Effect of Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide on Diabetes-Related Quality of Life in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER 10 Randomized, Active-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the randomized Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) 10 trial, once-daily orally administered semaglutide-the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)-was similarly tolerated with comparable (at 7 mg) or better (at 14 mg) efficacy versus the injectable GLP-1RA dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in PIONEER 10 was assessed using the Japanese-specific Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life (DTR-QoL) questionnaire. METHODS: The DTR-QoL comprises 29 questions, providing four domain and total scores. Answers were converted to a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores indicating greater HRQoL. Two estimands were prespecified: treatment policy (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication use) and trial product (assuming on treatment without rescue medication) in all randomized patients. Outcomes were assessed at weeks 26 and 52. RESULTS: Mean baseline DTR-QoL domain scores were similar between treatment arms and were generally lower (giving more scope for improvement) for "anxiety and dissatisfaction with treatment" (62.1-65.3) and "satisfaction with treatment" (53.9-57.9) than "burden on social activities and daily activities" (76.5-77.7) and "hypoglycemia" (83.5-88.2). Using the treatment policy estimand, orally administered semaglutide 7 and 14 mg improved HRQoL versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg for the total score (estimated mean change from baseline [CfB] 7.3 and 8.1 vs 3.3; estimated treatment difference [ETD] 3.9 and 4.8) and the "anxiety and dissatisfaction with treatment" domain (CfB 9.7 and 10.9 vs 3.7; ETD 6.0 and 7.2) at week 52. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg improved the "satisfaction with treatment" domain versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (CFB 13.8 vs 5.7; ETD 8.1). DTR-QoL scores for orally administered semaglutide tended to be more durable (sustained over time) than for dulaglutide. Outcomes for the trial product estimand were similar. CONCLUSION: Orally administered semaglutide 7 and 14 mg improved the patients' HRQoL measured by the Japanese-specific DTR-QoL instrument versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg at week 52. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03015220.

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme.

INTRODUCTION: The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting. METHODS: Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

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

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

Linguistic validation into 20 languages and content validity of the rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Impairments in work productivity and daily activities contribute to the burden of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is thus essential to use an instrument assessing both work and daily activity impairments when studying the full impact of RA on individuals. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire is such an instrument. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to linguistically validate the RA-specific WPAI (WPAI:RA) instrument in 20 new languages and to assess its content validity for individuals with RA. METHODS: The linguistic validation of the questionnaire followed a standard methodology that included comprehension test interviews (n = 5 individuals with RA per language) to assess the relevance, understanding and acceptability of the WPAI:RA. Content validity of the instrument was simultaneously investigated. RESULTS: Comprehension testing showed that the WPAI:RA questionnaire was well understood similarly across countries; minor changes were made to ensure fidelity to the original concepts and for ease of comprehension. The majority of interviewees (66/93) considered its content comprehensive and appropriate to measure their ability to work and perform daily activities. CONCLUSION: The WPAI:RA questionnaire is now linguistically validated in 20 new languages [Czech (Czech Republic), Dutch (Belgium), English (Canada and UK), French (Belgium, Canada and France), German (Germany), Hungarian (Hungary), Italian (Italy), Polish (Poland), Portuguese (Brazil), Romanian (Romania), Russian (Russia and Ukraine), Spanish (Argentina, Mexico, Spain and US) and Ukrainian (Ukraine)]. The WPAI:RA questionnaire shows good content validity. It can thus be used in multi-country clinical trials to assess RA-related impact on the patients' ability to work and perform daily activities.