Examining the evidence for weight management in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

The obesity epidemic has been linked to the worsening diabetes epidemic. Despite this, weight reduction for individuals with obesity is seen as a secondary, or even tertiary, consideration in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim of this review is to examine the benefits of weight management in individuals with T2D. A literature review of current available published data on the benefits of weight reduction in individuals with T2D was conducted. In individuals with T2D who have obesity or overweight, modest and sustained weight reduction results in improvement in glycaemic control and decreased utilization of glucose-lowering medication. A total body weight loss of 5% or higher reduces HbA1c levels and contributes to mitigating risk factors of cardiovascular disease, such as hyperlipidaemia and hypertension, as well as other disease-related complications of obesity. Progressive improvements in glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors can occur when the total body weight loss increases to 10% or more. In the approach to treating patients with T2D and obesity, prioritizing weight management and the use of therapeutics that offer glycaemic control as well as the additional weight loss should be emphasized given their potential to attenuate the progression and severity of T2D.

Treatment and prevention of severe hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes: Current and new formulations of glucagon.

Some therapies for diabetes increase the risk of hypoglycaemia, in particular all insulins and insulin secretagogues, including the glinides and sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia remains a major limiting factor to successful glycaemic management, despite the availability of prevention options such as insulin analogues, continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pumps, and dogs that have been trained to detect hypoglycaemia. Non-severe (self-treated) and severe (requiring assistance for recovery) hypoglycaemia rates are higher in people with type 1 diabetes, but those with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes are also at risk. Education and regular review are essential between people with diabetes and their caregivers and healthcare professionals about symptoms, prevention and treatment. Awareness of the potential dangers of hypoglycaemia is fundamental to the optimal management of diabetes. When therapy is intensified to achieve glycaemic targets, it is important that people at risk of severe hypoglycaemia, and particularly their caregivers, have ready access to effective treatment for hypoglycaemia emergencies. The current and potential formulations of glucagon available for treatment of severe hypoglycaemia are reviewed.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A comparison of study designs, populations and results.

Despite treatment advances leading to improved outcomes over the past 2 decades, cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a 2- to 4-fold increased risk of CVD and CV death. Individuals with T2D have not seen the same improvements in CV morbidity and mortality as those without T2D. Given this, it is important to understand the CV impact of drugs used to treat T2D. In patients with T2D, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown a reduction in HbA1c and body weight regardless of their differences in chemical structure and pharmacokinetic variables. Glycaemic efficacy, accompanied by the potential for weight reduction and a low risk of hypoglycaemia, has moved GLP-1 RAs to the first treatment of choice following metformin monotherapy in the latest American Diabetes Association treatment guidelines. Additionally, all GLP-1 RAs have shown CV safety and several have proven CV benefit. GLP-1 RAs have been evaluated in cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) of varying sizes, designs and patient populations with differing reported effects on CV outcomes. The purpose of this article is to review the completed GLP-1 RA CVOTs with special attention to how their design, size, patient populations and conduct may influence the interpretation of results.

Comparison of Treatment Patterns in Patients with Migraine Initiating Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies: A Retrospective Real-World US Study.

Background: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are indicated for migraine prevention in the United States. Limited data comparing real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAbs are available. Objective: To compare the treatment patterns among patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab. Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients with one or more claims for a self-injectable CGRP mAb (galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or erenumab), with continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months pre-index and 6 and 12 months post-index using MerativeTM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases from May 2017 through March 2021. Propensity-score matching was used to address confounding by observed covariates. Outcomes analyzed included proportion of days covered (PDC), medication-possession ratio (MPR), persistence (≤60-day gap), treatment discontinuation, and switch to a non-index drug. Descriptive X2 and t-test analyses were conducted. Results: At the 12-month follow-up, matched galcanezumab and fremanezumab cohorts each comprised 2674 patients and the galcanezumab and erenumab cohorts 3503 each. The mean (SD) PDC and MPR were both 0.6 (0.3) across all cohorts. Based on PDC ≥0.80 and MPR ≥0.80, a greater proportion of galcanezumab vs fremanezumab (46.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.053; 46.8% vs 44.3%, p=0.053) and galcanezumab vs erenumab (46.2% vs 44%, p=0.156; 46.7% vs 44.5%, p=0.262), respectively, initiators were adherent. Compared to galcanezumab, fremanezumab (248.0 days vs 236.5 days, p=0.001), and erenumab (247.8 days vs 241.7 days, p=0.061) initiators had lower mean persistence. Galcanezumab initiators were less likely to discontinue treatment than fremanezumab (47.8% vs 51.7%, p=0.005) and erenumab (47.7% vs 50.2%, p=0.040) initiators. Across cohorts, most switchers initiated onabotulinum toxin A as subsequent treatment. Similar results were observed for 6-month follow-up cohorts. Conclusion: Patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab showed higher persistence and lower treatment discontinuation rates than those initiating either fremanezumab or erenumab.

