Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide in Asian type 2 diabetes patients: a multi-institutional cohort study and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Head-to-head comparison of clinical effectiveness between dulaglutide and liraglutide in Asia is limited. This study was aimed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study by utilizing multi-institutional electronic medical records to identify real-world type 2 diabetes patients treated with dulaglutide or liraglutide during 2016-2018 in Taiwan and followed up until 2019. Effectiveness outcomes were assessed at every 3 months in the 1-year follow-up. Propensity score techniques were applied to enhance between-group comparability. Significant differences in changes of effectiveness outcomes between treatment groups during the follow-up were examined and further analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measures approaches. RESULTS:A total of 1512 subjects receiving dulaglutide and 1513 subjects receiving liraglutide were identified. At 12 months, significant HbA1c changes from baseline were found in both treatments (dulaglutide: -?1.06%, p?

SUBMITTER: Chang KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7547475 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide in Asian type 2 diabetes patients: a multi-institutional cohort study and meta-analysis.

Chang Kai-Cheng KC Shao Shih-Chieh SC Kuo Shihchen S Yang Chen-Yi CY Chen Hui-Yu HY Chan Yuk-Ying YY Ou Huang-Tz HT

Cardiovascular diabetology 20201009 1

<h4>Background</h4>Head-to-head comparison of clinical effectiveness between dulaglutide and liraglutide in Asia is limited. This study was aimed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospective cohort study by utilizing multi-institutional electronic medical records to identify real-world type 2 diabetes patients treated with dulaglutide or liraglutide during 2016-2018 in Taiwan and followed up until 2019. Effectiv ...[more]

PMID: 33036617

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOnce-weekly semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that has been associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus GLP-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release (ER), liraglutide and lixisenatide in the SUSTAIN trial program and a network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide versus all available GLP-1 receptor agonists in Denmark, using a clinically orientated treatment approach.MethodsOutcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the corresponding SUSTAIN trials and the NMA. Patients were assumed to initiate GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy and subsequently treatment-intensify according to clinical treatment guidelines, with addition of basal insulin and switching to basal-bolus insulin occurring when HbA1c exceeded recommended targets. Patients were assumed to receive a GLP-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin therapy once HbA1c levels reached 7.5% and a basal-bolus insulin regimen once HbA1c exceeded 8.0%. Costs were captured in 2017 Danish kroner (DKK), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum.ResultsPrimary analyses indicated that semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.34 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus dulaglutide, achieved at cost savings of DKK 289 and DKK 13,416, respectively. Supporting analyses indicated that both doses of semaglutide were either cost-effective or dominant versus exenatide ER, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg and lixisenatide.ConclusionSemaglutide represents a cost-effective alternative to other GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies available in Denmark, demonstrating clinical benefits versus dulaglutide, exenatide ER, liraglutide and lixisenatide for the treatment of patients with T2D.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:Background In cardiovascular outcome trials, the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide caused similar reductions in major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We compared clinical outcomes in routine clinical care. Methods and Results EMPLACE (Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes, and Mortality in Danish Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Who Initiate Empagliflozin Versus GLP-1RA: A Danish Nationwide Comparative Effectiveness Study) is an ongoing nationwide population-based comparative effectiveness cohort study in Denmark. For the present study, we included 14 498 new users of empagliflozin and 12 706 new users of liraglutide, 2015 to 2018. Co-primary outcomes were expanded major adverse cardiac events (stroke, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure [HHF], or all-cause death); HHF or all-cause death; and first HHF or first initiation of loop-diuretic therapy. Secondary outcomes included all-cause hospitalization or death. We applied propensity score balancing and Cox regression to compute adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) in on-treatment (OT) and intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. Cohorts were well balanced at baseline (median age 61 years, 59% men, diabetes mellitus duration 6.6 years, 30% with preexisting cardiovascular disease). During mean follow-up of 1.1 years in OT and 1.5 years in ITT analyses, empagliflozin versus liraglutide was associated with a similar rate of expanded major adverse cardiac events (OT aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14; ITT aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96-1.17), and HHF or all-cause death (OT aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.11; ITT aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); and a decreased rate of a first incident HHF or loop-diuretic initiation (OT aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94; ITT aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00), and of all-cause hospitalization or death (OT aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; ITT aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). Conclusions Empagliflozin and liraglutide initiators had comparable rates of expanded major adverse cardiac events, and HHF or all-cause death, whereas empagliflozin initiators had a lower rate of a first HHF or loop-diuretic initiation.

Project description:ObjectivesMetformin is the first-line therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes, but the majority require treatment intensification at some stage due to the progressive nature of the disease. The 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 trial showed that liraglutide exhibited greater improvements compared with sitagliptin in glycated hemoglobin and body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. As a follow-up to a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of 1.2 mg liraglutide versus sitagliptin in Spain, the aim of this analysis was to compare long-term projections of the clinical and cost implications associated with 1.8 mg liraglutide and sitagliptin.MethodsFor the modeling analysis, 52-week treatment effect data (as opposed to 26-week data in the previous analysis) were taken from the 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 trial, for adults with type 2 diabetes receiving 1.8 mg liraglutide or 100 mg sitagliptin daily in addition to metformin. Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2012 EUR) were made using a published and validated model of type 2 diabetes, with modeling assumptions as per the 1.2 mg liraglutide analysis.ResultsLiraglutide was associated with increased life expectancy (14.24 versus 13.87 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.24 versus 8.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] over sitagliptin. Improved clinical outcomes were attributable to the improvement in glycemic control, leading to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications, including renal disease, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmic and diabetic foot complications. Liraglutide was associated with increased direct costs (EUR 56,628 versus EUR 52,450), driven by increased pharmacy costs. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,436 per QALY gained versus sitagliptin.ConclusionsA previous analysis has suggested that 1.2 mg liraglutide is cost-effective from a healthcare payer perspective in Spain, and the present analysis suggests that the 1.8 mg dose is also likely to be cost-effective.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both added to basal insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.MethodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics cohort model for T2D was used to compare liraglutide and lixisenatide (both added to basal insulin), with a societal perspective and with comparative treatment effects derived by indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Drug prices were 2016 values, and all other costs 2015 values. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin was also assessed, under different sets of assumptions.ResultsFrom the ITC, decreases in HbA1c were -1.32% and -0.43% with liraglutide and lixisenatide, respectively; decreases in BMI were -1.29 and -0.65 kg/m2, respectively. An estimated 2348 cases of retinopathy, 265 of neuropathy and 991 of nephropathy would be avoided with liraglutide compared with lixisenatide in a cohort of 10,000 patients aged over 40 years. In the base-case analysis, total direct costs were higher with liraglutide than lixisenatide, but costs associated with complications were lower. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for liraglutide added to basal insulin was SEK30,802. Base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses, except when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) differences for liraglutide added to basal insulin were abolished, suggesting these benefits were driving the cost/QALY. With liraglutide 1.2 mg instead of liraglutide 1.8 mg (adjusted for efficacy and cost), liraglutide added to basal insulin was dominant over lixisenatide 20μg.IDegLira was dominant versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin when a defined daily dose was used in the model.ConclusionsThe costs/QALY for liraglutide, 1.8 or 1.2 mg, added to basal insulin, and for IDegLira (all compared with lixisenatide 20 μg added to basal insulin) were below the threshold considered low by Swedish authorities. In some scenarios, liraglutide and IDegLira were cost-saving.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide in Asian type 2 diabetes patients: a multi-institutional cohort study and meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide in Asian type 2 diabetes patients: a multi-institutional cohort study and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets