducted on subjects enrolled in the Treatment and Outcomes Surveillance program of the Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Program, a national surveillance program. We studied 963 leukemia and 397 lymphoma patients who were less than 19-years old at diagnosis in 1995-2000. Logistic regression models were used to measure the associations between candidate predictive factors and delays. Age was positively associated with patient delay for both leukemia and lymphoma patients, but not with HCS delay. Patients first seen in a hospital emergency room had a lower risk of HCS delay than patients first seen by a general practitioner. Cancer subtype was associated with patient delay for leukemia patients, and HCS delay for lymphoma patients. Longer patient delay was associated with a lower risk of long HCS delay for both cancers. Factors related to the patients, their disease and the HCS may exert different influences on varying segments of the care pathway of leukemia and lymphoma patients.

Delays in diagnosis and treatment among children and adolescents with cancer in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated delays in diagnosis and treatment among children and adolescents with cancer, especially from the perspective of an entire country. Detailed understanding of delays along the continuum of cancer patient care is important in order to establish appropriate benchmarks for timely oncological care. Our objective was to characterise the different components of delay in 2,896 Canadian children and adolescents (aged 0-19 years) with cancer that were enrolled in the Treatment and Outcome Surveillance component of the Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Program from 1995 to 2000. PROCEDURE: We examined median and standardised means concerning the distribution of delay times across categories of pertinent variables and over time. The word "delay" was used simply to represent a time interval, measured in days, without implying whether this interval exceeded a particular threshold of clinical acceptability. RESULTS: The median times (and inter-quartile ranges) for patient, diagnosis and healthcare system delays for all cancers were 9 (1-31), 30 (13-69) and 12 (4-35) days, respectively. The median total delay was 34 (16-76) days. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and referral delays were the longest time segments influencing timely diagnosis. Differences in delays were observed across age groups, cancer types and geographical regions. There was a significant trend for decreasing delays to diagnosis and treatment.

Diagnosis delays in childhood cancer: a review.

Timely access to quality healthcare has become an increasingly important public health concern over the years. Early diagnosis of cancer is a fundamental goal in oncology because it allows an opportunity for timely treatment while disease burden is still in its earliest stages. Consequently, prognosis may improve, and a cure can be attained with minimal side or late effects. This review examined delays present in diagnosis of childhood cancers and factors that influence these delays. An extensive search of the literature published before April 15, 2007 was conducted for studies that evaluated any type of delay along the cancer-care continuum. Twenty-three studies were included. Diagnosis delay varied across studies. Physician delays were generally longer than those consequent to parents' or patients' recognition of underlying disease. Causes of delays can be grouped into 3 categories: patient and/or parent, disease, and healthcare. The main factors related to diagnosis delay were the child's age at diagnosis, parent level of education, type of cancer, presentation of symptoms, tumor site, cancer stage, and first medical specialty consulted. Greater understanding of factors that influence delays and the individual impact of patient and provider delays on disease severity and prognosis would be useful to form effective policies and programs aimed at ensuring timely access to healthcare for children with cancer.

Polio vaccines, Simian Virus 40, and human cancer: the epidemiologic evidence for a causal association.

In 1960, it was discovered that Simian Virus 40 (SV40) contaminated up to 30% of the poliovirus vaccines in the US. This contamination arose because the vaccines were produced in monkey kidney cell cultures harboring SV40 between 1955 and 1963. During this period, approximately 90% of children and 60% of adults in the USA were inoculated for polio and possibly exposed to SV40. Many epidemiologic and molecular pathogenesis studies have been conducted in order to identify potential cancer risks since this 'natural' experiment began. Productive SV40 infection has the potential to initiate malignancy in a variety of target tissues. Epidemiological studies that investigated the relationship between SV40 infection and cancer risks have yielded mixed results. Studies can be grouped into three categories based on their exposure definition of SV40 infection: (1) use of vaccination or birth cohorts as proxy variables for infection, (2) follow-up of children of pregnant women who received polio vaccines, and (3) direct molecular detection of the virus or serologic detection of anti-SV40 antibody responses. A meta-analysis of five published studies did not support the hypothesis that SV40 exposure increases the overall risk of cancer incidence or cancer mortality. The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is necessary to properly address these issues.