Cardiovascular outcomes and healthcare costs of liraglutide versus basal insulin for type 2 diabetes patients at high cardiovascular risk.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang WC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7809152 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cardiovascular outcomes and healthcare costs of liraglutide versus basal insulin for type 2 diabetes patients at high cardiovascular risk.
Huang Wan-Chun WC Chen Yen-Chou YC Wu Chung-Hsuen CH Ko Yu Y
Scientific reports 20210114 1
We aimed to compare the (1) clinical outcomes including composite cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, and (2) healthcare costs of using liraglutide and basal insulin as an initial treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and high cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk. This is a retrospective cohort study using Taiwan's Health and Welfare Database. A total of 1057 patients treated with liraglutide were identified and matched with 4600 patients treat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. METHODS:In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo group (694 of 4672 [14.9%]) (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). Fewer patients died from cardiovascular causes in the liraglutide group (219 patients [4.7%]) than in the placebo group (278 [6.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.007). The rate of death from any cause was lower in the liraglutide group (381 patients [8.2%]) than in the placebo group (447 [9.6%]) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure were nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. The most common adverse events leading to the discontinuation of liraglutide were gastrointestinal events. The incidence of pancreatitis was nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS:In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and the National Institutes of Health; LEADER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01179048.).
| S-EPMC4985288 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5800677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this post hoc analysis we investigated the effects of insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus comparators on cardiovascular (CV) risk markers in participants in the DUAL II (vs. insulin degludec), DUAL V (vs. insulin glargine 100 units/mL) and DUAL VII (vs. basal-bolus therapy) trials, grouped by sex, age (<65 years, ≥65 years) and diabetes duration (<10 years, ≥10 years). Treatment contrasts were in favour of IDegLira in many subgroups for changes from baseline in glycated haemoblogin (DUAL II, DUAL V), body weight (all three trials), systolic blood pressure (BP; all three trials), HDL cholesterol (DUAL VII) and LDL cholesterol (DUAL II, DUAL V). Higher heart rates were seen with IDegLira versus comparators (all three trials) plus significantly higher diastolic BP in men (DUAL V). Differences in treatment effect were seen between sexes in waist circumference (DUAL II), systolic BP (DUAL II, DUAL V) and triglycerides (DUAL VII), and between diabetes durations in LDL cholesterol (DUAL V). In conclusion, IDegLira is associated with a general improvement in CV risk markers compared with basal insulin or basal-bolus therapy after 26 weeks of treatment.
| S-EPMC6593827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveOur objectives were to describe the basal insulin treatment regimens most widely used in a real-world setting in France and to estimate the associated treatment costs in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted (November 2017-February 2018) among adult patients with T2DM requiring basal insulin therapy for their own use in a representative sample of pharmacies. Costs were compared between patients treated with three recently marketed insulins (glargine 300 U/ml [Gla-300], biosimilar glargine 100 U/ml [Gla-100] and a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) and those treated with three established basal or intermediate insulins: branded glargine 100 U/ml, insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin [NPH]).ResultsOverall, 1933 patients were analysed. Gla-300 accounted for 59.9% of novel basal insulin prescriptions, and branded Gla-100 accounted for 67.9% of established insulin prescriptions. Recent insulins were more frequently associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues. Results confirmed a lower rate of severe hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than with Gla-100. On average, weekly total costs of treatment with all basal insulins were not significantly different, except with detemir, where they were higher.ConclusionNew basal insulins are expected to be integrated into clinical practice. This analysis shows that their use does not impact upon the management cost of insulin therapy in people with T2DM.
| S-EPMC8160062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis research compares costs, resource utilization, and complications between adherent and nonadherent patients over the 3-year period post initiation on basal insulin therapy.MethodsThe study utilized the US-based Truven Health MarketScan® Research Databases from 2011 through 2015. Adults aged 18 years or older and identified with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated therapy on basal insulin in 2012 were included. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, filled their index basal insulin prescription via mail order, or were not continuously insured from 1 year before through 3 years following initiation of treatment with basal insulin. Instrumental variables were used to control for selection bias, and multivariable analyses were used to examine the associations between adherence to basal insulin therapy and costs, resource utilization, and acute complications.ResultsA total of 21,363 individuals were included in the study. Three years after initiating therapy on basal insulin, patients who were adherent over time to basal insulin treatment therapy (33.8% of patients) had significantly higher diabetes-related drug costs. However, patients' adherence was associated with significantly lower diabetes-related outpatient, acute care, and total costs. Results for all-cause costs were similar. Adherent patients also had significantly fewer all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits and were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with an acute complication.ConclusionsResults of this study illustrate that despite higher drug costs, there are disease-specific and all-cause cost offsets and improved patient outcomes associated with adherence to basal insulin therapy for people with T2D.FundingEli Lilly and Company.
