DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal–bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal–bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. Results: Degludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs. Conclusion: The present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal–bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia. Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16)

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in basal–bolus regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk based on the DEVOTE CV outcomes trial. Methods: A microsimulation model, informed by clinical outcomes from the subgroup of patients using basal–bolus insulin therapy in DEVOTE (NCT01959529) and by the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 risk equations, was used to model direct costs (2018 GBP) and effectiveness outcomes [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec versus glargine U100 over a 40-year time horizon. The model captured the development of eight diabetes-related complications, death, severe hypoglycemia and insulin dosing. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England. Results: Treatment with degludec versus glargine U100 in basal–bolus regimens was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a higher cost per patient [incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER): £14,956 GBP/QALY]. Degludec remained cost effective versus glargine U100 in all exploratory sensitivity analyses, with ICERs below the widely accepted willingness-to-pay threshold, although the result was most sensitive to assumptions regarding the persistence of treatment effects. Conclusions: Our long-term modeling analysis suggested that degludec was cost effective (from the perspective of NHS England) versus glargine U100 in basal–bolus regimens for patients with T2D at high CV risk. Our findings raise important questions regarding how to model the health economics of diabetes therapies

Myocardial Infarction Subtypes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Effect of Liraglutide Therapy (from the LEADER Trial)

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI); however, data regarding MI subtypes in people with diabetes are limited. In the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial (n = 9,340), liraglutide significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events (composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) versus placebo in patients with type 2 DM and high CV risk. Liraglutide also reduced risk of first MI (292 events with liraglutide vs 339 with placebo). This post hoc analysis characterized MIs (first and recurrent) occurring in LEADER, by treatment arm and regarding incidence, outcome, subtype, and troponin levels. A total of 780 MIs (first and recurrent) were reported, with fewer in the liraglutide-treatment group than in the placebo-treatment group (359 vs 421, p = 0.022). Numerically fewer MIs were associated with CV death with liraglutide than with placebo (17 vs 28 fatal MIs, p = 0.28). Symptomatic MIs in both arms were mainly non–ST-segment elevation MI (555/641) and spontaneous MI (518/641). Numerically greater proportions of symptomatic MIs were associated with troponin levels ≤5× or ≤10× the upper reference limit with liraglutide versus placebo (p = 0.16 and p = 0.42, respectively). At baseline, more liraglutide-treated patients than placebo-treated patients with MI during the trial had a history of coronary artery bypass graft (p = 0.008), and fewer had peripheral arterial disease in the lower extremities (p = 0.005) and >50% stenosis of the coronary artery, the carotid artery, or other arteries (p = 0.044). In conclusion, this analysis showed that liraglutide reduces the incidence of MIs in patients with type 2 DM at high CV risk and may impact the clinical outcomes of MI

Beyond the Cox Hazard Ratio: A Targeted Learning Approach to Survival Analysis in a Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Application

The Hazard Ratio (HR) is a well-established treatment effect measure in randomized trials involving right-censored time-to-events, and the Cardiovascular Outcome Trials (CVOTs) conducted since the FDA’s 2008 guidance have indeed largely evaluated excess risk by estimating a Cox HR. On the other hand, the limitations of the Cox model and of the HR as a causal estimand are well known, and the FDA’s updated 2020 CVOT guidance invites us to reassess this default approach to survival analyses. We highlight the shortcomings of Cox HR-based analyses and present an alternative following the causal roadmap—moving in a principled way from a counterfactual causal question to identifying a statistical estimand, and finally to targeted estimation in a large statistical model. We show in simulations the robustness of Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) to informative censoring and model misspecification and demonstrate a targeted learning analogue of the original Cox HR-based analysis of the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial. We discuss the potential reliability, interpretability, and efficiency gains to be had by updating our survival methods to incorporate the recent decades of advancements in formal causal frameworks and efficient nonparametricestimation

Cardiovascular safety and lower severe hypoglycaemia of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older: Results from DEVOTE (DEVOTE 7)

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe the risks of cardiovascular (CV) events and severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged 65 years or older. Materials and methods: A total of 7637 patients in the DEVOTE trial, a treat-to-target, randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the CV safety of degludec vs glargine U100, were divided into three age groups (50-64 years, n = 3682; 65-74 years, n = 3136; ≥75 years, n = 819). Outcomes by overall age group and randomized treatment differences were analysed for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events (SAEs). Results: Patients with increasing age had higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and there were non-significant trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia. Treatment effects on the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and SAEs were consistent across age groups, based on the non-significant interactions between treatment and age with regard to these outcomes. Conclusions: There were higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia with increasing age after adjusting for baseline differences. The effects across age groups of degludec vs glargine U100 on MACE, all-cause mortality and severe hypoglycaemia were comparable, suggesting that the risk of MACE, as well as all-cause mortality, is similar and the risk of severe hypoglycaemia is lower with degludec regardless of age. Evidence is conclusive only until 74 years of age

Development of a hypoglycaemia risk score to identify high-risk individuals with advanced type 2 diabetes in DEVOTE

