A systematic literature review on the health-related quality of life and economic burden of Fabry disease.

BACKGROUND: Fabry disease (FD) is a rare lysosomal storage disease associated with glycolipid accumulation that impacts multiple physiological systems. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to characterize the humanistic (quality of life [QoL]) and economic burden of FD. METHODS: Searches were conducted in the Embase, MEDLINE®, and MEDLINE® In-Process databases from inception to January 19, 2022. Conference abstracts of specified congresses were manually searched. Additional searches were performed in the Cochrane and ProQuest databases for the humanistic SLR and the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database for the economic SLR. Studies of patients with FD of any sex, race, and age, and published in the English language were included. There was no restriction on intervention or comparator. For the humanistic SLR, studies that reported utility data, database/registry-based studies, questionnaires/surveys, and cohort studies were included. For the economic SLR, studies reporting economic evaluations or assessing the cost of illness and resource use were included. RESULTS: Of the 1363 records identified in the humanistic search, 36 studies were included. The most commonly used QoL assessments were the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (n = 16), EQ-5D questionnaire descriptive system or visual analog scale (n = 9), and the Brief Pain Inventory (n = 8). Reduced QoL was reported in patients with FD compared with healthy populations across multiple domains, including pain, physical functioning, and depressive symptoms. Multiple variables-including sex, age, disease severity, and treatment status-impacted QoL. Of the 711 records identified in the economic burden search, 18 studies were included. FD was associated with high cost and healthcare resource use. Contributors to the cost burden included enzyme replacement therapy, healthcare, and social care. In the seven studies that reported health utility values, lower utility scores were generally associated with more complications (including cardiac, renal, and cerebrovascular morbidities) and with classical disease in males. CONCLUSION: FD remains associated with a high cost and healthcare resource use burden, and reduced QoL compared with healthy populations. Integrating information from QoL and economic assessments may help to identify interventions that are likely to be of most value to patients with FD.

Retrospective Database Analysis Evaluating the Clinical Outcomes of Changing Treatment of People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) from Other DPP-4 Inhibitor Therapy to Alogliptin in a Primary Care Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Although some differences between individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may exist, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) have recommended that 'prescribers should be encouraged to select the individual DPP-4 inhibitor with the lowest acquisition cost available to them, where all other factors are equal'. We aimed to determine whether or not 'within class' switching to alogliptin, the DPP-4 inhibitor with lowest acquisition cost, is a clinically appropriate strategy. METHODS: This study evaluated people with type 2 diabetes taking DPP-4 inhibitor therapy in addition to at least one other diabetes therapy. Primary care records were reviewed from six clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). For people who had been switched from other DPP-4 inhibitors to alogliptin, an assessment of the impact of switch on both absolute haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and on HbA1c trajectory was undertaken. Persistence on alogliptin and the need for therapy intensification was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 865 people with diabetes met the eligibility criteria for the study. There was no significant difference between pre- and post-switch mean HbA1c level [8.44% (SD 1.52%) vs 8.42% (1.62%), p = 0.6]. Similarly, for patients where there was sufficient data to assess the impact of switching on HbA1c trajectory (n = 319) minimal impact was identified (actual HbA1c at 3 months 8.33% vs projected 8.31%). The majority of people with diabetes (80.76%) remained on alogliptin treatment at 6 months and only 4.54% required additional diabetes therapies. Switching to alogliptin resulted in a median saving of £7.24 per patient-month. CONCLUSION: Switching United Kingdom (UK) primary care patients from other DPP-4 inhibitors to alogliptin did not result in a statistically significant or clinically meaningful change in HbA1c level and few required the addition of further diabetes therapies, suggesting that therapy change or intensification was not considered necessary in most patients who were switched to alogliptin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ENCePP clinical trial registration number EUPAS29153. FUNDING: Takeda UK Ltd.

Alogliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Metformin and Sulfonylurea Therapies in the EXAMINE Trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the antihyperglycemic efficacy and safety of adding the dipeptidyl dipeptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin to metformin and sulphonylurea in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care Trial. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome were randomized to alogliptin or placebo and standard of care. Participants were followed for up to 40 (median 18) months. In a subgroup taking metformin and sulphonylurea at baseline, we evaluated change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), adverse events, cardiovascular outcomes, laboratory data, and other safety parameters. RESULTS: There were 1398 patients receiving baseline dual therapy (metformin and sulphonylurea only) randomized to alogliptin (N = 693) or placebo (N = 705); 550 patients receiving alogliptin and 505 patients receiving placebo completed the Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care without addition of other antihyperglycemic therapies (P = .008). Changes from baseline to last visit in HbA1c were -0.4% on alogliptin and +0.1% on placebo (P < .001) in all those with baseline dual therapy and -0.4% for alogliptin and +0.2% for placebo (P < .001) in those without additional therapies. Reported rates of hypoglycemia were 8.8% for alogliptin and 6.7% for placebo (P = .16). Cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality rates were lower in those receiving alogliptin compared with those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.84 and hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.96, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin to dual therapy with metformin plus sulfonylurea significantly reduced HbA1c and was well tolerated. Lower mortality rates were seen in patients treated with alogliptin in this subgroup.