The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): resource use and costs of treatment in clinical practice in France, Germany, and Italy.

AIMS: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs after initiation of injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy by adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the prospective, observational, 24-month TROPHIES study in France, Germany, and Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HCRU data for cost calculations were collected by treating physicians during patient interviews at baseline and follow-up visits approximately 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after GLP-1 RA initiation with once-weekly dulaglutide or once-daily liraglutide. Costs were evaluated from the national healthcare system (third-party payer) perspective and updated to 2018 prices. RESULTS: In total, 2,005 patients were eligible for the HCRU analysis (1,014 dulaglutide; 991 liraglutide). Baseline patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups and countries. The largest proportions of patients using ≥2 oral glucose-lowering medications (GLMs) at baseline (42.9-43.4%) and month 24 (44.0-45.1%) and using another injectable GLM at month 24 (15.3-23.2%) were in France. Mean numbers of primary and secondary healthcare contacts during each assessment period were highest in France (range = 4.0-10.7) and Germany (range = 2.9-5.7), respectively. The greatest proportions (≥60%) of mean annualized costs per patient comprised medication costs. Mean annualized HCRU costs per patient varied by treatment cohort and country: the highest levels were in the liraglutide cohort in France (€909) and the dulaglutide cohort in Germany (€883). LIMITATIONS: Limitations included exclusion of patients using insulin at GLP-1 RA initiation and collection of HCRU data by physician, not via patient-completed diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world HCRU and costs associated with the treatment of adults with T2D with two GLP-1 RAs in TROPHIES emphasize the need to avoid generalization with respect to HCRU and costs associated with a particular therapy when estimating the impact of a new treatment in a country-specific setting.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have become frequent treatments of hyperglycemia in type-2 diabetes (T2D). Not all types of clinical study provide information about the cost of these treatments or the effects they might have on use of other medicines and equipment to control T2D or the need for visits to a doctor or nurse and different types of treatment in hospital. This study collected this information during the regular care of adults in France, Germany, or Italy who were prescribed either dulaglutide or liraglutide (both types of GLP-1 RAs) by their family doctor or a specialist in T2D. There were differences in costs and the need for other medicines and medical services between people using either dulaglutide or liraglutide and for people who were using the same GLP-1 RA in each of the three countries. The information from this study could be used to more accurately understand the overall costs and medical care needed when patients use dulaglutide or liraglutide in France, Germany, or Italy.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Final patient-reported outcomes at 24 months.

AIM: To report health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM) with two commonly prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) from the prospective, observational TROPHIES study (The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients). MATERIALS AND METHODS: TROPHIES was a two-cohort, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany and Italy. Adults with a T2D diagnosis, naïve to injectable treatment for T2D and prescribed dulaglutide or liraglutide as their first injectable GLM, were eligible for inclusion. Study objectives included describing the following PROs associated with the treatment of T2D with GLP-1RAs: health-related quality of life; impact of weight on self-perception; life and work productivity; and patient satisfaction with treatment and injection device. Additional analyses formally compared PRO measures between the treatment cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, improvements from baseline in PRO scores were observed among people who started dulaglutide or liraglutide. A more pronounced trend of improvement was observed in the dulaglutide cohort for changes from baseline in treatment satisfaction and impact of weight on self-perception, supported by statistically significant differences between treatment cohorts in additional comparative analyses at 12, 18 and 24 months. More positive patient perceptions of the injection device were observed with dulaglutide than with liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in PROs observed in TROPHIES, which were more evident with dulaglutide than liraglutide, reflect a relevant clinical benefit. From the patients' perspective, satisfaction, and confidence in continuing treatment with GLP-1RAs is likely to contribute to long-term treatment persistence.

Dosing Patterns of Dulaglutide and Semaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United Kingdom and Germany: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: As new glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) formulations are available, the aim of this study was to understand dulaglutide and subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide dosing patterns in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the UK and Germany as well as oral semaglutide in the UK. METHODS: Adults with evidence of T2DM and a prescription of dulaglutide or semaglutide between August 2020 and December 2021 were identified using the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data (LRx). Patients were divided into cohort 1 (incident users) and cohort 2 (prevalent users) based on previous exposure to GLP-1 RAs and were followed up to 12 months post-index. RESULTS: During the patient selection window in Germany and the UK, 368,320 and 123,548 patients respectively received at least one prescription of a study GLP-1 RA. Among dulaglutide users in Germany at 12 months post-index, the 1.5-mg dosage formulation was the most common for both cohort 1 (65.6%) and 2 (71.2%). Among s.c. semaglutide users at 12 months post-index, 39.2% and 58.4% of cohort 1 received 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg, respectively. In the UK, at 12 months post-index, the most common dulaglutide dosage formulation was 1.5 mg (71.7% cohort 1 and 80.9% cohort 2). Among s.c. semaglutide users at 12 months post-index, 0.5- and 1.0-mg formulations were the most common for both cohort 1 (38.9% and 56.0%, respectively) and cohort 2 (29.5% and 67.1%, respectively). Prescribing of the more recently introduced 3.0- and 4.5-mg formulations for dulaglutide and oral semaglutide was also reported in the study. CONCLUSION: Dosing patterns of GLP-1 RAs, although similar between the UK and Germany, were heterogeneous over time. Given that the higher dulaglutide doses and oral semaglutide were recently introduced to the market, additional real-world evidence studies which include clinical outcomes is required.