Aims: The ability to differentiate patient populations with type 2 diabetes at high risk of severe hypoglycaemia could impact clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to develop a risk score, using patient characteristics, that could differentiate between populations with higher and lower 2-year risk of severe hypoglycaemia among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Materials and methods: Two models were developed for the risk score based on data from the DEVOTE cardiovascular outcomes trials. The first, a data-driven machine-learning model, used stepwise regression with bidirectional elimination to identify risk factors for severe hypoglycaemia. The second, a risk score based on known clinical risk factors accessible in clinical practice identified from the data-driven model, included: insulin treatment regimen; diabetes duration; sex; age; and glycated haemoglobin, all at baseline. Both the data-driven model and simple risk score were evaluated for discrimination, calibration and generalizability using data from DEVOTE, and were validated against the external LEADER cardiovascular outcomes trial dataset. Results: Both the data-driven model and the simple risk score discriminated between patients at higher and lower hypoglycaemia risk, and performed similarly well based on the time-dependent area under the curve index (0.63 and 0.66, respectively) over a 2-year time horizon. Conclusions: Both the data-driven model and the simple hypoglycaemia risk score were able to discriminate between patients at higher and lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia, the latter doing so using easily accessible clinical data. The implementation of such a tool (http://www.hyporiskscore.com/) may facilitate improved recognition of, and education about, severe hypoglycaemia risk, potentially improving patient care

Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)

Background EXSCEL is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining the effect of exenatide once-weekly (EQW) versus placebo on time to the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) risk. Methods Patients were enrolled at 688 sites in 35 countries. We describe their baseline characteristics according to prior CV event status and compare patients with those enrolled in prior glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) outcomes trials. Results Of a total of 14,752 participants randomized between June 2010 and September 2015, 6,788 (46.0%) patients were enrolled in Europe; 3,708 (25.1%), North America; 2,727 (18.5%), Latin America; and 1,529 (10.4%), Asia Pacific. Overall, 73% had at least one prior CV event (70% coronary artery disease, 24% peripheral arterial disease, 22% cerebrovascular disease). The median (IQR) age was 63 years (56, 69), 38% were female, median baseline HbA1c was 8.0% (7.3, 8.9) and 16% had a prior history of heart failure. Those without a prior CV event were younger with a shorter duration of diabetes and better renal function than those with at least one prior CV event. Compared with prior GLP-1RA trials, EXSCEL has a larger percentage of patients without a prior CV event and a notable percentage who were taking a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor at baseline (15%). Conclusions EXSCEL is one of the largest global GLP-1RA trials, evaluating the safety and efficacy of EQW with a broad patient population that may extend generalizability compared to prior GLP-1RA trials (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338)

Effects of liraglutide on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without history of myocardial infarction or stroke: Post hoc analysis from the leader trial

Background: The glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide reduced cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the LEADER trial (Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes). In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of liraglutide in those with and without a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and/or stroke. Methods: LEADER was a randomized trial of liraglutide (1.8 mg or maximum tolerated dose) versus placebo in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events). Risk groups in this post hoc analysis were defined by history of MI/stroke, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke, or cardiovascular risk factors alone. Results: Of the 9340 patients, 3692 (39.5%) had a history of MI/stroke, 3083 (33.0%) had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke, and 2565 (27.5%) had risk factors alone. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 18.8% of patients with a history of MI/stroke (incidence rate, 5.0 per 100 patient-years), 11.6% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke (incidence rate, 3.0 per 100 patient-years), and 9.8% of patients with cardiovascular risk factors alone (incidence rate, 2.6 per 100 patient-years). Liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with a history of MI/stroke (322 of 1865 [17.3%] versus 372 of 1827 patients [20.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99) and in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke (158 of 1538 [10.3%] versus 199 of 1545 patients [12.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94) compared with placebo. In patients with risk factors alone, the hazard ratio for liraglutide versus placebo was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84-1.38, Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for secondary outcomes across risk groups. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, liraglutide reduced cardiovascular outcomes both in patients with a history of MI/stroke and in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke. The cardiovascular effect appeared neutral in patients with cardiovascular risk factors alone

LEADER 7: cardiovascular risk profiles of US and European participants in the LEADER diabetes trial differ

AIMS: To determine whether US and European participants in the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of cardiovascular outcome Results (LEADER) trial differ regarding risk factors for cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. METHODS: Baseline data, stratified for prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), were compared using multivariable logistic regression analysis to establish whether region is an independent determinant of achieved targets for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol. RESULTS: Independent of CVD history, US participants were more often of non-White origin and had a longer history of type 2 diabetes, higher body weight, and higher baseline HbA1c. They had substantially lower systolic and diastolic BP, and a marginally lower LDL-cholesterol level. Fewer US participants were diagnosed with left ventricular dysfunction. In the largest group of patients, those with prior CVD and the highest cardiovascular risk, US participants were more often female, had a higher waist circumference, and had a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate, but less frequently prior myocardial infarction or angina pectoris. CONCLUSIONS: There were baseline differences between US and European participants. These differences may result from variation in regional targets for cardiovascular risk factor management, and should be considered in the analysis and reporting of the trial results. Clinical trial identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01179048