Health care resource utilization and direct costs incurred over 24 months after initiating galcanezumab or standard-of-care preventive migraine treatments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up. METHODS: This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$. RESULTS: After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.

Treatment patterns of galcanezumab versus standard of care preventive migraine medications over 24 months: a US retrospective claims study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts. RESULTS: The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p = .016). CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Only few patients (3 − 13%) with migraine, who qualify for preventive treatment, are using them. Conventional preventive treatments have not been developed specifically for migraine treatment, and more than half of the patients stop using them prematurely. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies such as galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab are newer treatments that provide migraine-specific preventive treatment. Prior studies have compared 6- to 12-month migraine medication use by patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting traditional standard of care (SOC) migraine preventive medications. We compared long-term (24-month) migraine medication use in patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting SOC migraine preventive medications to confirm if the results are sustained over a longer period. Over 24 months, patients who used galcanezumab followed the prescribed treatment regimen to a greater extent compared with those who used SOC medications (48% vs. 38%, respectively). Additionally, patients using galcanezumab continued treatment for a longer time compared with those using SOC. Over 24 months, about 85% of patients stopped taking SOC medications, while around 80% of patients stopped taking galcanezumab. Our findings indicate that patients with migraine are more likely to continue using galcanezumab as a preventive treatment for a longer period compared with SOC medications. This study helps identify gaps in the preventive treatment of migraine and provides insights on how they are not being used enough.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months. RESULTS: Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Galcanezumab and rimegepant are preventive treatments for episodic migraine. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of galcanezumab and rimegepant in reducing the number of monthly migraine headaches and to determine if galcanezumab was better than rimegepant. The study provides important information to doctors and their patients when making treatment decisions.People with episodic migraine were assigned to the galcanezumab (given as an injection under the skin) or rimegepant (given as a tablet that dissolves in the mouth) group and treated for 3 months. The doctor and the patient did not know which group they were assigned to, and to keep it unknown to both, people in the galcanezumab group got an injection with real medicine and a fake tablet, and people in the rimegepant group got a tablet with real medicine and a fake injection. The researchers wanted to know how many people in each group had at least a 50% reduction in their monthly migraine headaches.Of the 580 people in the study, 287 were assigned to galcanezumab and 293 to rimegepant. In both groups, most were female and white. After 3 months of treatment, 62% of the people in the galcanezumab group and 61% of people in the rimegepant group had at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine headaches. Both treatments were effective, but galcanezumab was not better than rimegepant. About 20% of the people in each treatment group had a side effect from the medication, and most were mild or moderate in severity.

Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Direct Costs Among Patients Initiating Concomitant Use of a Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibody (CGRP mAb) and Novel Acute Medication in the United States.

Purpose: To describe treatment patterns, all-cause and migraine-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct costs among people with migraine treated with concomitant calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) and novel acute migraine medications (ubrogepant, rimegepant, lasmiditan) in the United States (US). Patients and Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study utilized data from the IBM MarketScan® Research Databases and included adults initiating CGRP mAb or novel acute migraine medication as index medications between May 01, 2018, and Feb 28, 2021. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU (number of visits) and costs at baseline (12 months pre-index) and at follow-up (12 months post-index) were descriptively analyzed; differences between values at follow-up and baseline were reported. Results: Of 4,167 included in the analysis (mean [SD] age: 43.7 [11.2] years), 89.2% were women, and 59.7% had chronic migraine. Adherence to the indexed CGRP mAb was 47% (using proportion of days covered [PDC]) and 80.1% (using medication possession ratio [MPR]); mean (SD) persistence was 273.4 (115.3) days). At follow-up, 43.9% of the patients discontinued their index preventive medication of which 80.2% switched to a different preventive migraine medication; 17.0% restarted their index preventive medication. Reductions in all-cause inpatient HCRU, all-cause inpatient and outpatient costs, and migraine-related outpatient HCRU were observed at follow-up vs. baseline, whereas increases in all-cause outpatient HCRU, all-cause medication costs, migraine-related inpatient HCRU, and migraine-related inpatient, outpatient, and medication costs were observed. Conclusion: In this study, observed treatment patterns with the indexed CGRP mAb were consistent with prior reports. Concomitant treatment with CGRP mAb and novel acute migraine medications led to reductions in some outcomes of HCRU and direct costs, however, increases were also observed. Treatment utilization, reductions in HCRU and cost savings identified in this study in favor of concomitant CGRP mAb and novel acute medications may help clinicians and other healthcare decision makers assessing appropriate therapeutic options for migraine management.