Current Status, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence in Japan.

The aim of this article is to help develop a common understanding of the current status, challenges, and future perspectives of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in Japan. RWD and RWE are very widely used terms, but standardized definitions are lacking. Given broad and growing applications of RWD/RWE from the perspective of clinical development and medical affairs, the PhRMA Japan Medical Affairs Committee Working Group 1 have proposed the following definitions: "RWD are the data relating to patient health status and/or the delivery of health care routinely collected from a variety of sources" and "RWE is the evidence derived from analysis of RWD." The key challenges for RWD and RWE in Japan include restricted access and linkage of RWD, as well as a lack of universally accepted methodological approaches, which reduces the potential for patient and healthcare benefits. These challenges for RWD/RWE are by no means unique to Japan and similar challenges exist for countries in Europe and the USA. The quality of data and analysis, study design, and the transparency of reporting should be discussed more to ensure credibility and acceptance by decision-makers as the demand for RWD and RWE increases. The future developments around Japan's RWD and RWE are expected to include improved RWD access, data linkage, and increased acceptance by decision-makers, all supported by innovative technology. Improvements in RWD access and database linkage will enable both public and private sectors to assemble more comprehensive health information in Japan.

How useful is the EQ-5D in assessing the impact of caring for people with Alzheimer's disease?

BACKGROUND: The impact on informal caregivers of caring for people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia can be substantial, but it remains unclear which measures(s) best assess such impact. Our objective was to use data from the GERAS study to assess the ability of the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) to measure the impact on caregivers of caring for people with AD dementia and to examine correlations between EQ-5D and caregiver burden. METHODS: GERAS was a prospective, non-interventional cohort study in community-dwelling patients with AD dementia and their informal caregivers. The EQ-5D and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) were used to measure health-related quality of life and caregiver burden, respectively. Resource-use data collected included caregiver time spent with the patient on activities of daily living (ADL). Spearman correlations were computed between EQ-5D scores, ZBI scores, and time spent on instrumental ADL (T-IADL) at baseline, 18 months, and for 18-month change scores. T-IADL and ZBI change scores were summarized by EQ-5D domain change category (better/stable/worse). RESULTS: At baseline, 1495 caregivers had mean EQ-5D index scores of 0.86, 0.85, and 0.82, and ZBI total scores of 24.6, 29.4, and 34.1 for patients with mild, moderate, and moderately severe/severe AD dementia, respectively. Change in T-IADL showed a stronger correlation with change in ZBI (0.12; P < 0.001) than with change in EQ-5D index score (0.02; P = 0.546) although both correlations were very weak. Worsening within EQ-5D domains was associated with increases in ZBI scores, although 68%-90% of caregivers remained stable within each EQ-5D domain. There was no clear pattern for change in T-IADL by change in EQ-5D domain. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D may not be the optimum measure of the impact of caring for people with AD dementia due to its focus on physical health. Alternative measures need further investigation.

Effective osteoporosis treatment with teriparatide is associated with enhanced quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: the European Forsteo Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: To describe changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide for up to 18 months and followed-up for a further 18 months, and to assess the influence of recent prior and incident fractures. METHODS: The European Forsteo Observational Study (EFOS) is an observational, prospective, multinational study measuring HRQoL using the EQ-5D. The primary objective was to assess changes in HRQoL during 36 months in the whole study population. A secondary post-hoc analysis examined fracture impact on HRQoL in four subgroups classified based on recent prior fracture 12 months before baseline and incident clinical fractures during the study. Changes from baseline were analysed using a repeated measures model. RESULTS: Of the 1581 patients, 48.4% had a recent prior fracture and 15.6% of these patients had an incident fracture during follow-up. 10.9% of the 816 patients with no recent prior fracture had an incident fracture. Baseline mean EQ-VAS scores were similar across the subgroups. In the total study cohort (n = 1581), HRQoL (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D index scores) improved significantly from baseline to 18 months and this improvement was maintained over the 18-month post-teriparatide period. Improvements were seen across all five EQ-5D domains during teriparatide treatment that were maintained after teriparatide was discontinued. Subjects with incident clinical fractures had significantly less improvement in EQ-VAS than those without incident fractures. Recent prior fracture did not influence the change in EQ-VAS during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: EFOS is the first longitudinal study in women with severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in the real world setting to show a substantial improvement in HRQoL during teriparatide treatment that was sustained during subsequent treatment with other medications. The increase in HRQoL was lower in the subgroups with incident fracture but was not influenced by recent prior fracture. The results should be interpreted in the context of the design of an observational study.

