Cost-effectiveness analysis of five anti-obesity medications from a US payer's perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of anti-obesity medications (AOM): tirzepatide, semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine plus topiramate (PpT), and naltrexone plus bupropion (NpB). METHODS AND RESULTS: From a U.S. perspective we developed a Markov model to simulate weight change over a 40-year time horizon using results from clinical studies. According to the body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and mortality risk were the health states considered in the model, being mutually exclusive. Costs of AOM, adverse events, cardiovascular events, and diabetes were included. We applied a 3% per-year discount rate and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters. A deterministic analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the model. The model included a cohort of 78.2% females with a mean age of 45 years and BMI of 37.1 (SD 4.9) for females and 36.8 (SD 4.9) for males. NpB and PpT were the least costly medications and, all medications differed no more than 0.5 QALYs. Tirzepatide ICER was $355,616 per QALY. Liraglutide and semaglutide options were dominated by PpT. CONCLUSION: Compared to other AOM, PpT was lowest cost treatment with nearly identical QALYs with other agents.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line empagliflozin versus liraglutide for type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide after metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic simulation model with a lifetime horizon was developed to estimate T2D-related complications (including cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and renal outcomes) using EMPA-REG OUTCOME data or UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk equations, in patients with or without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), respectively. Evidence synthesis methods were used to provide effectiveness inputs for empagliflozin and liraglutide. Population characteristics, adverse event rates, treatment escalation, costs ($2019), and utilities (both discounted 3%/year) were taken from US sources. RESULTS: Compared with second-line liraglutide in the overall T2D population, second-line empagliflozin was dominant as it was associated with lower total lifetime cost ($11 244/patient less) and resulted in a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (0.32/patient). Second-line empagliflozin was associated with reductions in CV death (by 5%) and lower cumulative complication rates in patients with CVD (by 2%), relative to second-line liraglutide. These findings were consistent among patients with co-morbid CVD, with gains in incremental QALYs (0.43/patient) and lower lifetime cost (by $10 175/patient) relative to second-line liraglutide. Scenario analyses consistently showed dominance for second-line empagliflozin. CONCLUSION: For patients with T2D, use of second-line empagliflozin combined with metformin was a dominant strategy for US payers, associated with extended survival, improved QALYs, and lower costs compared with second-line liraglutide.

Liraglutide decreases energy expenditure and does not affect the fat fraction of supraclavicular brown adipose tissue in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several studies have shown that glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues can affect resting energy expenditure, and preclinical studies suggest that they may activate brown adipose tissue (BAT). The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of treatment with liraglutide on energy metabolism and BAT fat fraction in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a 26-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 50 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to treatment with liraglutide (1.8 mg/day) or placebo added to standard care. At baseline and after treatment for 4, 12 and 26 weeks, we assessed resting energy expenditure (REE) by indirect calorimetry. Furthermore, at baseline and after 26 weeks, we determined the fat fraction in the supraclavicular BAT depot using chemical-shift water-fat MRI at 3T. Liraglutide reduced REE after 4 weeks, which persisted after 12 weeks and tended to be present after 26 weeks (week 26 vs baseline: liraglutide -52 ± 128 kcal/day; P = 0.071, placebo +44 ± 144 kcal/day; P = 0.153, between group P = 0.057). Treatment with liraglutide for 26 weeks did not decrease the fat fraction in supraclavicular BAT (-0.4 ± 1.7%; P = 0.447) compared to placebo (-0.4 ± 1.4%; P = 0.420; between group P = 0.911). CONCLUSION: Treatment with liraglutide decreases REE in the first 12 weeks and tends to decrease this after 26 weeks without affecting the fat fraction in the supraclavicular BAT depot. These findings suggest reduction in energy intake rather than an increase in REE to contribute to the liraglutide-induced weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT01761318.

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Basal Insulin and Basal-Bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Attainment of Clinically Relevant Treatment Targets.

BACKGROUND: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer. RESULTS: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% (P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% (P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets (P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Obesity Drugs: Focus on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.

The prevalence of obesity and related comorbidities is increasing worldwide. Furthermore, clinically meaningful body weight losses has proven difficult to achieve and especially to maintain through sustained lifestyle change in the form of diet and exercise. Pharmacotherapy against obesity is a non-invasive treatment as an adjunct to lifestyle changes, but approved anti-obesity drugs are currently few. This article reviews the major anti-obesity drugs and the benefit-risk profiles of the long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) liraglutide and semaglutide (a modified version of liraglutide with longer half-life and tripled receptor affinity). Generally, GLP-1 RAs are well tolerated and induce significant weight loss and lowering of comorbidities. Studies with liraglutide 3.0 mg/day have shown an average placebo-subtracted weight loss of 5.5 kg (range 4.6-5.9) in 1- to 3-year duration trials. One trial using semaglutide 0.4 mg once daily reported an average weight loss of 11.6% (~ 13.1 kg) after 1 year. Furthermore, semaglutide induced a ~ 6 percentage point larger placebo-subtracted body weight loss in a head-to-head comparison with liraglutide (11.6 vs. 5.5% weight loss, respectively). The safety profiles for both drugs were similar, with transient gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported adverse events. The longest running trial and the most recent trials have not raised any new safety concerns. Long-term trials and post-marketing surveillance is warranted to fully assess both long-term efficacy and safety. Future combinational therapies of mimicked gut hormones involved in regulation of energy homeostasis and/or additional lifestyle change in the form of exercise might further improve efficacy.

Liraglutide use and evaluation of pancreatic outcomes in a US commercially insured population.

AIMS: Both acute pancreatitis (AP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) have been areas of focus for studies of incretin drugs. This 5-year prospective cohort study aimed to quantify possible associations between liraglutide and risk of AP and PC as compared to other antidiabetic drugs (ADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients initiating liraglutide or other ADs who were enrolled in a US health plan (2010-2014) were included. Comparisons of AP and PC incidence rates were made between matched cohorts of liraglutide initiators and initiators of other ADs. Adjudicated AP cases and algorithm-based PC cases were identified. Propensity score-matched intention-to-treat (ITT) and time-on-drug (TOD) analyses were completed using Poisson regression. A latency analysis was performed for PC. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 405 days for AP cohorts (9995 liraglutide, 1:1 matched to all comparators) and 503 days for PC cohorts (35 163 liraglutide, 1:1 matched to all comparators). In the primary AP analysis, "current" use of liraglutide was not significantly associated with elevated risk across comparators (all comparators relative risk [RR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.3). ITT results were similar where, in the primary analysis, no RRs were significantly associated with PC (all comparators RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.4); latency and TOD analyses did not alter findings. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was not associated with an increased risk of AP or PC, although risk estimates were more variable for AP, and numbers of cases for both outcomes were limited because of the rarity of outcomes.

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

Switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide to manage patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: The recent LIRA-SWITCH trial showed that switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg led to statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) and body mass index (BMI). Based on these findings, the aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model Version 8.5+ was used to project costs and clinical outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from the LIRA-SWITCH trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. Costs were accounted in pounds sterling (GBP) and expressed in 2016 values. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Model projections showed improved quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients with poorly controlled HbA1c upon switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide, compared with continuing sitagliptin treatment (9.18 vs 9.02 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Treatment switching was associated with increased overall costs (GBP 24737 vs GBP 22362). Higher pharmacy costs were partially offset by reduced diabetes-related complication costs in patients who switched to liraglutide. Switching to liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 15423 per QALY gained vs continuing with sitagliptin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg in patients with poor glycaemic control was projected to improve clinical outcomes and is likely to be considered cost-effective in the UK setting and, therefore, a good use of limited NHS resources.

Improvements in health-related quality of life over 3 years with liraglutide 3.0 mg compared with placebo in participants with overweight or obesity.