Annual indirect costs savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: a post-hoc analysis of phase 3 galcanezumab clinical trials in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab (GMB) improved quality-of-life and reduced disability of patients with episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) in Phase 3 trials. AIM: To estimate indirect cost savings associated with GMB treatment in patients with migraine in the United States (US). METHODS: We analyzed data of patients from the US from three randomized, Phase 3, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled GMB studies: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM patients), REGAIN (CM patients). Annual indirect costs were calculated using items of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: lost time/productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure time. All costs were annualized and expressed in 2019 US dollars. While the main analysis considered lost time/productivity at work/school and household work as a full day, a sensitivity analysis was performed by discounting them by half. For EM, annual indirect costs savings were estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis. For CM, ANCOVA models were used to estimate annual indirect costs savings as change from baseline. RESULTS: The analysis included 805 patients with EM (mean age = 41.4 years; PBO = 534; GMB = 271) and 423 patients with CM (mean age = 38.9 years; PBO = 279; GMB = 144). Compared to PBO, GMB significantly reduced annual indirect costs among patients with EM at 3 months (least square mean [95% confidence interval] work/school = $1,883.6 [603.64-3,163.65], p = .0040, household work = $628.9 [352.95-904.88], p <.0001, and leisure activity = $499.17 [42.36-955.98], p = .0323) and 6 months (work/school = $2,382.29 [1,065.48-3,699.10], p = .0004, household work = $559.45 [268.99-849.90], p = .0002, and leisure activity = $753.81 [334.35-1,173.27], p = .0004), whereas a significant difference was not observed among patients with CM. Sensitivity analysis results were similar to primary analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: GMB treatment versus PBO resulted in significantly greater indirect cost savings in patients with EM through improved productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure days. Patients with CM receiving GMB versus PBO attained greater cost savings, although not statistically significant, through reduced lost productivity at work/school.

Migraine causes missed time or reduced productivity at home and work, which further imposes an economic burden on patients, referred to as indirect costs. In this study, we evaluated the indirect cost savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine taking either galcanezumab or placebo for treatment. We collected data using a questionnaire called the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) that was completed by patients enrolled in three clinical studies in the United States (US), namely EVOLVE-1, EVOVLE-2 (episodic migraine patients), and REGAIN (chronic migraine patients). The MIDAS questionnaire evaluated time lost/reduced productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure activity in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. Using scores of the MIDAS questionnaire and standard annual wages for the US population, we calculated indirect costs in patients. A total of 805 patients with episodic migraine and 423 patients with chronic migraine were included in this study. In galcanezumab-treated patients with episodic migraine, a significant indirect cost saving was observed through decrease in time lost/reduced productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure activity compared with patients who received placebo. In galcanezumab-treated patients with chronic migraine, indirect cost saving observed through decrease in time lost/reduced productivity at work/school were not statistically different from placebo-treated patients. The relatively lower cost savings observed in patients with chronic migraine may be due to greater disease burden compared to patients with episodic migraine. Results of this study suggest that patients with migraine receiving galcanezumab may obtain indirect cost savings.

