Health-related quality of life in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with melflufen and dexamethasone: analyses from the phase III OCEAN study.

Not available.

Patient-reported outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with melflufen plus dexamethasone: analyses from the Phase II HORIZON study.

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is known to have a high burden of disease and complications associated with refractoriness to prior lines of therapy. Severe pain and fatigue symptoms and impairments in physical and emotional functioning have been strongly linked to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with RRMM. Assessment of patient reported-outcome measures from the pivotal, Phase II HORIZON study (OP-106; NCT02963493) in patients with RRMM (n = 64) demonstrated that melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) plus dexamethasone treatment preserved HRQoL. Patients had clinically meaningful improvements, even after eight treatment cycles, in relevant scales such as global health status/QoL, physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, and fatigue. Patients with triple-class-refractory disease (n = 50) displayed similar improvements. Patient-reported outcome deterioration was delayed for a substantial amount of time in patients who experienced a response to melflufen plus dexamethasone treatment relative to patients who did not experience a response. These findings support the notion that treatment with melflufen plus dexamethasone may sustain or improve HRQoL over time in patients with RRMM, including in patients with triple-class-refractory disease for whom outcomes are generally worse. The clinical benefits observed in patients from the HORIZON trial are encouraging and supportive of translation into real-world practice.

A population-adjusted indirect comparison of cardiovascular benefits of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular (CV) effects of once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg are reported in their respective placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), SUSTAIN 6 and REWIND. There is no head-to-head CVOT comparing these treatments and heterogeneity between their CVOTs renders conventional indirect comparison inappropriate. Therefore, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to compare the effects of s.c. semaglutide and dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Individual patient data from SUSTAIN 6 were matched with aggregate data from REWIND, using a propensity score method to balance baseline effect-modifying patient characteristics. Hazard ratios (HRs) for three-point (3P) MACE (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke), anchored via placebo, were then indirectly compared between balanced populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main analysis. RESULTS: After matching, included effect modifiers were balanced. In the main analysis, s.c. semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant 35% reduction in 3P MACE versus placebo (HR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.48, 0.87]) and nonsignificantly greater reduction (26%) versus dulaglutide (HR, 0.74 [95% CI; 0.54, 1.01]). Results were supported by all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a statistically significant lower risk of 3P MACE for s.c. semaglutide versus placebo, in a population with lower prevalence of pre-existing CVD than that in the pre-specified primary analysis in SUSTAIN 6. Reduction in 3P MACE with s.c. semaglutide was greater than with dulaglutide, although not statistically significant.

Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide vs Empagliflozin Added to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No head-to-head trials have directly compared once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: We indirectly compared the efficacy of OW semaglutide 1 mg vs once-daily (OD) empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, using individual patient data (IPD) and meta-regression methodology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: IPD for patients with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy and randomized to OW semaglutide 1 mg (SUSTAIN 2, 3, 8 trials), or to OD empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2 trial) were included. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for potential prognostic factors and effect modifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline to end-of-treatment (~1 year) in HbA1c (%-point) and body weight (kg). Responder outcomes and other clinically relevant efficacy measures were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between OW semaglutide (n = 995) and empagliflozin (n = 410). Our analyses showed that OW semaglutide significantly reduced mean HbA1c and body weight vs empagliflozin (estimated treatment difference: -0.61%-point [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.72; -0.49] and -1.65 kg [95% CI: -2.22; -1.08], respectively; both P < 0.0001). Complementary analyses supported the robustness of these results. A significantly greater proportion of patients on OW semaglutide vs empagliflozin also achieved HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison suggests that OW semaglutide 1 mg provides superior reductions in HbA1c and body weight vs OD empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D when added to metformin monotherapy.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the GLP-1 RA once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg in the SUSTAIN 10 trial. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline characteristics and treatment effects sourced from SUSTAIN 10. Patients were assumed to initiate treatment with GLP-1 RAs and continue treatment until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, at which point GLP-1 RAs were discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Pharmacy costs and costs of complications were measured in 2018 pounds sterling (GBP), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with an increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.30 quality-adjusted life-years, compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 140 per patient with semaglutide versus liraglutide, owing to a reduction in diabetes-related complications, in particular cardiovascular disease (mean cost saving of GBP 279 per patient). Therefore, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was dominant compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, demonstrating the robustness of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg, based on the SUSTAIN 10 trial, from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Semaglutide improves health-related quality of life versus placebo when added to standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk (SUSTAIN 6).