Previously in the SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial, at 1 year, participants with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities) and prediabetes receiving liraglutide 3.0 mg experienced greater improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than those receiving placebo. The current study extends these findings by examining 3-year changes in HRQoL. HRQoL was assessed using the obesity-specific Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) questionnaire, as well as the Short-Form 36 v2 (SF-36) health survey. At 3 years, mean change (±standard deviation) in IWQOL-Lite total score from baseline for liraglutide (n = 1472) was 11.0 ± 14.2, vs. 8.1 ± 14.7 for placebo (n = 738) (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 3.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0, 4.7], P < 0.0001). Mean change in SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) score from baseline for liraglutide was 3.1 ± 7.3, vs. 2.6 ± 7.6 for placebo (ETD 0.87 [95% CI: 0.17, 1.6], P = 0.0156). Mean change in SF-36 mental component summary score did not significantly differ between groups. Both IWQOL-Lite total score and PCS score demonstrated an association between greater HRQoL improvement with higher weight loss. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was also associated with improved health utility (Short-Form-6D and EuroQol-5D, mapped from IWQOL-Lite and/or SF-36) vs. placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg, plus diet and exercise, is associated with long-term improvements in HRQoL with obesity or overweight with comorbidity vs. placebo.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the USA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: IDegLira, a fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, utilizes the complementary mechanisms of action of these two agents to improve glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia and avoidance of weight gain. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting. METHODS: Projections of lifetime costs and clinical outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effect data for patients receiving IDegLira and liraglutide added to basal insulin were modeled based on the outcomes of a published indirect comparison, as no head-to-head clinical trial data is currently available. Costs were accounted in 2015 US dollars ($) from a healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with small improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with liraglutide added to basal insulin (8.94 vs 8.91 discounted quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). The key driver of improved clinical outcomes was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin associated with IDegLira. IDegLira was associated with mean costs savings of $17,687 over patient lifetimes vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, resulting from lower treatment costs and cost savings as a result of complications avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The present long-term modeling analysis found that IDegLira was dominant vs liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US, improving clinical outcomes and reducing direct costs.

Effectiveness and Persistence of Liraglutide Treatment Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated in Primary Care and Specialist Settings: A Subgroup Analysis from the EVIDENCE Study, a Prospective, 2-Year Follow-up, Observational, Post-Marketing Study.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this subgroup analysis is to investigate the effectiveness of liraglutide in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated within the primary care physician (PCP) and specialist care settings. METHODS: EVIDENCE is a prospective, observational study of 3152 adults with T2D recently starting or about to start liraglutide treatment in France. We followed patients in the PCP and specialist settings for 2 years to evaluate the effectiveness of liraglutide in glycemic control and body weight reduction. Furthermore, we evaluated the changes in combined antihyperglycemic treatments, the reasons for prescribing liraglutide, patient satisfaction, and safety of liraglutide in these two treatment settings. RESULTS: After 2 years of follow-up, 477 out of 1209 (39.0%) of PCP and 297 out of 1398 (21.2%) of specialist-treated patients still used liraglutide and maintained the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target of <7.0%. Significant reductions from baseline were observed in both PCP- and specialist-treated cohorts in mean HbA1c (-1.22% and -0.8%, respectively), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration (-39 and -23 mg/dL), body weight (-4.4 and -3.8 kg), and body mass index (BMI) (-1.5 and -1.4 kg/m2), all p < 0.0001. Reductions in HbA1c and FPG were significantly greater among PCP- compared with specialist-treated patients, p < 0.0001 for both. Patient treatment satisfaction was also significantly increased in both cohorts. Reported gastrointestinal adverse events were less frequent among PCP-treated patients compared with specialist-treated patients (4.5% vs. 16.1%). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in demography and clinical characteristics of patients treated for T2D in PCP and specialty care, greater reduction in HbA1c and increased glycemic control durability were observed with liraglutide in primary care, compared with specialist care. These data suggest that liraglutide treatment could benefit patients in primary care by delaying the need for further treatment intensification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01226966. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Treatment patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: Higher adherence and persistence with dulaglutide compared with once-weekly exenatide and liraglutide.

AIMS: To compare adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, and treatment patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). More specifically, the main objectives were to compare dulaglutide vs exenatide once weekly and dulaglutide vs liraglutide. METHODS: Patients with T2DM newly initiating dulaglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once weekly, exenatide twice daily and liraglutide between November 2014 and April 2015 were hierarchically selected from Truven Health's MarketScan Research Databases. Propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias. Adherence to and persistence with the index GLP-1RA, and switching and augmentation patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period. RESULTS: Mean adherence for the matched cohorts was significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly (0.72 vs 0.61; P < .0001) and liraglutide (0.71 vs 0.67; P < .0001). The percentage of patients achieving PDC ≥ 0.80 was significantly higher for dulaglutide compared with exenatide once weekly (54.2% vs 37.9%; P < .0001) and liraglutide (53.5% vs 44.3%; P < .0001). The mean (standard deviation) days on treatment for all matched patients was significantly higher for patients in the dulaglutide cohort compared with those in the exenatide once-weekly (148.4 [55.4] vs 123.6 [61.6]; P < .0001) and liraglutide cohorts (146.0 [56.9] vs 137.4 [60.1]; P < .0001). A significantly lower proportion of patients on dulaglutide discontinued treatment compared with those on exenatide once weekly (26.2% vs 48.4%; P < .0001) and those on liraglutide (28.0% vs 35.6%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide initiators had significantly higher adherence, were more persistent, and had lower discontinuation rates compared with initiators of exenatide once weekly or liraglutide during the 6-month follow-up period.

