Glycemic and Cost Outcomes among Hispanic/Latino People with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA Initiating Dulaglutide versus Basal Insulin: a Real-World Study.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycemic management after diabetes onset remains a challenge in Hispanic/Latino adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), often resulting in poor health outcomes and higher rates of diabetes-related complications. The aim of this study was to examine and compare demographic and clinical characteristics, glycemic outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among injection-naïve Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D initiating dulaglutide or basal insulin. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts on the basis of pharmacy claims and were propensity-score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Measures of glycemic management included 12 month follow-up glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and change in HbA1c from baseline. Follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related HCRU and costs, including costs per 1% change in HbA1c, were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: The final propensity-score matched sample included 2872 patients: 1436 patients in each cohort. Mean (SD) reduction in HbA1c from baseline to 12 month follow-up was greater in the dulaglutide cohort compared with the basal insulin cohort [-1.40% (1.88) versus -0.92% (2.07); p < 0.001]. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower proportions of patients with ≥ 1 all-cause and diabetes-related outpatient visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient stays compared with the basal insulin cohort (p < 0.05). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction than the basal insulin cohort ($13,768 versus $19,128; p < 0.001). Diabetes-related costs per 1% reduction were numerically lower for the dulaglutide cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant ($9737 versus $11,403; p = 0.081). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide demonstrated better glycemic outcomes and lower all-cause costs per 1% HbA1c reduction among Hispanic/Latino adults compared with those initiating basal insulin. Our real-world findings in the Hispanic/Latino population were consistent with results obtained from the overall population and confirm the glycemic benefits of dulaglutide observed in clinical settings.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective. METHODS: The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

Glycemic and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Dulaglutide Versus Basal Insulin in a Real-World Setting in the United States: The DISPEL-Advance Study.

INTRODUCTION: Treatments like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists carry low hypoglycemia risk and are recommended for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), while some routine treatments, like insulin, increase hypoglycemia risk. The DISPEL-Advance (Dulaglutide vs Basal InSulin in Injection Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness in ReaL World) study compared glycemic outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in elderly patients with T2D who initiated treatment with dulaglutide versus those initiating treatment with basal insulin. METHODS: This observational, retrospective cohort study used data from the Optum Research Database. Medicare Advantage patients (≥ 65 years) with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts based on pharmacy claims and propensity score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Change in HbA1c, 12-months follow-up HbA1c, and follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded well-balanced cohorts with 1891 patients each (mean age: dulaglutide, 72.09 years; basal insulin, 72.56 years). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly greater mean HbA1c reduction from baseline to follow-up than basal insulin cohort (- 0.95% vs - 0.69%; p < 0.001). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower mean all-cause and diabetes-related medical costs (all-cause: $8306 vs $12,176; diabetes-related: $4681 vs $7582 respectively; p < 0.001) and lower mean all-cause total costs ($18,646 vs $20,972, respectively; p = 0.007) than basal insulin cohort. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause and diabetes-related total costs per 1% change in HbA1c than basal insulin cohort (all-cause: $19,729 vs $30,334; diabetes-related: $12,842 vs $17,288, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with T2D initiating dulaglutide had greater HbA1c reduction, lower mean all-cause medical and total costs, lower diabetes-related medical costs, and lower total all-cause and diabetes-related costs per 1% change in HbA1c than patients initiating basal insulin. Future studies assessing medications that do not increase hypoglycemia risk could help inform therapeutic strategies in elderly patients.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg doses), a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, versus semaglutide 1.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS-2 trial, from a US healthcare payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model was used to make projections of clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SURPASS-2 trial. Intensification to insulin therapy occurred when HbA1c reached 7.5%, in line with American Diabetes Association recommendations. Direct costs in 2021 US dollars (US$) and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: All three doses of tirzepatide were associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus semaglutide. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 75 803, 58 908 and 48 785 per quality-adjusted life year gained for tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively, versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus semaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on the SURPASS-2 trial results indicate that 5, 10 and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide are likely to be cost-effective versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

Association of Dulaglutide Initiation Timing With Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States.

PURPOSE: To describe clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes for early or late initiation of dulaglutide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective, claims-based analysis evaluated adults with type 2 diabetes, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg once-weekly injection (between November 2014 and August 2019), and no prior use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists or insulin. Cohorts were defined based on the number of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) classes used within the 24-month baseline period before dulaglutide therapy initiation: 1 OAD, 2 OADs, or ≥3 OADs. The number of OAD classes used before dulaglutide therapy initiation served as a proxy for timing of initiation, with a higher number of OAD classes indicating a longer duration of T2D. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were compared across each cohort. Six-month follow-up outcomes, including change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and treatment patterns, were descriptively assessed within each cohort. FINDINGS: The study population consisted of 18,121 patients across the 1 OAD (n = 4822), 2 OADs (n = 6293), and ≥3 OADs (n = 7006) cohorts. Mean age at baseline was 54.7 years. Males were more prevalent in the ≥3 OADs cohort. Most patients (67%-70%) initiated treatment with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Dose escalation to 1.5 mg was uncommon (15%-20%) but trended higher in the ≥3 OAD cohort. Adherence to dulaglutide at 6-month follow-up (61%-67%) increased with higher baseline OAD use. The HbA1c assessment (n = 3178) included 761 patients in the 1 OAD cohort, 1088 patients in the 2 OADs cohort, and 1329 patients in the ≥3 OADs cohort. Baseline mean [SD] HbA1c level increased with number of OAD classes (1 OAD: 8.18% [1.80]; 2 OADs: 8.56% [1.66]; and ≥3 OADs: 8.73% [1.51]). Patients in the early dulaglutide therapy initiator group experienced larger reductions in HbA1c levels (1 OAD: -1.39%; 95% CI, -1.50 to -1.27; 2 OADs: -1.30%; 95% CI, -1.39 to -1.20; and ≥3 OADs: -1.01%; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.93) versus the patients in the delayed initiator group. Patients in the early dulaglutide therapy initiator group also achieved HbA1c <7% at 6-month follow-up more frequently than those in the later initiator group (1 OAD: 68%; 2 OADs: 51%; and ≥3 OADs: 33%). IMPLICATIONS: Cohorts of dulaglutide therapy initiators, defined by prior OAD use as a proxy of timing of initiation, differed in their baseline characteristics and short-term follow-up outcomes. Earlier dulaglutide therapy initiation was associated with lower mean HbA1c levels and increased probability of achievement of HbA1c <7% during the 6-month follow-up period.

