Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Current guidelines recommend adding an oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on metformin. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that adding dual AHAs instead of a single AHA provided more effective glycemic control. However, the comparative efficacy of approved single and dual initiation strategies is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of dual and single add-on oral AHAs in patients uncontrolled on metformin.

Methods

A systematic literature review of RCTs was conducted following Cochrane and ISPOR guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 19, 2019. Approved oral doses of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in single or dual initiation therapies were indirectly compared. Outcomes focused on efficacy and included mean change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and achieving HbA1c target?ResultsOf 1955 unique records screened, 25 RCTs (14,264 participants) were included. In patients uncontrolled on metformin, dual AHA added to metformin had statistically significant or a trend of greater reduction in HbA1c compared to single AHAs, with ertugliflozin?+?sitagliptin showing the greatest improvement. Statistically significant reductions in weight and SBP were observed with ertugliflozin?+?sitagliptin, ertugliflozin, or canagliflozin compared to single initiation DPP-4 inhibitors.

Conclusion

For reduction of HbA1c, weight, and SBP in patients uncontrolled on metformin, add-on dual AHAs showed greater improvement compared to single AHAs. These findings can further inform the treatment of T2DM patients uncontrolled on metformin.

SUBMITTER: Lautsch D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7843850 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Lautsch Dominik D Alsumali Adnan A McLeod Euan E Kuang Yuting Y He Jing J Singh Rajpal R Nevo Arianna A Arnet Urs U Uyei Jennifer J Rajpathak Swapnil S

Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders 20201212 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Current guidelines recommend adding an oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on metformin. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that adding dual AHAs instead of a single AHA provided more effective glycemic control. However, the comparative efficacy of approved single and dual initiation strategies is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the e ...[more]

PMID: 33313996

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of vildagliptin alone or with metformin is well established by randomized trials, but it is unknown whether it can be extrapolated to the real-world setting in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin add-on to metformin versus dual oral antidiabetes drug (OAD), non-vildagliptin combination therapies in real-world Chinese patients with T2DM.MethodsThe China Prospective Diabetes Study was a post-marketing, prospective, multicenter, observational, real-world study conducted in 52 centers. Patients inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy and who initiated vildagliptin add-on to metformin (VM cohort) or two OADs other than vildagliptin (comparator cohort) were included for the present analysis. The composite primary endpoint was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) < 7% and without tolerability events (hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 3%, or discontinuation due to gastrointestinal events) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change in HbA1c from baseline, subgroup analysis, and tolerability. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for baseline covariates imbalance (body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c).ResultsA total of 604 patients received VM and 670 received comparator therapy. Patients who received VM were younger, more obese, and had a higher baseline HbA1c and a shorter duration of T2DM. After propensity score matching, there were 530 patients per cohort. After 12-month treatment, the success rates of the composite primary endpoint were 50.9% and 33.0% in the VM and comparator cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001; odds ratio = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64-2.70). Furthermore, the success rates of the composite endpoint were higher with VM across geographic area, BMI, and baseline HbA1c subgroups. Fewer tolerability events occurred in the VM cohort versus the comparator cohort (8.3% vs. 16.2%, P < 0.001; relative risk = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.72).ConclusionCompared with dual OAD non-vildagliptin combination therapies, vildagliptin add-on to metformin is effective and safe to achieve glycemic control in Chinese patients with T2DM.FundingNovartis.