Liraglutide vs. sitagliptin add-on to metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Short-term cost-per-controlled patient in Italy.

AIM: To estimate the short-term cost-per-controlled-patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus with liraglutide 1.2mg/day vs. sitagliptin 100mg/day as add-on treatment to metformin in Italy. METHODS: The percentage of controlled patients, i.e. with "HbA1c<7% without hypoglycemia and weight gain", at 26 and 52 weeks with liraglutide and sitagliptin, as well as at 78 weeks for patients switching at 52 weeks from sitagliptin to liraglutide or hypothetically continuing on sitagliptin were obtained from randomized clinical trials (RCT) and a meta-analysis. The treatment cost-per-controlled-patient was calculated from the perspective of the National Health System over a 26, 52- and 78-week time horizon. RESULTS: Despite the higher acquisition cost of liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, at 26 weeks liraglutide resulted in a lower cost-per-controlled-patient (€1460 vs. €1820 - with efficacy from RCT - and €1593 vs. €2234 - with efficacy from a meta-analysis), as well as at 52 weeks (€2627 vs. €2649). At 78 weeks, in patients who have switched from sitagliptin to liraglutide at 52 weeks, the cost-per-controlled-patient is also lower than that of patients continuing sitagliptin for 78 weeks (€2889 vs. €3970). CONCLUSIONS: Due to higher efficacy, liraglutide is associated with better cost-benefit than sitagliptin at 26, 52 and 78 weeks.

Liraglutide: A New Option for the Treatment of Obesity.

Obesity continues to pose a major public health risk to the United States and across the world, with an estimated one-third of adult Americans being defined as obese. Obesity treatment guidelines recommend the use of pharmacologic therapy in adults who have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m(2) or higher or in patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m(2) or higher who have at least one weight-related comorbid condition (e.g., hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus). Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that has been successfully used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes for several years. Weight loss has been well described as an additional benefit with liraglutide therapy, which prompted the manufacturer to evaluate and develop a higher dose formulation specifically for the treatment of obesity. Liraglutide 3 mg/day was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication in December 2014. We performed a search of the Medline database to identify relevant literature focused on liraglutide's role specifically in treating obesity. Five clinical trials with this primary end point were identified. Data demonstrated that liraglutide can successfully achieve weight-loss benchmarks of 5% or more and 10% or more loss from baseline. The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal and mild to moderate in intensity. The cost of therapy is high, averaging over $1000/month for out-of-pocket expenses if insurance coverage is not available. Liraglutide is also available for delivery only by subcutaneous injection, which may represent a barrier for patients. Liraglutide 3 mg/day represents another pharmacologic option for the treatment of obesity.

Patient involvement in drug licensing: a case study.

Embodied health movements work on the boundary between lay and expert knowledge. Consumer groups, depending on their goals, may increase or decrease pharmaceuticalization. This paper reports a small case study about the retrospective evaluation of a specific second line treatment for type 2 diabetes by an existing patient involvement group. The group is part of a research collaboration between academia and the health service in England, and shares some characteristics of embodied health movements. We used the case study to explore whether an institutionally funded non activist patient group can make a more balanced contribution to drug licensing decisions than that made by either access-oriented or injury-oriented consumer groups, without being co-opted by an institutional agenda. The questions we wished to address were how this group evaluated existing mechanisms for licensing drugs; how they balanced scientific and lay knowledge; how they made their decisions; and how they viewed their experiences as panel members. The five panel members were interviewed before and after the panel discussion in July 2013. They were critical of current licensing processes, and used their own embodied experiences of medicines to evaluate expert knowledge. Their decisions on the panel were informed either by a balancing of benefits and harms, or by trust in experts. The case study suggests that such a group may have the potential both to balance the pro-pharmaceuticalization impact of access-oriented groups and to influence forms of pharmaceutical governance.

Off-label antiobesity treatment in patients without diabetes with GLP-1 agonists in clinical practice.

The aim of the work was to investigate whether continuation of treatment, side effects, and effect on weight loss of GLP-1 agonists in obese patients without diabetes are equally promising in daily clinical-practice-settings compared to controlled clinical trials. Obese patients without diabetes of our interdisciplinary obesity centre were treated off-label with GLP-1-agonists for different time periods. Application was started with low-dose and increased if side effects were tolerable. Monthly costs were € 125 for daily applications of 1.2 mg liraglutide or 10 µg exenatide twice daily. Data were obtained by telephone interviews about baseline characteristics, weight loss, sensation of satiation, duration of therapy, side effects, and reasons for discontinuation. Of 43 included cases (5 males, mean age 43±11 years, mean weight 107±24 kg, mean excess weight 35±21 kg) 7 were treated with exenatide and 36 with liraglutide. Excess weight loss in linear regression models was 6.7% per month (p <0.05) under control of age, sex, initial weight, and type of GLP-1 analogue treatment and did not significantly differ between liraglutide and exenatide. Overall, 58% of patients reported side effects mostly concerning the gastrointestinal tract. Surprisingly no patient reported vomiting. One patient developed a severe pancreatitis. At time of telephone interview only 30.2% were continuing treatment. Mean treatment duration was 2.98±2.71 months. Common reasons for discontinuation of treatment were no/little effect on weight loss (27.9%), intolerable side effects (20.9%), or financial reasons (14%). GLP-1 agonist treatment in obese patients without diabetes also correlates with significant weight loss in clinical practice. However, side effects and discontinuation of treatment are common. Therefore, long-term effect on weight loss might not be as promising as suggested by data from clinical trials.

Liraglutide / Liraglutide

EL FÁRMACO: Liraglutide (Lg) pertenece a una clase de hipoglucemiantes que tiene como mecanismo de acción la estimulación del receptor del péptido símil glucagón 1 (GLP-1), promoviendo la liberación de insulina dependiente de glucosa e inhibiendo la secreción de glucagón. Además retrasa el vaciado gástrico y disminuye el apetito. En animales se ha demostrado que puede preservar e incluso aumentar la masa de células beta pancreáticas. Lg está indicado para lograr control glucémico cuando no es posible hacerlo usando metformina o sulfonilureas a dosis máximas como monoterapia o combinadas o con biterapia con metformina y tiazolidinedionas. Los principales efectos adversos son gastrointestinales (diarrea, dolor abdominal, vómitos, náuseas, constipación) La hipoglucemia se observa cuando se realiza tratamiento asociado con sulfonilureas. Se administra a través de un inyector tipo lapicera que contiene 18 mg, las dosis varían entre 0,6 a 1,8 mg y se aplica en forma SC. BÚSQUEDA BIBLIOGRÁFICA: Se realizó una búsqueda en tripdatabase.com, base de datos CRD y MEDLINE. Se consultaron las recomendaciones de la Asociación Americana de Diabetes. RESULTADOS: Informe de ETS del National Institute of Clinical Excellence y guía de utilización del fármaco: Liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Las fuentes que utilizó el informe son 6 estudios provistos por el fabricante (LEAD-1, LEAD-2, LEAD-4, LEAD-5, LEAD-6 y el studio 1860) Los estudios tuvieron un seguimiento de 26 semanas, y algunos tuvieron una fase de seguimiento abierta. El punto final a evaluar fue el cambio en la HbA1C y los puntos secundarios incluían el porcentaje de pacientes que alcanzaron HbA1C menor a 7%, porcentaje de pacientes con HbA1C menor a 6,5% y cambio promedio del peso, y la tolerancia a los efectos adversos. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES: La evidencia señala que liraglutide es eficaz en disminuir la HbA1C y tiene un perfil favorable con respecto a la disminución relativa de peso en comparación con otros hipoglucemiantes. Presenta un perfil de seguridad aceptable con reacciones adversas gastrointestinales principalmente. Sin embargo dado que no hay claras ventajas de liarglutide con respecto a otros hipoglucemiantes su papel se encuentra relegado a un segundo o tercer lugar de progresión en el tratamiento cuando no se pueden usar metformina o sulfonilureas o glitazonas o inhibidores DPP IV. En estas circunstancias su papel comparado con insulina tampoco resulta claro ya que también es inyectable, presenta un techo de dosis (para NICE de 1,2 mg) y, seguramente como otros hipoglucemiantes, resultará insuficiente y no evitará la necesidad de insulina con el paso del tiempo. No se recomienda su cobertura debido a que es un hipoglucemiante más entre otros, con la desventaja que es de administración SC, que no previene el deterioro de la función de la célula beta y que es incierto que su efecto sobre el peso pueda ser relevante en el largo plazo, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que la mayoría de los pacientes requerirán insulina aunque sean obesos.