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis. RESULTS: The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

The Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Either Cardiovascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors An Analysis of a US Health Insurance Database.

PURPOSE: Health care costs and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were evaluated among US patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CV risk factors. METHODS: Patients with ≥24 months of continuous enrollment were selected from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018. For the first qualifying 24-month period, months 1 to 12 defined the baseline period and months 13 to 24 defined the follow-up period. All patients had ≥2 T2D diagnoses during baseline. Two cohorts were created: (1) patients with ≥1 CVD diagnosis during baseline ("CVD cohort"); and (2) patients with ≥1 CV risk factor ("CV risk cohort") and no diagnosed CVD during baseline. The percentage of patients with subsequent CVD diagnoses and annual all-cause, T2D-related, and CV-related costs in baseline and follow-up periods were reported. FINDINGS: In total, 1,106,716 patients met inclusion criteria: CVD cohort, 224,018 patients; CV risk cohort, 812,144 patients; and no diagnosed CVD or CV risk factors, 70,554. During baseline, 40.2% of the CVD cohort had 2 or more CVD diagnoses. During follow-up, 10.5% of the CV risk cohort had evidence of CVD (ie, emergent CVD). During baseline, the CVD cohort had mean (SD) all-cause costs of $38,985 ($69,936); T2D-related costs, $16,208 ($34,104); and CV-related annual costs, $18,842 ($44,457). The CV risk cohort had mean all-cause costs of $13,207 ($27,057); T2D-related costs, $5226 ($12,268); and CV-related costs, $2754 ($10,586). During follow-up, the CV risk cohort with emergent CVD had higher mean all-cause, T2D-related, and CV-related annual costs than costs among patients without CVD (all-cause, $39,365 [$67,731] vs $13,401 [$27,530]; T2D related, $18,520 [$37,256] vs $5732 [$12,540]; and CV related, $18,893 [$43,584] vs $2650 [$10,501], respectively). IMPLICATIONS: Costs for patients with T2D and either CVD or CV risk are substantial. In this analysis, ∼10% of patients with CV risk were diagnosed with emergent CVD. All-cause costs among patients with emergent CVD were nearly 3 times higher than those among patients with CV risk only. Because costs associated with CVD in the T2D population are high, preventing CVD events in patients with T2D has the potential to decrease overall health care costs and avoid additional disease burden for these patients.

Comparison of Recommendations and Use of Cardiovascular Risk Equations by Health Technology Assessment Agencies and Clinical Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To identify risk equations for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in primary and secondary prevention settings that are used or recommended by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations and in clinical guidelines (CGs). METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted using a two-stage search strategy. First, HTA reviews of manufacturers' drug submissions, reports from established HTA organizations (Europe, Canada, and Australia), and CGs from countries with and without HTA organizations, including the United States, were identified. Documents published between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2016, were examined for cardiovascular risk equations, recommendations, and commentaries. Next, publications associated with risk equations and cited by HTA and CG documents were retrieved. This literature was examined to extract commentaries and risk equation study characteristics. RESULTS: The review identified 47 risk equations, 25 in the primary CVD prevention setting (i.e., patients with no CVD history), including 5 for CVD prevention in diabetes and 22 solely in secondary prevention settings; 11 were identified for heart failure, 3 for stroke or transient ischemic attack, 2 for stable angina, and 11 for acute coronary syndrome or related conditions. A small set of primary prevention equations was found to be commonly used by HTAs, whereas secondary prevention equations were less common in HTA documents. CGs provided more risk equations as options than HTA documents. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is an abundance of risk equations developed for primary and secondary prevention, there remains a need for additional research to provide sufficient clinical and HTA guidance for risk estimation, particularly in high-risk or secondary prevention settings.

Systematic review of therapy used in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

To identify real-world evidence on outcomes from therapies for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL), we systematically reviewed literature in Medline/Embase for DLBCL/FL-related articles on real-world results published during January 2012-May 2016. Among 33 included articles, therapies included stem cell transplant (SCT) and chemotherapy, including experimental regimens. The highest overall survival rates were observed for SCT, long considered an optimal strategy following initial relapse. Prognoses were inferior among DLBCL patients receiving rituximab-based regimens rather than SCT, particularly among studies that exclusively focused on those ineligible for SCT due to age or co-morbidity. A lack of viable treatment options for DLBCL/FL patients ineligible for SCT after relapse remains a significant gap in care.