Project description:IntroductionInternational and Danish guidelines recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors already in second line in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (CE) of subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide (GLP-1 RA) versus empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor) in individuals with T2D uncontrolled on metformin alone from a Danish payer's perspective.MethodsCost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were conducted from a Danish payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model (CDM 9.5), with a time horizon of 50 years and an annual discount of 4% on costs and effects. Patients received either SC semaglutide or empagliflozin, in addition to metformin, until HbA1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was reached, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or SC semaglutide plus metformin was considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published CEA. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were also obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from Danish official sources. Scenario analyses were also performed to test the accuracy of the base case results.ResultsIndividuals with T2D on SC semaglutide plus metformin gained 0.065 life-years (LYs) and 0.130 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), respectively, at an incremental cost of DKK 96,923 (€ 13,031) compared to empagliflozin plus metformin, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DKK 745,561(€ 100,239) per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results showed that the SC semaglutide plus metformin was cost-effective in 19% of simulations assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of DKK 357,100 (€ 48,011)/QALY gained. Duration of therapy with SC semaglutide seems the key driver of results.ConclusionThe current analyses suggest that SC semaglutide plus metformin is not cost-effective compared to empagliflozin plus metformin from a Danish payer's perspective.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:It is important to capture the patient experience with a diabetes treatment in clinical trials; however, use of instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in diabetes trials is inconsistent and results may not be reported alongside primary efficacy data. In lieu of head-to-head data, indirect comparisons can be used to compare competing interventions. In this study, we used indirect comparison methods to assess differences in PRO score changes between canagliflozin and other antihyperglycemic agents as add-on to metformin. METHODS:Literature searches were performed to identify studies that reported the same PRO instruments that were collected across four trials of canagliflozin in dual or triple therapy. Extensive searches identified only one study that was sufficiently similar in design and reported common PRO results using the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQoL-Lite): the DURATION-2 study of exenatide once-weekly (QW) versus sitagliptin and pioglitazone. This study was compared with the CANTATA-D study of canagliflozin versus sitagliptin. Bayesian indirect comparisons were performed to assess mean change in IWQoL-Lite total score. A fixed-effects model with noninformative priors was used to estimate between-treatment differences. Sensitivity analyses examined differences in trial populations. RESULTS:In the primary analysis, the probability that canagliflozin treatment results in greater improvement in IWQoL-Lite total score versus exenatide, sitagliptin, and pioglitazone was 60.0%, 89.9%, and 99.5%, respectively. When the CANTATA-D population was restricted using DURATION-2 inclusion/exclusion criteria, canagliflozin was also associated with a higher probability of having greater improvement in IWQoL-Lite than exenatide, sitagliptin, and pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that improvements in the impact of weight on health-related quality of life may be greater with canagliflozin than exenatide, sitagliptin, and pioglitazone. This analysis also demonstrates the application of indirect comparison methodology to PRO data and provides examples of advantages and challenges associated with performing indirect comparisons of PRO data.

Project description:IntroductionENDURE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00856284), a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study of 2639 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), found that metformin in combination with alogliptin (12.5 and 25 mg doses), when compared to standard add-on therapy (sulfonylurea, SU), exerted sustained antihyperglycemic effects over 2 years. This economic analysis of ENDURE aimed to quantify the relationship between increased glycemic durability and cost-effectiveness of alogliptin in the UK clinical setting, and communicate its sustained glycemic benefit in economic terms.MethodsUsing baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the ENDURE trial population, between-group cost-effectiveness analyses compared the combined use of metformin and alogliptin (MET + ALO12.5/25) in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM, as an alternative to metformin and SU (MET + SU). In scenario analyses, an intragroup cost-effectiveness analysis compared MET + ALO12.5/25 with MET + SU; a between-group cost-effectiveness analysis also compared MET + ALO12.5/25 versus MET + SU within a subpopulation of patients who achieved HbA1c control (<7.5%) at 2 years on study drug.ResultsCompared with baseline profiles of patients, combination therapies with alogliptin or SU were associated with improvements in length and quality of life and were cost-effective at established norms. Despite increased drug acquisition costs, alogliptin at 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses resulted in greater predicted lifetime quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains with associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £10,959/QALY and £7217/QALY compared to SU, respectively.ConclusionThe ENDURE trial and the present cost-effectiveness analysis found that the glycemic durability of alogliptin therapy was associated with improved long-term patient outcomes, QALY gains, and ICERs that were cost-effective when evaluated against standard threshold values. Alogliptin therefore represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to SU as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with poorly managed T2DM.FundingTakeda Development Centre Europe Ltd.

Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets