Pharmacological treatment of obesity in adults in Norway 2004-2022.

AIMS: To describe trends in the use of anti-obesity drugs in Norway during the period 2004-2022. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the annual utilization of any available drug indicated for obesity recorded in the nationwide Norwegian Prescribed Drug Register for adults (age 18-79 years) from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2022. Prevalence was stratified by sex and age group (18-29 years and 10-year age groups thereafter). Additional analyses were performed in individuals initiating treatment with an anti-obesity drug and on the cost of the anti-obesity drugs since 2017. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-obesity drug use decreased from 2009, when sibutramine and rimonabant were withdrawn from the market, and increased again after the approval of bupropion-naltrexone in 2017 and liraglutide in 2018. The use of the peripheral-acting anti-obesity drug orlistat decreased from 2004. In 2022, 1.04% of the adult Norwegian population (72.8% women) filled at least one prescription of bupropion-naltrexone, 0.91% used liraglutide (Saxenda; 74.2% women), and semaglutide without reimbursement was used by 0.68% (76.7% women). The prevalence increased with age, peaking in the age group 50 to 59 years, and decreased in older age groups. From 2017 to 2022, 2.8% of the adult residents initiated treatment with an anti-obesity drug. The total sale of those drugs increased from 1.1 million euros in 2017 to 91.8 million euros in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The use of anti-obesity drugs in Norway has increased substantially in recent years, especially among women aged 40 to 59 years. Changes in availability and reimbursement have influenced the use of these drugs in recent years.

Association of patient characteristics and insurance type with anti-obesity medications prescribing and fills.

AIM: To characterize factors associated with the receipt of anti-obesity medication (AOM) prescription and fill. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2023, in a large health system in Ohio and Florida. Adults with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 who attended ≥1 weight-management programme or had an initial AOM prescription between 1 July 2015 and 31 December 2022, were included. The main measures were a prescription for an AOM (naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg) and an AOM fill during the study follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 50 678 adults, with a mean body mass index of 38 ± 8 kg/m2 and follow-up of 4.7 ± 2.4 years. Only 8.0% of the cohort had AOM prescriptions and 4.4% had filled prescriptions. In the multivariable analyses, being a man, Black, Hispanic and other race/ethnicity (vs. White), Medicaid, traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage, self-pay and other insurance types (vs. private insurance) and fourth quartile of the area deprivation index (vs. first quartile) were associated with lower odds of a new prescription. Hispanic ethnicity, being a man, Medicaid, traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurance types, liraglutide and orlistat (vs. naltrexone-buproprion) were associated with lower odds of AOM fill, while phentermine-topiramate was associated with higher odds. Among privately insured individuals, the insurance carrier was associated with both the odds of AOM prescription and fill. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities exist in access to AOM both at the prescribing stage and getting the prescription filled based on patient characteristics and insurance type.

Cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies in Canada: a societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies approved by Canada Health, i.e., orlistat, naltrexone 32 mg/bupropion 360 mg (NB-32), liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg as compared to the current standard of care (SoC). METHODS: Analyses were conducted using a cohort with a mean starting age 50 years, body mass index (BMI) 37.5 kg/m2, and 27.6% having type 2 diabetes. Using treatment-specific changes in surrogate endpoints from the STEP trials (BMI, glycemic, blood pressure, lipids), besides a network meta-analysis, the occurrence of weight-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were projected over lifetime. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY, semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment, at an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 31 243 and CAD 29 014 per QALY gained versus the next best alternative, i.e., orlistat, and SoC, respectively. Semaglutide 2.4 mg extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg and remained cost-effective both under a public and private payer perspective. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses varying post-treatment catch-up rates, longer treatment durations and using real-world cohort characteristics. Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the preferred intervention, with a likelihood of 70% at a WTP threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY gained. However, when the modeled benefits of weight-loss on cancer, mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or osteoarthritis surgeries were removed simultaneously, orlistat emerged as the best value for money compared with SoC, with an ICUR of CAD 35 723 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment alternative compared with D&E or orlistat alone, and extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg. Results were sensitive to the inclusion of the combined benefits of mortality, cancer, CVD, and knee osteoarthritis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiobesity Drugs for Adolescents With Severe Obesity.