AIM: To assess what drives change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial and identify potential mediators of the treatment effect of semaglutide on HRQoL scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Short Form (SF)-36v2® questionnaire [comprising physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)] was used to assess changes in HRQoL from baseline to week 104, by treatment, in a prespecified analysis. This post-hoc analysis assessed change in PCS and MCS using the following factors as parameter/covariate, using descriptive statistics and linear regressions: major adverse cardiac events, hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, at least one episode of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, blood pressure, heart rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate. RESULTS: Mean change in overall PCS score was +1.0 with semaglutide versus +0.4 with placebo, and +0.5 versus -0.2 for MCS. The treatment effect of semaglutide versus placebo (unadjusted estimate) was 0.7 [(95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.2); P = 0.018] on PCS and this was reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.4 (-0.2, 1.0), P = .167] and body weight [0.3 (-0.3, 0.9), P = .314]. The unadjusted treatment effect on MCS [0.7 (-0.0, 1.5), P = .054] was only reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.3 (-0.4, 1.1), P = .397]. When adjusting for all other parameters separately, the estimated effect of semaglutide on PCS and MCS qualitatively did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide improved HRQoL versus placebo; greater improvements with semaglutide versus placebo were possibly mediated, in part, by change in HbA1c and body weight. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01720446 (SUSTAIN 6).

A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release, Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that, in the SUSTAIN clinical trials, has demonstrated greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the other GLP-1 RAs exenatide extended-release (ER) 2 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the relative cost of control of achieving treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide from a UK perspective. METHODS: Proportions of patients reaching HbA1c targets (< 7.0% and < 7.5%), weight loss targets (≥ 5% reduction in body weight) and composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia; reduction in HbA1c of ≥ 1% and weight loss of ≥ 5%) were obtained from the SUSTAIN clinical trials. Annual per patient treatment costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs from July 2019 in the UK. Cost of control was calculated by plotting relative treatment costs against relative efficacy. RESULTS: The annual per patient cost was similar for all GLP-1 RAs. Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide in bringing patients to HbA1c and weight loss targets, and to composite endpoints. When looking at the composite endpoint of HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia, exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide were 50.0%, 21.6% and 51.3% less efficacious in achieving this, respectively, than once-weekly semaglutide. Consequently, the efficacy-to-cost ratios for once-weekly semaglutide were superior to all comparators in bringing patients to all endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that once-weekly semaglutide offers superior cost of control versus exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide in terms of achieving clinically relevant, single and composite endpoints. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg would therefore represent good value for money in the UK setting.

Test-retest reliability, agreement, and minimal detectable change in the 6-minute walk test in patients with intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Standardized walk tests are important for objective assessment of walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication (IC). The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) has been suggested to correlate more closely than testing on a treadmill with everyday ambulatory function, but its measurement properties have hardly been studied in IC. The aim of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability, agreement, standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change of the 6MWT in patients with IC. METHODS: This reliability and agreement study recruited 102 patients with stable IC (mean age, 72 ± 7.4 years; 43 women) from the vascular surgery outpatient clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Sweden. The patients performed the 6MWT twice, with at least 30 minutes of rest between tests. To determine test-retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated. Bland-Altman plots were used to measure agreement. RESULTS: The mean walking distance in both test and retest was 397.8 m (standard deviation, 81.2 m; N = 100), and the individual walking distance varied from 175 to 600 m. Excellent test-retest reliability for the 6MWT (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-0.97) was observed. The SEM was 16.6 m (95% confidence interval, 14.6-19.3), the SEM percentage was 4.2%, and the minimal detectable change was 46 m. Five observations (5%) were positioned outside the limits of agreement; there was a small proportional bias, and the scatter of values for differences decreased as the average values increased. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent test-retest reliability implies that it is sufficient for a patient with IC to perform the 6MWT once, at every test occasion. For the individual, an improvement or deterioration in maximum walking distance of >46 m after an intervention would be required to be 95% confident that the change is significant. Being a simple and clinically useful test, the 6MWT can be widely used to evaluate the effects of different interventions in patients with IC.

Measurement of saturable and non-saturable components of anandamide uptake into P19 embryonic carcinoma cells in the presence of fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin.

There is considerable controversy at present concerning the mechanisms responsible for the cellular uptake of anandamide. One particular issue concerns whether fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin should be used in the assays, it having been argued that such a presence effectively prevents the specific uptake of anandamide. In the present study, it has been demonstrated that in the presence of a low (0.1%, w/v) concentration of fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin, a temperature-dependent and saturable (K(m) approximately 1 microM) uptake of anandamide into P19 embryonic carcinoma cells can be demonstrated using an incubation time of 4 min. Under these conditions, the uptake of anandamide at 4 degrees C is low at a substrate concentration of 100 nM. The uptake at 37 degrees C was not significantly reduced following treatment of the cells with either methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (50 microM) or mevinolin (1 microM), but was reduced by the FAAH inhibitor URB597 (1 microM) and inhibited by the transport inhibitor cum FAAH substrate AM404 with an IC(50) value of 12 microM. When a 45 s incubation time was used, the uptake of anandamide was not saturable at 37 degrees C over the concentration range tested (0.1-1 microM). Analysis of the data at 37 degrees C obtained with 45 s, 4 min and 15 min incubation times revealed a very rapid (i.e. complete by 45 s) non-saturable component followed by a slower saturable (K(m) approximately 1 microM) component of the uptake. It is concluded that the presence of a low concentration of fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin at a suitable concentration reduces non-specific binding (and release) of anandamide to cell culture wells, greatly reduces the cellular accumulation seen at 4 degrees C, and allows the visualisation of both non-saturable and saturable components of the uptake to be seen at 37 degrees C.