| S-EPMC5984924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo compare, in a double-blind, randomized, multi-national study, 52- or 78-week treatment with basal insulin peglispro or insulin glargine, added to pre-study oral antihyperglycaemic medications, in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes.Material and methodsThe primary outcome was non-inferiority of peglispro to glargine with regard to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (margin = 0.4%). Six gated secondary objectives with statistical multiplicity adjustments focused on other measures of glycaemic control and safety. Liver fat content was measured using MRI, in a subset of patients.ResultsPeglispro was non-inferior to glargine in HbA1c reduction [least-squares (LS) mean difference: -0.29%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40, -0.19], and had a lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate [relative rate 0.74 (95% CI 0.60, 0.91); p = .005), more patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% without nocturnal hypoglycaemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.15 (95% CI 1.60, 2.89); p < .001], greater HbA1c reduction (p < .001), and more patients achieving HbA1c<7.0% [OR 1.97 (95% CI 1.57, 2.47); p < .001]. Total hypoglycaemia rate and fasting serum glucose did not achieve statistical superiority. At 52 weeks, peglispro-treated patients had higher triglyceride (1.9 vs 1.7 mmol/L). alanine transaminase (34 vs 27 IU/L), and aspartate transaminase levels (27 vs 24 IU/L). LS mean liver fat content was unchanged with peglispro at 52 weeks but decreased 3.1% with glargine [difference: 2.6% (0.9, 4.2); p = .002]. More peglispro-treated patients experienced adverse injection site reactions (3.5% vs 0.6%, p < .001).ConclusionsCompared with glargine at 52 weeks, peglispro resulted in a statistically superior reduction in HbA1c, more patients achieving HbA1c targets, less nocturnal hypoglycaemia, no improvement in total hypoglycaemia, higher triglyceride levels, higher aminotransferase levels, and more injection site reactions.
| S-EPMC5096014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:To assess whether people with type 2 diabetes transferring from higher basal insulin doses (> 20 units) to a starting dose of 16 units of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) benefit from IDegLira with/without transient loss of glycaemic control. METHODS:Post hoc analysis of DUAL V and VII assessed fasting self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) over weeks 1-8, changes in HbA1c, body weight and mean insulin dose over 26 weeks, and percentage of participants achieving HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) by end of trial in participants with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with basal insulin. IDegLira was compared with continued up-titration of insulin glargine (IGlar U100) in DUAL V, or switching to basal-bolus therapy in DUAL VII (IGlar U100 and insulin aspart), across pre-trial insulin dose groups (20-29, 30-39 and 40-50 units/day). RESULTS:In all subgroups, participants treated with IDegLira experienced significant improvements in HbA1c by end of trial, which were greater than with IGlar U100 up-titration (estimated treatment difference -5.86, -6.59 and -6.91 mmol/mol for pre-trial insulin doses of 20-29, 30-39 and 40-50 units/day, respectively) and similar to basal-bolus therapy (estimated treatment difference -0.16, -1.0 and -0.01 mmol/mol for pre-trial insulin doses of 20-29, 30-39 and 40-50 units/day, respectively). Compared with IGlar U100 and basal-bolus therapy, IDegLira participants experienced weight loss vs. weight gain, lower rates of hypoglycaemia and a lower mean end of trial total daily insulin dose. In both trials, mean fasting SMBG decreased from weeks 1 to 8 across all subgroups, despite a temporary increase in mean fasting SMBG in the 40-50 units pre-trial insulin dose group during week 1 [mean increase (sd) +1.1 (2.0) mmol/l for DUAL V and +1.1 (2.1) mmol/l for DUAL VII], which reverted to baseline by week 4. CONCLUSIONS:Regardless of pre-trial insulin dose, IDegLira resulted in improved clinical outcomes, even in participants transferring from 40-50 units of basal insulin, despite a transient (< 4 weeks), clinically non-relevant, elevation in pre-breakfast SMBG. (Clinical Trial Registry Number NCT01952145 and NCT02420262).
