Pharmacological management of South Asians with type 2 diabetes: Consensus recommendations from the South Asian Health Foundation.

South Asians constitute approximately 1.6 billion people from the Indian subcontinent, comprising Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; and make up the largest diaspora globally. Compared to the White European population, this group is at a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes along with cardiovascular, renal and eye complications. Over the recent years, a number of new therapies for type 2 diabetes have become available for which cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have been published. The recent ADA/EASD consensus guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes and cardiovascular diseases' offer a transitional shift in type 2 diabetes management. The new consensus recommendations are based on recent CVOTs, many of which had a representation of South Asian cohorts. In light of this new evidence, there is urgent need for an integrated, evidence-based, cost-effective and individualised approach specific for South Asians. This review takes into consideration the evidence from these CVOTs and provides best practice recommendations for optimal management of South Asian people with type 2 diabetes, alongside the previously published consensus report from South Asian Health Foundation in 2014 [1].

Quantitative imaging reveals steatosis and fibro-inflammation in multiple organs in people with type 2 diabetes: a real-world study.

We aimed to determine the extent of multi-organ fat accumulation and fibro-inflammation in individuals living with type 2 diabetes. We deeply phenotyped individuals with type 2 diabetes (134 from secondary care, 69 from primary care) with multi-organ, quantitative multi-parametric MRI and compared with 134 matched controls and 92 normal weight controls. We examined the impact of diabetes duration, obesity status and glycemic control. Ninety-three of the individuals with type 2 diabetes were re-evaluated at 7 months (median). Multi-organ abnormalities were more common in individuals with type 2 diabetes (94%) than in age, BMI-matched healthy or healthy normal weight people. We demonstrated a high burden of combined steatosis and fibro-inflammation, within the liver, pancreas and kidneys (41, 17 and 10%), associated with visceral adiposity (73%) and poor vascular health (82%). Obesity was most closely associated with advanced liver disease, renal and visceral steatosis, and multi-organ abnormalities whilst poor glycaemic control was associated with pancreatic fibro-inflammation. Pharmacological therapies with proven cardiorenal protection improved liver and vascular health unlike conventional glucose-lowering treatments, whilst weight loss or improved glycaemic control reduced multi-organ adiposity (p≤0.01). Quantitative imaging in people with type 2 diabetes highlights widespread organ abnormalities and may provide useful risk and treatment stratification.

Informing and Empowering Patients and Clinicians to Make Evidence-Supported Outcome-Based Decisions in Relation to SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapies: The Use of the Novel Years of Drug administration (YoDa) Concept.

The American Diabetes Association guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus recommends treating patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, heart failure or diabetic kidney disease with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, irrespective of the baseline HbA1c, to reduce adverse renal and cardiovascular outcomes. Initiation of such therapies have a significant cost impact on health economies. Cost of gain in quality-adjusted life-years is normally used for cost effectiveness for a particular drug. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, prescribers may go for the cheapest option, which may not necessarily be the right decision. We propose using the calculated 'YoDa' (Years of Drug administration) as an easily comparable metric between the drug accrual cost and clinical outcomes. YoDa is calculated as a product of numbers needed to treat and the median duration in years that the trial ran over, to accrue the positive clinical outcomes. Clinical phenotyping of the patient to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria of relevant clinical trials could guide the clinician to choose the most appropriate therapy. We also propose a series of steps or 'deliberations', which a clinician should consider in making a final choice of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor therapy. A comprehensive summary of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor trials, clinical phenotyping and YoDa calculations for various significant clinical outcomes could assist making evidence-based, patient-individualised and cost-effective management plans for diabetes care. Informing and Empowering Patients and Clinicians to Make Evidence-Supported Outcome-Based Decisions in Relation to SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapies: The Use of The Novel Years of Drug administration (YoDa) Concept.

Preference for Type 2 Diabetes Therapies in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic condition associated with substantial clinical and economic burden. As multiple therapeutic options are available, patient preferences on treatment characteristics are key in T2DM therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the preferences of US patients with T2DM for therapies recommended for first pharmacologic intensification after metformin. METHODS: As part of a discrete choice experiment, an online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings. Eligibility was met by US patients with T2DM who were aged 18 years or older with an HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Anonymized therapy profiles were created from six antidiabetic therapies including oral and injectable semaglutide, dulaglutide, empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and thiazolidinediones. RESULTS: Eligible patients (n = 500) had a mean HbA1c of 7.4%, and a mean BMI of 32.0 kg/m2, the majority of which (72.2%) were injectable-naïve. The treatment characteristic with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (35.5%), followed by body weight change (29.2%), cardiovascular event risk (19.1%), hypoglycemic event risk (9.9%), and HbA1c change (6.5%). An oral semaglutide-like profile was preferred by 91.9-70.1% of respondents depending on the comparator agent, and preference was significant in each comparison (p < 0.05); an injectable semaglutide-like profile was preferred by 89.3-55.7% of respondents in each comparison depending on the comparator agent. CONCLUSION: Patients with T2DM in the USA are significantly more likely to prefer oral or injectable semaglutide-like profiles over those of key comparators from the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and thiazolidinedione classes.

Frameworks for Implementation, Uptake, and Use of Cardiometabolic Disease-Related Digital Health Interventions in Ethnic Minority Populations: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. RESULTS: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies.

Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Oral Antidiabetics.

PURPOSE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of oral semaglutide (14 mg once daily) vs other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatments among adults with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with 1 to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A state-transition model with a competing risk approach was developed for diabetic complications and risk of cardiovascular events based on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 1 equations. Baseline population characteristics reflect the PIONEER 4 trial (Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide and Versus Placebo in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) of oral semaglutide. Model comparators included subcutaneous semaglutide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide. Treatment effects (change in glycosylated hemoglobin, weight, and systolic blood pressure) were estimated by network meta-analysis. Drug, management, and event costs (in 2019 US dollars), survival after nonfatal events, and utilities were obtained from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcomes were discounted at 3% annually over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Total estimated costs and QALYs were $144,065 and 12.98 for oral semaglutide, $145,721 and 12.96 for dulaglutide, $145,833 and 12.99 for SC semaglutide, and $149,428 and 12.97 for liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide was less costly and more effective than dulaglutide and liraglutide but less costly than subcutaneous semaglutide with similar effectiveness. Oral semaglutide was favored versus subcutaneous semaglutide in 52.10% of model replications at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Oral semaglutide is predicted to offer health benefits similar to subcutaneous semaglutide and ahead of dulaglutide and liraglutide. Oral semaglutide is a cost-effective glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment option.

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.