Estimating the impact of changes in HbA1c, body weight and insulin injection regimen on health related quality-of-life: a time trade off study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the potential short-term benefits associated with reductions in HbA1c levels, and understanding any immediate improvements in health related quality-of-life (HRQoL) through better glycaemic control may help inform diabetes management decisions. This time-trade-off (TTO) study investigated the short-term impact on HRQoL associated with three different aspects of diabetes management; HbA1c change, body weight change, and the complexity of treatment regimen. METHODS: The study was designed in three stages: Stage 1) Qualitative telephone interviews with people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Denmark who had experienced a decrease in their HbA1c level. Stage 2) A validation survey with people with T2D in Denmark to obtain quantifiable knowledge on the short-term effects of a change in HbA1c levels. Stage 3) TTO survey using health states based on results from stage 2. Respondents were either adults with T2D (Sweden) or from the general public (UK and Denmark) and were separately asked to evaluate seven health states through an internet-based survey. RESULTS: Results from 4060 respondents were available for the TTO analysis (UK n = 1777; Denmark n = 1799, Sweden n = 484). 'Well-controlled diabetes' was associated with utilities of 0.85-0.91 and 'not well-controlled diabetes' with utilities of 0.71-0.80 in all countries. Difference in utilities per HbA1c percentage point was smallest in Sweden and largest in Denmark (between 0.025-0.034 per HbA1c percentage point respectively). The treatment management health state associated with the lowest disutility was the once-daily insulin regimen. The disutility associated with per kg of weight change ranged from 0.0041-0.0073. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in HbA1c levels, insulin regimen and body weight are all likely to affect HRQoL for patients with T2D. A change in HbA1c is likely to have a short-term impact in addition to the effect on the development of long term diabetes complications. A treatment which has a simple regimen with fewer injections, and/or the need for less planning, and that causes weight loss or less weight gain, compared with other treatments, will have a positive impact on HRQoL.

An Indirect Comparison of Basal Insulin Plus Once-Weekly Semaglutide and Fully Optimised Basal-Bolus Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there have been few head-to-head comparisons between semaglutide once-weekly (OW) and short-acting meal-time insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin and requiring treatment intensification. This indirect comparison evaluated the effects of these regimens on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, hypoglycaemia, and other clinically relevant outcomes. METHODS: A post-hoc, unanchored, individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of data from single treatment arms in the SUSTAIN 5 and DUAL 7 trials. Semaglutide 0.5 mg OW and 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin were compared with an optimised (treat-to-target) basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin aspart over 26 weeks, using regression adjustment to account for baseline differences between the trials. RESULTS: Over 26 weeks, semaglutide 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin reduced mean HbA1c by significantly more than the basal-bolus regimen (treatment difference: - 0.36%; p = 0.003), while semaglutide 0.5 mg OW plus basal insulin was comparable with basal-bolus insulin (treatment difference: 0.08%, p = 0.53). Both doses of semaglutide were associated with significant weight loss relative to insulin intensification (treatment differences: 6.8-9.4 kg; p < 0.001). At both doses, semaglutide intensification required less basal insulin per day than bolus intensification, and more participants on semaglutide met HbA1c targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain (odds ratio [OR] for < 7.0%, 21.9; OR for ≤ 6.5%, 16.2; both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In T2D uncontrolled by basal insulin, intensification with semaglutide 1.0 mg OW was associated with better glycaemic control, weight loss, and reduced hypoglycaemia versus a basal-bolus regimen, while limiting the treatment burden associated with frequent injections. Clinicians could consider treatment intensification with semaglutide when T2D is uncontrolled by basal insulin, especially when weight management is a priority. Effective glycaemic control coupled with weight management can alleviate the burden of diabetes-associated complications.

A population-adjusted indirect comparison of cardiovascular benefits of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular (CV) effects of once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg are reported in their respective placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), SUSTAIN 6 and REWIND. There is no head-to-head CVOT comparing these treatments and heterogeneity between their CVOTs renders conventional indirect comparison inappropriate. Therefore, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to compare the effects of s.c. semaglutide and dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Individual patient data from SUSTAIN 6 were matched with aggregate data from REWIND, using a propensity score method to balance baseline effect-modifying patient characteristics. Hazard ratios (HRs) for three-point (3P) MACE (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke), anchored via placebo, were then indirectly compared between balanced populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main analysis. RESULTS: After matching, included effect modifiers were balanced. In the main analysis, s.c. semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant 35% reduction in 3P MACE versus placebo (HR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.48, 0.87]) and nonsignificantly greater reduction (26%) versus dulaglutide (HR, 0.74 [95% CI; 0.54, 1.01]). Results were supported by all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a statistically significant lower risk of 3P MACE for s.c. semaglutide versus placebo, in a population with lower prevalence of pre-existing CVD than that in the pre-specified primary analysis in SUSTAIN 6. Reduction in 3P MACE with s.c. semaglutide was greater than with dulaglutide, although not statistically significant.