ACTION APAC: Understanding perceptions, attitudes and behaviours in obesity and its management across south and Southeast Asia.

To identify perceptions and attitudes among people with obesity (PwO) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) toward obesity and its management in nine Asia-Pacific (APAC) countries, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted among adult PwO with self-reported body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 (≥27 kg/m2, Singapore), and HCPs involved in direct patient care. In total, 10 429 PwO and 1901 HCPs completed the survey. Most PwO (68%) and HCPs (84%) agreed that obesity is a disease; however, a significant proportion of PwO (63%) and HCPs (41%) believed weight loss was the complete responsibility of PwO and only 43% of PwO discussed weight with an HCP in the prior 5 years. Most respondents acknowledged that weight loss would be extremely beneficial to PwO's overall health (PwO 76%, HCPs 85%), although nearly half (45%) of PwO misperceived themselves as overweight or of normal weight. Obesity was perceived by PwO (58%) and HCPs (53%) to negatively impact PwO forming romantic relationships. HCPs cited PwOs' lack of interest (41%) and poor motivation (37%) to lose weight as top reasons for not discussing weight. Most PwO (65%) preferred lifestyle changes over medications to lose weight. PwO and HCPs agreed that lack of exercise and unhealthy eating habits were the major barriers to weight loss. Our data highlights a discordance between the understanding of obesity as a disease and the actual behaviour and preferred approaches to manage it among PwO and HCPs. The study addresses a need to align these gaps to deliver optimal care for PwO.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

OBJECTIVES: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR). RESULTS: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India.

Cost-Utility of Liraglutide Plus Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk in Thailand.

INTRODUCTION: Liraglutide has demonstrated a significant reduction in the primary major composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke). This study aimed to determine the cost-utility of adding liraglutide to the standard of care (SoC) for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Thailand for three cohorts: people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with no ASCVD, and all people with T2D. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to capture the long-term costs and outcomes under the perspective of the healthcare system. Costs were based on local data, the transitional probabilities were derived from the LEADER trial, and utilities were derived from published studies. Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared to SoC, adding liraglutide incurred higher costs and gained more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of above 1 million Thai baht (THB) for the three cohorts. The most influential parameter was the discount rate. When the annual cost of liraglutide reduced from 87,874 to 30,340 THB, 30,116 THB, and 31,617 THB for all people with T2D, people with ASCVD, and people without ASCVD, respectively, the ICER fell below the local threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. Compared to the SoC treatment, the liraglutide group acquired more clinical benefit in terms of fewer CVD. Sensitivity analyses revealed that with an increase in the level of willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, adding liraglutide had an increased chance of being a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: Compared to the SoC treatment, adding liraglutide at the current cost is not cost-effective at the local WTP. People with T2D with ASCVD would have the most potential gain from adding liraglutide treatment compared to other populations.