Dataset Information

Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection.

Results

Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.01), except the comparison between oral semaglutide and the dulaglutide injection (p = 0.49).

Conclusions

Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings.

SUBMITTER: Matza LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8233232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with exenatide b.i.d. first approved to treat type 2 diabetes in 2005 have been further developed to yield effective compounds/preparations that have overcome the original problem of rapid elimination (short half-life), initially necessitating short intervals between injections (twice daily for exenatide b.i.d.).Scope of reviewTo summarize current knowledge about GLP-1 receptor agonist.Major conclusionsAt present, GLP-1 RAs are injected twice daily (exenatide b.i.d.), once daily (lixisenatide and liraglutide), or once weekly (exenatide once weekly, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide). A daily oral preparation of semaglutide, which has demonstrated clinical effectiveness close to the once-weekly subcutaneous preparation, was recently approved. All GLP-1 RAs share common mechanisms of action: augmentation of hyperglycemia-induced insulin secretion, suppression of glucagon secretion at hyper- or euglycemia, deceleration of gastric emptying preventing large post-meal glycemic increments, and a reduction in calorie intake and body weight. Short-acting agents (exenatide b.i.d., lixisenatide) have reduced effectiveness on overnight and fasting plasma glucose, but maintain their effect on gastric emptying during long-term treatment. Long-acting GLP-1 RAs (liraglutide, once-weekly exenatide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide) have more profound effects on overnight and fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, both on a background of oral glucose-lowering agents and in combination with basal insulin. Effects on gastric emptying decrease over time (tachyphylaxis). Given a similar, if not superior, effectiveness for HbA1c reduction with additional weight reduction and no intrinsic risk of hypoglycemic episodes, GLP-1RAs are recommended as the preferred first injectable glucose-lowering therapy for type 2 diabetes, even before insulin treatment. However, GLP-1 RAs can be combined with (basal) insulin in either free- or fixed-dose preparations. More recently developed agents, in particular semaglutide, are characterized by greater efficacy with respect to lowering plasma glucose as well as body weight. Since 2016, several cardiovascular (CV) outcome studies have shown that GLP-1 RAs can effectively prevent CV events such as acute myocardial infarction or stroke and associated mortality. Therefore, guidelines particularly recommend treatment with GLP-1 RAs in patients with pre-existing atherosclerotic vascular disease (for example, previous CV events). The evidence of similar effects in lower-risk subjects is not quite as strong. Since sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor treatment reduces CV events as well (with the effect mainly driven by a reduction in heart failure complications), the individual risk of ischemic or heart failure complications should guide the choice of treatment. GLP-1 RAs may also help prevent renal complications of type 2 diabetes. Other active research areas in the field of GLP-1 RAs are the definition of subgroups within the type 2 diabetes population who particularly benefit from treatment with GLP-1 RAs. These include pharmacogenomic approaches and the characterization of non-responders. Novel indications for GLP-1 RAs outside type 2 diabetes, such as type 1 diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, and psoriasis, are being explored. Thus, within 15 years of their initial introduction, GLP-1 RAs have become a well-established class of glucose-lowering agents that has the potential for further development and growing impact for treating type 2 diabetes and potentially other diseases.

Project description:ImportanceDespite its demonstrated benefits in improving cardiovascular risk profiles, the association of tirzepatide with mortality and cardiovascular and kidney outcomes compared with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) remains unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of tirzepatide with mortality and adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes compared with GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used US Collaborative Network of TriNetX data collected on individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years or older initiating tirzepatide or GLP-1 RA between June 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023; without stage 5 chronic kidney disease or kidney failure at baseline; and without myocardial infarction or ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke within 60 days of drug initiation.ExposuresTreatment with tirzepatide compared with GLP-1 RA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), the composite of MACEs and all-cause mortality, kidney events, acute kidney injury, and major adverse kidney events. All outcomes were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression models.ResultsThere were 14 834 patients treated with tirzepatide (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [11.8] years; 8444 [56.9%] female) and 125 474 treated with GLP-1 RA (mean [SD] age, 58.1 [13.3] years; 67 474 [53.8%] female). After a median (IQR) follow-up of 10.5 (5.2-15.7) months, 95 patients (0.6%) in the tirzepatide group and 166 (1.1%) in the GLP-1 RA group died. Tirzepatide treatment was associated with lower hazards of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75), MACEs (AHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91), the composite of MACEs and all-cause mortality (AHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84), kidney events (AHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.73), acute kidney injury (AHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88), and major adverse kidney events (AHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.67). Treatment with tirzepatide was associated with greater decreases in glycated hemoglobin (treatment difference, -0.34 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.24 percentage points) and body weight (treatment difference, -2.9 kg, 95% CI, -4.8 to -1.1 kg) compared with GLP-1 RA. An interaction test for subgroup analysis revealed consistent results stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate, glycated hemoglobin level, body mass index, comedications, and comorbidities.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, treatment with tirzepatide was associated with lower hazards of all-cause mortality, adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, and adverse kidney events compared with GLP-1 RA in patients with type 2 diabetes. These findings support the integration of tirzepatide into therapeutic strategies for this population.