Importance: Although the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended treatment with antiobesity drugs for adolescents, the cost-effectiveness of antiobesity drugs for this population is still unknown. Objective: To quantify cost-effectiveness of different antiobesity drugs available for pediatric use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a Markov microsimulation model with health states defined by obesity levels. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were calculated from third-party payer perspective, estimated in 2023 US dollars over a 10-year horizon. Data were obtained from the published literature. Intervention: Antiobesity drugs orlistat, liraglutide, semaglutide, and phentermine-topiramate vs no treatment. Metformin hydrochloride and 2 types of bariatric surgical procedures (sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass) were considered in sensitivity analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Among the 4 antiobesity drugs currently approved for pediatric use, phentermine-topiramate was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $93 620 per QALY relative to no treatment in this simulated cohort of 10 000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years (mode, 15 years) with severe obesity (62% female). While semaglutide offered more QALYs than phentermine-topiramate, its higher cost resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($1 079 480/QALY) that exceeded the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Orlistat and liraglutide cost more and were less effective than phentermine-topiramate and semaglutide, respectively. Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass were more effective than phentermine-topiramate but were also more costly, rendering them not cost-effective compared with phentermine-topiramate at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of weight loss drugs for adolescents with severe obesity, we found phentermine-topiramate to be a cost-effective treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Further research is needed to determine long-term drug efficacy and how long adolescents continue treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Obesity in Adolescents.

Importance: Antiobesity pharmacotherapy is recommended for adolescents ages 12 years and older with obesity. Several medications have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adolescent use, but the most cost-effective medication remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle counseling alone and as adjunct to liraglutide, mid-dose phentermine and topiramate (7.5 mg phentermine and 46 mg topiramate), top-dose phentermine and topiramate (15 mg phentermine and 92 mg topiramate), or semaglutide among adolescent patients with obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to project health and cost outcomes of lifestyle counseling alone and adjunct to liraglutide, mid-dose phentermine and topiramate, top-dose phentermine and topiramate, or semaglutide over 13 months, 2 years, and 5 years among a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 adolescents with obesity, defined as an initial body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 37. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, published literature, and national sources. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to July 2023. Exposures: Lifestyle counseling alone and as adjunct to liraglutide, mid-dose phentermine and topiramate, top-dose phentermine and topiramate, or semaglutide. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2022 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with future costs and QALYs discounted 3.0% annually. A strategy was considered cost-effective if the ICER was less than $100 000 per QALY gained. The preferred strategy was determined as the strategy with the greatest increase in QALYs while being cost-effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess parameter uncertainty. Results: The model simulated 100 000 adolescents at age 15 with an initial BMI of 37, of whom 58 000 (58%) were female. At 13 months and 2 years, lifestyle counseling was estimated to be the preferred strategy. At 5 years, top-dose phentermine and topiramate was projected to be the preferred strategy with an ICER of $56 876 per QALY gained vs lifestyle counseling. Semaglutide was projected to yield the most QALYs, but with an unfavorable ICER of $1.1 million per QALY gained compared with top-dose phentermine and topiramate. Model results were most sensitive to utility of weight reduction and weight loss of lifestyle counseling and top-dose phentermine and topiramate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy for adolescents with obesity, top-dose phentermine and topiramate as adjunct to lifestyle counseling was estimated to be cost-effective after 5 years. Long-term clinical trials in adolescents are needed to fully evaluate the outcomes of pharmacotherapy, especially into adulthood.

Liraglutide versus semaglutide for weight reduction-a cost needed to treat analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists liraglutide and, more recently, semaglutide have demonstrated a significant reduction in body weight. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. METHODS: The cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using semaglutide or liraglutide was calculated. The body weight reductions were extracted from the published STEP 1 trial and the SCALE trial results, respectively. A scenario analysis was performed to mitigate the primary differences between the two studies' populations. Drug costs were based on US GoodRx prices as of October 2022. RESULTS: Liraglutide in STEP 1 resulted in a weight loss of 5.4% (95% CI: 5%-5.8%). Semaglutide in SCALE resulted in a weight loss of 12.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-13.4%). The total cost of therapy with liraglutide during the trial was estimated at $17,585 compared with $22,878 with semaglutide. Accordingly, the cost needed to treat per 1% of body weight reduction with liraglutide is estimated at $3256 (95% CI: $3032-$3517) compared with $1845 (95% CI: $1707-$1989) with semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide provides significantly better value for money than liraglutide for weight reduction.