Patient characteristics and treatment utilization among patients with migraine initiating self-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody and novel acute medication.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes patient characteristics and utilization of recently approved novel acute medication and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized the IBM MarketScan Research Database and Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart from May 2017 through December 2020 (index period). Adult patients initiating self-injectable CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) and novel acute migraine medications (lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant) with: (a) ≥3 months overlap between the index medication and second medication initiated along with it; (b) ≥1 claim for migraine diagnosis; and (c) continuous medical and pharmacy benefits 12 months pre- and 3 months post-index were included. Data are presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 2840 patients from the MarketScan database and 657 patients from the Optum database were included. Identified patients' (MarketScan/Optum) mean age was 44.7/51.2 years; they were mostly women (88.8%/87.7%); a majority had a chronic migraine diagnosis (64.4%/71.4%) and were prescribed both preventive and acute treatments for migraine in the pre-index period. Most patients received a combination of both preventive and acute medications binding CGRP receptors (43.6%/59.0%) or preventive medication binding CGRP ligands and acute medication binding CGRP receptors (51.9%/34.9%). Mean (SD) number of days of concomitant use of CGRP and novel acute medications were: MarketScan, 29.1 (18.7); Optum, 31.8 (20.4). Prescribing patterns were similar across healthcare provider types within each database. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patient characteristics and treatment utilization patterns among patients prescribed both a CGRP mAb and novel acute medication may provide valuable insight regarding migraine treatment selection for healthcare decision makers.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with treatment among patients initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors vs other preventive migraine treatments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) for preventive treatment of migraine. OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct health care costs in patients with migraine initiating CGRP mAbs, galcanezumab (GMB), vs standard-of-care (SOC) preventive treatments in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used insurance claims data collected from IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with 1 or more claims for CGRP mAb (GMB, erenumab, or fremanezumab) or SOC preventive treatment between May 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, were included. The date of earliest migraine treatment claim during this period was the index date. Annual all-cause and migraine-related HCRU included inpatient visits, emergency department visits, and acute and preventive migraine medication fills. After matching, HCRU and costs at 6- and 12-month follow-up in CGRP mAb, specifically GMB, vs SOC cohorts were analyzed using paired t-test and chi-square test. RESULTS: In the 12-month follow-up study, 4,528 patients using CGRP mAb (GMB, n = 426) and 10,897 patients using SOC were included. After matching, 3,082 pairs were identified in the CGRP mAb and SOC cohorts and 421 pairs in the GMB and SOC cohorts. After matching, all variables were well balanced across cohorts. At 12-month follow-up, the percentage decrease in acute and preventive migraine medication fills was significantly greater in the CGRP mAb (acute: -1.5% vs -0.2%, P < 0.001; preventive: -1.1% vs 3.8, P < 0.001) and GMB cohorts (acute: -1.5% vs -0.2%, P = 0.002; preventive: -1.8 vs 3.0, P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. At follow-up, compared with the SOC cohort, the mean change of annual all-cause total costs was significantly higher in both the CGRP mAb ($6,043 vs $1,323, P < 0.001) and GMB cohorts ($8,398 vs $68, P < 0.001), and the mean change of annual migraine-related total costs was significantly higher in both the CGRP mAb ($3,416 vs $976, P < 0.001) and GMB cohorts ($4,334 vs $1,245, P < 0.001). Significant cost savings in mean acute and preventive migraine prescription costs occurred in both the CGRP mAb (acute: -$358 vs -$80, P < 0.001; preventive: -$298 vs $1,376, P < 0.001) and GMB cohorts (acute: -$280 vs -$36, P = 0.034; preventive: -$374 vs $1,537, P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment with CGRP mAbs and GMB increase total costs, they may lead to significantly greater cost savings in outpatient acute and preventive migraine medication costs vs SOC. Further studies assessing indirect health care costs are important to understand additional cost savings with CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: Drs Varnado, Ye, and Schuh are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Wenzel is a former employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Manjelievskaia is an employee of IBM Watson Health. Ms Perry is a former employee of IBM Watson Health. This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. IBM Watson Health received funding for this study from Eli Lilly and Company. Independent analyses were conducted by IBM Watson Health. Eli Lilly and Company and IBM Watson Health collaborated on designing the study and interpreting results.

Treatment Patterns for Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies Including Galcanezumab versus Conventional Preventive Treatments for Migraine: A Retrospective US Claims Study.

