Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Objective: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin. Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions. Methods: Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers. Results: We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP). Limitations: There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Treatment of anorexia nervosa:A multimethod investigation translating experimental neuroscience into clinical practice

Background Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a severe psychiatric condition and evidence on how to best treat it is limited. Objectives This programme consists of seven integrated work packages (WPs) and aims to develop and test disseminable and cost-effective treatments to optimise management for people with AN across all stages of illness. Methods WP1a used surveys, focus groups and a pre–post trial to develop and evaluate a training programme for school staff on eating disorders (EDs). WP1b used a randomised controlled trial (RCT) [International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 42594993] to evaluate a prevention programme for EDs in schools. WP2a evaluated an inpatient treatment for AN using case reports, interviews and a quasi-experimental trial. WP2b used a RCT (ISRCTN67720902) to evaluate two outpatient psychological therapies for AN. WP3 used a RCT (ISRCTN06149665) to evaluate an intervention for carers of inpatients with AN. WP4 used actimetry, self-report and endocrine assessment to examine physical activity (PA) in AN. WP5 conducted a RCT (ISRCTN18274621) of an e-mail-guided relapse prevention programme for inpatients with AN. WP6 analysed cohort data to examine the effects of maternal EDs on fertility and their children’s diet and growth. WP7a examined clinical case notes to explore how access to specialist ED services affects care pathways and user experiences. Finally, WP7b used data from this programme and the British Cohort Study (1970) to identify the costs of services used by people with AN and to estimate annual costs of AN for England. Results WP1a: a brief training programme improved knowledge, attitudes and confidence of school staff in managing EDs in school. WP1b: a teacher-delivered intervention was feasible and improved risk factors for EDs in adolescent girls. WP2a: both psychological therapies improved outcomes in outpatients with AN similarly, but patients preferred one of the treatments. WP2b: the inpatient treatment (Cognitive Remediation and Emotional Skills Training) was acceptable with perceived benefits by patients, but showed no benefits compared with treatment as usual (TAU). WP3: compared with TAU, the carer intervention improved a range of patient and carer outcomes, including carer burden and patient ED symptomatology. WP4: drive to exercise is tied to ED pathology and a desire to improve mood in AN patients. PA was not increased in these patients. WP5: compared with TAU, the e-mail-guided relapse prevention programme resulted in higher body mass index and lower distress in patients at 12 months after discharge. WP6: women with an ED had impaired fertility and their children had altered dietary and growth patterns compared with the children of women without an ED. WP7a: direct access to specialist ED services was associated with higher referral rates, lower admission rates, greater consistency of care and user satisfaction. WP7b: the annual costs of AN in England are estimated at between £45M and £230M for 2011. Conclusions This programme has produced evidence to inform future intervention development and has developed interventions that can be disseminated to improve outcomes for individuals with AN. Directions for future research include RCTs with longer-term outcomes and sufficient power to examine mediators and moderators of change. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42594993, ISRCTN67720902, ISRCTN06149665 and ISRCTN18274621