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems' perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey). METHODS: In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments' mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the 'core clinical cohort' (<75 years, ≥60 kg, no history of stroke or TIA). RESULTS: Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel's cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population. LIMITATIONS: Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems' perspectives.

Effectiveness of Teriparatide in women over 75 years of age with severe osteoporosis: 36-month results from the European Forsteo Observational Study (EFOS).

This predefined analysis of the European Forsteo Observational Study (EFOS) aimed to describe clinical fracture incidence, back pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during 18 months of teriparatide treatment and 18 months post-teriparatide in the subgroup of 589 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged ≥75 years. Data on clinical fractures, back pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), and HRQoL (EQ-5D) were collected over 36 months. Fracture data were summarized in 6-month intervals and analyzed using logistic regression with repeated measures. A repeated-measures model analyzed changes from baseline in back pain VAS and EQ-VAS. During the 36-month observation period, 87 (14.8 %) women aged ≥75 years sustained a total of 111 new fractures: 37 (33.3 %) vertebral fractures and 74 (66.7 %) nonvertebral fractures. Adjusted odds of fracture was decreased by 80 % in the 30 to <36-month interval compared with the first 6-month interval (P < 0.009). Although the older subgroup had higher back pain scores and poorer HRQoL at baseline than the younger subgroup, both age groups showed significant reductions in back pain and improvements in HRQoL postbaseline. In conclusion, women aged ≥75 years with severe postmenopausal osteoporosis treated with teriparatide in normal clinical practice showed a reduced clinical fracture incidence by 30 months compared with baseline. An improvement in HRQoL and, possibly, an early and significant reduction in back pain were also observed, which lasted for at least 18 months after teriparatide discontinuation when patients were taking other osteoporosis medication. The results should be interpreted in the context of an uncontrolled observational study.

Effectiveness of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and glucocorticoid use: 3-year results from the EFOS study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical fracture rates, back pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are receiving glucocorticoids (GC), during a 36-month study of teriparatide treatment for up to 18 months, with an additional 18-month followup period when patients were receiving other osteoporosis medications. METHODS: A prospective, multinational, observational study. Data for clinical fractures, back pain (by visual analog scale; VAS) and HRQOL (by EQ-5D) were collected over 36 months. Fracture data were summarized in 6-month segments and analyzed using logistic regression with repeated measures. Changes from baseline in back pain VAS and EQ-VAS were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1581 enrolled women with followup data, 294 (18.6%) had antecedents of GC use. Of these, 49 (16.7%) patients sustained a total of 69 fractures during the 36-month study period. Adjusted odds of fracture were significantly decreased during the last year of followup compared with the first 6 months of teriparatide treatment: an 81% decrease in the 24 to < 30-month period (p < 0.05), and an 89% decrease in the 30 to < 36-month period (p < 0.05). There were significant reductions in back pain and improvements in HRQOL in both groups of GC users and nonusers. CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis receiving GC, who were treated with teriparatide for up to 18 months, showed a reduced incidence of clinical fractures during the third year while receiving sequential osteoporosis treatments compared with the first 6 months, together with reduced back pain and improved HRQOL. Our results should be interpreted in the context of an uncontrolled observational study in a routine clinical setting.

Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1.

Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best choice(s) of treatment. Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than a traditional meta-analysis. This report from the ISPOR Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on the interpretation of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to assist policymakers and health-care professionals in using its findings for decision making. We start with an overview of how networks of randomized, controlled trials allow multiple treatment comparisons of competing interventions. Next, an introduction to the synthesis of the available evidence with a focus on terminology, assumptions, validity, and statistical methods is provided, followed by advice on critically reviewing and interpreting an indirect treatment comparison or network meta-analysis to inform decision making. We finish with a discussion of what to do if there are no direct or indirect treatment comparisons of randomized, controlled trials possible and a health-care decision still needs to be made.

Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.

Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.