| S-EPMC7003817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo identify possible differences in cardiovascular (CV) risk among different insulin therapies, we performed pre-specified meta-analyses across the clinical program for basal insulin peglispro (BIL), in patients randomized to treatment with BIL or comparator insulin [glargine (IG) or NPH].MethodsOne phase 2 (12-week) and 6 phase 3 (26 to 78-week) randomized studies of BIL compared to IG or NPH, in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, were included. The participants were diverse with respect to demographics, baseline glycemic control, and concomitant disease or medications, but treatment groups were comparable in each study. For any potential CV or neurovascular event, relevant medical information was provided to a blinded external clinical events committee (C5Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA) for adjudication. Cox regression analysis was used to compare treatment groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of adjudicated MACE+ [CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina].ResultsThe pooled population included 5862 patients in the safety evaluation, with randomization to BIL:IG:NPH of 3578:2072:212. Mean age was 54.1 years, 27 % had type 1 diabetes, 56 % were male, and 88 % were white. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including use of statins or other lipid-lowering drugs, were comparable between BIL and comparators. A total of 83 patients experienced at least 1 MACE+ and 70 patients experienced at least 1 MACE (CV death, MI, or stroke). Overall, there were no treatment-associated differences in time to MACE+ [hazard ratio (HR) for BIL versus comparator insulin (95 % CI): 0.82 (0.53-1.27)] or MACE [0.83 (0.51-1.33)]. In 4297 patients with type 2 diabetes, there were 71 MACE+ events [HR: 1.02 (95 % CI: 0.63-1.65), p = 0.94]. In 1565 patients with type 1 diabetes, there were only 12 MACE+ [0.24 (0.07-0.85), p = 0.027]. There were no differences in all-cause death between BIL and comparators. Sub-group analyses did not identify any sub-population with increased risk with BIL versus comparator insulins.ConclusionsTreatment with BIL versus comparator insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes was not associated with increased risk for major CV events in the studies analyzed.
| S-EPMC4869328 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHypoglycemia and fear of hypoglycemia may contribute to basal insulin discontinuation, poor glycemic control, and increased healthcare burden in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to determine the impact of hypoglycemia soon after basal insulin initiation on treatment discontinuation and economic outcomes in patients with T2D.MethodsHypoglycemic events within 6 months of basal insulin initiation were identified using retrospective cohort data from patients with T2D, at least 18 years of age, initiated on basal insulin therapy in the Clinformatics™ Data Mart for Multiplan claims database from January 1, 2008, through August 31, 2012. Data were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Discontinuation was established for patients with 12-month follow-up data, while discontinuation risk was assessed in the extended analysis (6- to 24-month follow-up) by Cox regression analysis. Healthcare use and costs were determined.ResultsOf 55,608 patients, 4.5% experienced hypoglycemia within 6 months of basal insulin initiation. Patients with hypoglycemia were more likely to discontinue basal insulin within 12 months of initiation (79.0% vs. 74.2%; P < 0.001). Data, adjusted for baseline characteristics such as age, any baseline hypoglycemia, and use of oral antidiabetes drugs, showed that patients with hypoglycemia had a greater risk of discontinuation (hazard ratio 1.16; 95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.32; P = 0.0164), were more likely to have a hospitalization (41.0% vs. 24.3%; P < 0.001) or an ED visit (55.8% vs. 35.1%; P < 0.001), and had higher diabetes-related ($13,662 vs. $7506; P < 0.001) and all-cause ($30,719 vs. $19,079; P < 0.001) healthcare costs.ConclusionsUS patients with T2D who experienced hypoglycemia within 6 months of basal insulin initiation were more likely to discontinue treatment, accompanied by a greater healthcare burden.FundingSanofi US, Inc.
| S-EPMC5599444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLiraglutide is a novel, long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the cardiovascular safety and benefits of liraglutide treatment on type 2 diabetes patients remain in debate. In this study, we aimed to examine the overall cardiovascular outcomes of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases up to September 1st, 2017 for randomized trials in which type 2 diabetes patients were assigned to liraglutide and placebo or other comparators groups.ResultsEight studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for inclusion and 14,608 patients were analyzed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. We found patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR?=?0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.96, P?=?.002), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (RR?=?0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.99, P?=?.036), all-cause death (RR?=?0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96, P?=?.009), and cardiovascular death (RR?=?0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.91, P?=?.002) than all comparator groups. However, liraglutide treatment did not decrease incidence of stroke (RR?=?0.86, 95% CI: 0.70-1.04, P?=?.124). But among the MACE subgroups analysis, a significant reduction of MACE with liraglutide was only observed in placebo-controlled trials (RR?=?0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.96, P?=?.004) but not in studies concerning other comparators (RR?=?0.58, 95% CI: 0.29-1.16, P?=?.122).ConclusionsIn conclusion, our results suggest that liraglutide treatment decreases the risk of MACE, AMI, all-cause death and cardiovascular death among patients with type 2 diabetes.
| S-EPMC6867782 | biostudies-literature