Background: Most conventional, oral, preventive treatments for migraine are non-specific and ~50% of patients discontinue them within six months. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration approved three preventive migraine treatments: monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway implicated in migraine; galcanezumab and fremanezumab which target CGRP ligand; and erenumab which targets CGRP receptor. Real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAb are limited. Purpose: To compare real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAb, specifically galcanezumab versus standard-of-care (SOC) migraine preventive treatments. Patients and methods: This retrospective, observational study included 12-month baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up analyses using IBM® MarketScan® databases. Patients identified were aged ≥18 years with ≥1 claim (first claim=index) for CGRP mAb (erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) or SOC preventives (eg, antiepileptics, beta-blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA) as index drugs between May/01/2018 and June/30/2019. Propensity score matching was used to address confounding by observed covariates. Outcomes analyzed included proportion of days covered (PDC), persistence (≤60-day gap), and first non-index drug switch. Descriptive, chi-square (categorical), and t-test (continuous) analyses were conducted. Results: The study included 3082 (CGRP mAb versus SOC) and 421 (galcanezumab versus SOC) matched patient pairs with 12-month follow-up. Mean age across cohorts ranged 43.2-44.4 years (females: 85.7-88.6%). Compared with SOC, the CGRP mAb cohort had higher mean persistence (212.5 vs 131.9 days), adherence (PDC: 55.1% vs 35.2%), and more patients were adherent with PDC ≥80% (32.7% vs 18.7%) (all p <0.001). During 12-month follow-up, fewer patients discontinued CGRP mAb versus SOC (58.8% vs 77.6%, p <0.001). Galcanezumab versus SOC comparisons yielded similar results. In the CGRP mAb cohort, most switchers (28.3%) used galcanezumab as subsequent treatment. Largely similar results were observed for 6-month follow-up cohorts. Conclusion: Patients on CGRP mAb and specifically galcanezumab showed higher adherence and persistence than patients on SOC migraine preventive treatments.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide in Older Patients: A post hoc Analysis of the REWIND trial.

CONTEXT: Dulaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Its efficacy and safety in older vs younger patients have not been explicitly analyzed. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dulaglutide vs placebo in REWIND by age subgroups (≥ 65 and < 65 years). METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis of REWIND was conducted at 371 sites in 24 countries. Participants included type 2 diabetes patients aged 50 years or older with established cardiovascular (CV) disease or multiple CV risk factors, and a wide range of glycemic control. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo as an add-on to country-specific standard of care. Main outcomes measures included MACE (first occurrence of the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from CV or unknown causes). RESULTS: There were 5256 randomly assigned patients who were 65 years or older (mean = 71.0), and 4645 were younger than 65 years (mean = 60.7). Baseline characteristics were similar in randomized treatment groups. Dulaglutide treatment showed a similar reduction in the incidence (11% vs 13%) of MACE in older vs younger patients. The rate of permanent study drug discontinuation, incidence of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure, severe hypoglycemia, severe renal or urinary events, and serious gastrointestinal events were similar between randomized treatment groups within each age subgroup. The incidence rate of serious cardiac conduction disorders was numerically higher in the dulaglutide group compared to placebo within each age subgroup but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide had similar efficacy and safety in REWIND in patients65 years and older and those younger than 65 years.

Treatment progression in sulfonylurea and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor cohorts of type 2 diabetes patients on metformin.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) widely used as first-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatments. Numerous treatment pathways after metformin failure exist. It is important to understand how treatment choices influence subsequent therapy progressions. This retrospective study compares adherence to, persistence with, and treatment progression in sulfonylurea (SU) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor patient cohorts with T2D on metformin. METHODS: Using health insurance claims data, matched patient cohorts were created and OAD use was compared in patients with T2D initiating SU or DPP-4 inhibitors (index drugs) since January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010, with background metformin therapy. Propensity score matching adjusted for possible selection bias. Persistence was measured via Cox regression as days to a ≥60-day gap in index drug possession; adherence was defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%. Evolving treatment patterns were traced at 6-month intervals for 24 months following index drug discontinuation. RESULTS: From among 19,621 and 7,484 patients in the SU and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively, 6,758 patient pairs were matched. Persistence at 12 months in the SU cohort was 48.0% compared to 52.5% for the DPP-4 inhibitor cohort. PDC adherence (mean [SD]) during the 12-month follow-up period was 63.3 (29.7) for the SU cohort and 65.5 (28.7) for the DPP-4 inhibitor cohort. PDC ≥80% was 40.5% and 43.4% in the SU and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively. A higher percentage of patients in the SU cohort remained untreated. Following index drug discontinuation, monotherapy was more common in the SU cohort, while use of two or three OADs was more common in the DPP-4 inhibitor cohort. Insulin therapy initiation was higher in the SU cohort. CONCLUSION: Slightly better adherence and persistence were seen in the DPP-4 inhibitor cohort. Adherence and persistence remain a challenge to many patients; understanding therapy progression will help identify target areas for intervention and improvement.