Project description:AimsThe size of the placebo response in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treatment and its relation to the route of drug administration have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to determine weight loss, change in HbA1c and incidence of adverse events after treatment with injectable placebo GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1ra), compared with oral placebo DPP-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) and placebo SGLT-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and Central were searched up to September 2014 for randomized placebo controlled trials investigating GLP-1ra, DPP-4i or SGLT2-i. Data on placebo groups were extracted and pooled using a generic inverse variance random effects model.ResultsSixty-seven trials were included, involving 2522, 5290 and 2028 patients randomized to placebo GLP-1ra, placebo DPP-4i and placebo SGLT-2i, respectively. Body weight decreased by -0.67 kg (95% CI -1.03, -0.31) after treatment with placebo GLP-1ra (-0.76 kg [95% CI -1.10, -0.43] with placebo short acting GLP-1ra and -0.32 kg [95% CI -1.75, 1.10] with placebo long acting GLP-1ra) and by -0.31 kg (95% CI -0.64, 0.01) with placebo DPP-4i (P = 0.06 for difference with placebo short acting GLP-1ra). Placebo SGLT-2i resulted in an intermediate -0.48 kg (95% CI -0.81, -0.15) weight loss. Weight loss with placebo showed a strong correlation with the active comparator drug (r(2) = 0.40-0.78). HbA1c changed little with placebo treatment (-0.23%, 0.10% and -0.13% for placebo GLP-1ra, DPP-4i and SGLT-2i). Adverse events occurred frequently with placebo, were often similar to the active comparator drug and led to drop-out in 2.0-2.7% of cases.ConclusionsThe response to placebo treatment was related to its active comparator, with injectable placebo GLP-1ra showing a relevant response on weight, whereas oral placebo DPP4i showed no significant response. These findings may suggest that subjective expectations influence T2DM treatment efficacy, which can possibly be employed therapeutically.

Project description:IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) approved to date are administered by injection; therefore, patient perceptions of an oral GLP-1 RA are unknown. This discrete choice experiment explored preferences for (unbranded) oral and injectable GLP-1 RA profiles among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsAn online survey was designed using literature review and qualitative interview findings, and administered to Japanese patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥ 7.0% receiving oral antiglycaemic medication (with no experience of injectable antiglycaemic medication). Therapy profiles were created using Japanese head-to-head trial data for orally administered semaglutide (7 mg and 14 mg), injectable dulaglutide (0.75 mg), and injectable liraglutide (0.9 mg). Profiles were not labelled. Choice tasks tested preference between hypothetical profiles, preference between profiles with actual trial data, and willingness to initiate treatment. Relative importance of attributes was determined using conditional logit regression.ResultsA total of 500 respondents were analysed: mean age 61.2 years; 93.8% male; mean HbA1c 7.6%; 78.2% with HbA1c ≥ 7.0 to < 8%; 89% with HbA1c above personal target. Mean BMI was 25.4 kg/m2; 49% had obesity (≥ 25 kg/m2). The treatment attribute with greatest importance was mode and frequency of administration (49.1%), followed by nausea risk (30.8%), weight change (11.3%), and HbA1c change (8.8%). Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg-like profiles were both preferred: the 7 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 91.0% of respondents) and liraglutide (by 89.4%); the 14 mg-like profile was preferred over dulaglutide (by 88.2%) and liraglutide (by 94.4%). Willingness to initiate treatment was also higher for orally administered semaglutide-like profiles: 62.4% with 7 mg and 64.0% with 14 mg, versus 13.6% and 11.0% with injectable GLP-1 RA-like profiles. Subgroup results were generally consistent with the overall sample.ConclusionJapanese patients with T2D appear to prefer oral GLP-1 RA profiles over injectable GLP-1 RA profiles, and administration appears to be the most important factor in this decision. This highlights the unmet need for an effective and orally administered GLP-1 RA for the treatment of T2D in Japan.