A systematic review of the economic value proposition for commercially available nonsurgical weight-loss interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to review the economic evaluation literature of commercially available and effective nonsurgical weight-loss interventions to investigate whether there is evidence to support claims of cost-effectiveness (i.e., good value for money) or cost savings (i.e., a positive return on investment). METHODS: Relevant databases were systematically reviewed to identify economic evaluations of commercially available weight-loss products and services shown to result in clinically significant weight loss. Five weight-loss medications (orlistat, liraglutide, naltrexone-bupropion, semaglutide, and phentermine-topiramate), two meal replacement programs (Jenny Craig, Optifast), and one behavioral intervention (Weight Watchers [WW]) that met inclusion criteria were identified. After screening, 32 relevant comparisons of cost-effectiveness or cost savings across 20 studies were identified. RESULTS: Ten of twenty pharmaceutical comparisons showed evidence of cost-effectiveness based on established thresholds. Four of twelve nonpharmaceutical comparisons provided evidence of cost-effectiveness, and five made claims of cost savings. However, methodological concerns cast doubt on the robustness of these claims. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of cost-effectiveness for commercially available, evidence-based, nonsurgical weight-loss interventions is mixed. There is no evidence for cost-saving weight-loss medications and only weak evidence for behavioral and weight-loss interventions. Results provide a call to action to generate more robust evidence of the economic value proposition for these interventions.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis (CER) of Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Aim: To evaluate the treatment effect Fand pharmacoeconomic value of Dugaglutide in women with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Women (n=96) with type 2 diabetes recruited from June 2019 to December 2021 were randomized into two equal groups. The control group was treated with Liraglutide, and the observation group was treated with Dulaglutide, both for 24 weeks. The blood glucose levels, biochemical index, insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), cost-effect ratio (CER), and drug safety were determined and compared between the two groups. Results: Blood glucose levels, the biochemical index, and HOMA-IR were lower in both groups after the treatment (P < 0.05), and there was no statistical difference in the blood glucose levels, biochemical index and HOMA-IR between the two groups (P > 0.05). The CER levels did not differ statistically between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both the cost and the incidence of drug side effects during solution injection were lower in the observation group than in the control group after 24 weeks of treatment (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both Dulaglutide and Liraglutide can reduce blood glucose levels, improve biochemical index, and HOMA-IR levels in women with type 2 diabetes. Dulaglutide is more cost-effective and safe. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx, identifier ChiCTR1900026514.

Estimated minimum prices and lowest available national prices for antiobesity medications: Improving affordability and access to treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Novel antiobesity treatments are highly effective in recent clinical trials. Access to these medications is needed to supplement lifestyle and surgical interventions for millions living with obesity worldwide, but high prices are limiting. This study aimed to review current treatment costs and calculate potential estimated minimum prices (EMPs). METHODS: The authors searched national drug price databases across various countries for orlistat, naltrexone-bupropion, topiramate-phentermine, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide. EMPs for antiobesity medications were calculated using established methodology, using active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) from the Panjiva database. EMPs were calculated per 30-day course and include costs of active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients, formulation, taxation, and 10% profit margin. RESULTS: National prices of antiobesity medications were significantly higher than calculated EMPs. Semaglutide 30-day course prices ranged from $804 (United States) to $95 (Turkey) while the EMP was $40. Liraglutide prices ranged from $1418 (United States) to $252 (Norway) while the EMP was $50. Some oral treatments could be generically manufactured at very low costs per course ($7 for orlistat; $5 for phentermine/topiramate combination tablets), while naltrexone/bupropion was more expensive ($54). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that certain weight loss treatments can be manufactured and sold profitably at low costs, but prices currently range widely between countries, limiting access for those in need.

Liraglutida 3 mg para o tratamento de pacientes com obesidade e IMC acima de 35 kg/m², pré-diabetes e alto risco de doença cardiovascular / Liraglutide 3 mg for the treatment of patients with obesity and BMI above 35 kg/m², pre-diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease

INTRODUÇÃO: A obesidade é uma doença multifatorial altamente hereditária que representa um grande impacto na saúde humana. Ela pode ser definida como o acúmulo anormal ou excessivo de gordura, de forma regionalizada, generalizada ou ambas, que apresenta risco à saúde. Um índice de massa corporal (IMC) acima de 30 é considerado como obesidade, a qual pode ser classificada como leve (grau I; IMC ≥ 30 kg/m2 ), moderada (grau II; IMC ≥ 35 kg/m2 ) e grave (grau III; IMC ≥ 40 kg/m2 ). Dentre os fatores fisiológicos associados à obesidade, o Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) se apresenta como um peptídeo chave, tendo como principais funções estimular a secreção de insulina dependente de glicose, reduzir o esvaziamento gástrico, melhorar a sensibilidade das células pancreáticas, inibir a liberação de glucagon e controlar a sensação de saciedade pela supressão da ingestão de alimentos e ingestão calórica. A liraglutida é um análogo do GLP-1 e apresenta homologia de 97% em relação à sequência de aminoácidos do GLP-1 huma

Comparative Effectiveness of Empagliflozin vs Liraglutide or Sitagliptin in Older Adults With Diverse Patient Characteristics.

Importance: Limited evidence is available on the comparative effectiveness of empagliflozin vs alternative second-line glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving routine care who have a broad spectrum of cardiorenal risk. Objective: To evaluate the association of empagliflozin with cardiovascular outcomes relative to liraglutide and sitagliptin, stratified by age, sex, baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used deidentified Medicare claims data from August 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018, with follow-up from drug initiation until treatment changes, death, or gap in Medicare enrollment (>30 days). Data analysis was performed from October 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 65 years with T2D were included. A total of 45 788 patients (22 894 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or liraglutide) were included in cohort 1, and 45 624 patients (22 812 propensity score-matched pairs initiating treatment with either empagliflozin or sitagliptin) were included in cohort 2. Exposures: Empagliflozin vs liraglutide (cohort 1) or empagliflozin vs sitagliptin (cohort 2). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were (1) modified major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, and (2) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years were estimated, adjusting for 143 baseline covariates using 1:1 propensity score matching. Results: Among 45 788 patients in cohort 1, the mean (SD) age was 71.9 (5.1) years; 23 396 patients (51.1%) were female, 22 392 (48.9%) were male, and 38 049 (83.1%) were White. Among 45 624 patients in cohort 2, the mean (SD) age was 72.1 (5.1) years; 21 418 patients (46.9%) were female, 24 206 (53.1%) were male, and 37 814 (82.9%) were White. Relative to patients initiating liraglutide, those initiating empagliflozin had a similar risk of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.03) and a reduced risk of HHF (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82). Across subgroups, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of the modified MACE outcome in patients with a history of ASCVD (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) and HF (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00) compared with liraglutide, and potential heterogeneity in estimates was observed by sex (male: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; female: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.94-1.42]; P = .02 for homogeneity). However, reductions in the risk of HHF were observed across most subgroups (eg, ASCVD: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]; HF: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.88]). Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin was associated with reduced risks of the modified MACE outcome (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.77) and HHF (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), which were consistent across all subgroups. Absolute benefits of empagliflozin vs sitagliptin were larger in patients with a history of ASCVD (modified MACE: RD, -17.6 [95% CI, -24.9 to -10.4]; HHF: RD, -16.7 [95% CI, -21.7 to -11.9]), HF (modified MACE: RD, -41.1 [95% CI, -59.9 to -22.6]; HHF: RD, -50.4 [95% CI, -67.5 to -33.9]), or CKD (modified MACE: RD, -26.7 [95% CI, -41.3 to -12.3]; HHF: RD, -31.9 [95% CI, -43.5 to -20.8]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of older adults, empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of HHF (relative to both liraglutide and sitagliptin) and the modified MACE outcome (relative to sitagliptin), with larger absolute benefits in patients with established cardiorenal diseases. These findings suggest that older adults with T2D might benefit more from empagliflozin vs liraglutide or sitagliptin with respect to the risk of HHF; with respect to the risk of MACEs, empagliflozin might be preferable to liraglutide only in patients with cardiovascular disease history and to sitagliptin across all patient subgroups.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dulaglutide Versus Liraglutide for Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Iran.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes mellitus (DM), as one of the most common metabolic diseases, is the ninth leading cause of death globally and imposes heavy costs on the health systems including both costs of treatment and management of secondary complications. This study intended to investigate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide compared with liraglutide in the management of patients with type 2 DM in Iran. METHOD: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a 5-state Markov model from the health system perspective, over a 10-year time horizon, in 2018 in Iran. Sensitivity of the model has been evaluated through tornado diagram and using one-way sensitivity analysis. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analysis has been accomplished using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The average costs of treatment of patients with type 2 DM using the dulaglutide and liraglutide treatment regimens are 17 577.09 and 18 517.54 US dollars per patient, respectively, over a 10-year time horizon. In terms of effectiveness, the average discounted quality-adjusted life-year rates are estimated at 5.560 and 5.403 for the dulaglutide and liraglutide treatment regimens, respectively. The model is mostly sensitive to the price of dulaglutide and liraglutide, the hemoglobin A1c reduction of liraglutide, and the utility resulting from less injection frequency of dulaglutide, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide, in addition to being more effective, providing 0.156 more quality-adjusted life-years for the patients, reduces costs by 940.45 US dollars per patient over a 10-year time horizon. Therefore, due to the greater effectiveness and lower cost, it is concludable that dulaglutide is the cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = -6028.52) treatment alternative from the health system perspective.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide in Spain: A Long-Term Health Economic Analysis Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist oral semaglutide has demonstrated greater improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus oral medications empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide, in the PIONEER clinical trial program. Based on these data, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide in Spain. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 3.0% annually. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from PIONEER 2 and 4 for the comparisons of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, and PIONEER 3 for oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in 2020 euros (EUR). Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5% and then treatment-intensified to basal insulin. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.13, 0.19 and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with direct costs EUR 168 higher versus empagliflozin and EUR 236 and 1415 lower versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 1339 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and was considered dominant (clinically superior and cost saving) versus sitagliptin and liraglutide. Additional analyses demonstrated that oral semaglutide 7 mg was associated with improvements of 0.11 QALYs and increased costs of EUR 226 versus sitagliptin and was therefore associated with an ICER of EUR 2011 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was dominant versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, and cost-effective versus empagliflozin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Applying the Social-Ecological Approach to Evaluate Diabetes Medication Management in Older People.

Glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist is a common antidiabetic medication class to lower HbA1c, weight, and cardiovascular risk. This case study describes the challenges a patient with uncontrolled diabetes faced after receiving a prescription for liraglutide because of multiple levels of influence, including individual, family, institutional, and policy level barriers. The case highlights the importance of utilizing a person-centered care approach by evaluating patient's preferences, visual and motor coordination, cognitive function, psychological stress, and medication cost before prescribing injectable products for elderly patients.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin compared with liraglutide based on cardiovascular outcome trials in Type II diabetes.

Aim: Cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of empagliflozin+standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and liraglutide+SoC, in patients with Type II diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, was conducted using evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials. Methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was calibrated to predict same outcomes observed in EMPA-REG OUTCOME and LEADER trials. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of SoC, empagliflozin+SoC and liraglutide+SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial and an indirect comparison. Time horizon was 50 years and the UK payer perspective was taken. Results: Empagliflozin+SoC dominated liraglutide+SoC with greater quality-adjusted life years and reduced costs. Base-case incremental CE ratio of 6428 GBP/QALY was observed for empagliflozin+SoC versus SoC. Conclusion: Results suggest that empagliflozin+SoC is cost effective versus SoC and liraglutide+SoC.

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.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and cost of integrating a pragmatic pathway for prescribing liraglutide 3.0 mg in obesity services (STRIVE study): study protocol of an open-label, real-world, randomised, controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the UK and Ireland, severe and complex obesity is managed in specialist weight management services (SWMS), which provide multicomponent lifestyle interventions to support weight loss, and use of medication if available. Liraglutide 3 mg (LIRA 3 mg) is an effective weight-loss medication, but weight loss in individual patients is variable, and its efficacy has not been assessed in SWMS. This study aims to investigate whether a targeted prescribing pathway for LIRA 3 mg with multiple prespecified stopping rules could help people with severe obesity and established complications achieve ≥15% weight loss in order to determine whether this could be considered a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for managing severe and complex obesity in SWMS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this 2-year, multicentre, open-label, real-world randomised controlled trial, 384 adults with severe and complex obesity (defined as body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 plus either prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension or sleep apnoea) will be randomised via a 2:1 ratio to receive either standard SWMS care (n=128) or standard SWMS care plus a targeted prescribing pathway for LIRA 3 mg with prespecified stopping rules at 16, 32 and 52 weeks (n=256).The primary outcome is to compare the proportion of participants achieving a weight loss of ≥15% at 52 weeks with a targeted prescribing pathway versus standard care. Secondary outcomes include a comparison of (1) the weight loss maintenance at 104 weeks and (2) the budget impact and cost effectiveness between the two groups in a real-world setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority in UK, the Health Products Regulatory Authority in Ireland, the North West Deanery Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the St Vincent's University Hospital European Research Ethics Committee (Ireland) have approved the study. The findings of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov-Identifier: NCT03036800.European Clinical Trials Database-Identifier: EudraCT Number 2017-002998-20.

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis.

Aims: The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for oral administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, was evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program, and a recently published network meta-analysis allowed comparison with further injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly exenatide 2 mg, twice-daily exenatide 10 µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg, once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, in terms of the cost per patient achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets (cost of control).Materials and methods: Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists. Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.Results: For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively. Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%. All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.Conclusions: Oral semaglutide 14 mg is likely to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide, exenatide (once weekly and twice daily), liraglutide, and lixisenatide in terms of bringing people with type 2 diabetes to glycemic control targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% in the US.