RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Achieving glycemic control can help reduce complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the pharmacy cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg versus semaglutide 1 mg to achieve glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints in patients with T2D in the United States. METHODS: The proportions of patients achieving glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints were obtained from the phase 3 SURPASS-2 randomized clinical trial which compared tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg to semaglutide 1 mg. Annual pharmacy costs were calculated using 2022 wholesale acquisition costs. Cost per responder and NNT were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Tirzepatide had a lower cost per responder to achieve glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) endpoints of ≤ 6.5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses) and < 5.7% (all doses) and weight loss endpoints of ≥ 5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses), ≥ 10% (all doses), and ≥ 15% (all doses). The cost per responder to achieve HbA1c < 7% (all doses of tirzepatide) and ≤ 6.5% (5 mg tirzepatide) were not statistically significantly different between tirzepatide and semaglutide 1 mg. The cost per patient to achieve the composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5%, or < 5.7%/weight loss ≥ 10%/no hypoglycemia) was statistically significantly lower for all doses of tirzepatide than for semaglutide 1 mg. The NNTs for all doses of tirzepatide were statistically significantly lower than that for semaglutide 1 mg to achieve all individual and composite endpoints, with the exception of the 5 mg dose for HbA1c < 7.0% and HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, where tirzepatide had numerically lower NNTs that were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) that may offer the potential to achieve stringent glycemic goals, weight loss targets, and composite treatment goals at a lower cost per responder compared to semaglutide 1 mg among people with T2D.
RESUMO
Objectives: To develop consensus statements outlining the impact of endoscopic linear stapling device stability on potential complications of thoracic surgery and the stress/concern of thoracic surgeons. Methods: Eight thoracic surgeons representing 8 countries participated in a Delphi panel process using 2 anonymous surveys. The first included binary, multiple-response, and Likert scale-type questions, which were converted into affirmative statements for survey 2 if an adequate number of respondents answered similarly. Consensus was defined a priori when ≥70% agreed with the affirmative statement in survey 2. Results: All panelists completed both surveys. Panelists unanimously agreed that: 1) an endoscopic linear stapling device with improved stability would result in less stress/concern for critical firings, surgeries where a fellow is trained, and robot-assisted surgeries requiring an assistant; 2) reduced unintentional tissue/structure damage and reduced tension on tissue being fired upon may result from use of an endoscopic linear stapling device that provides improvement in stability; and 3) endoscopic linear stapling device stability had more clinical importance in video-assisted thoracic surgery compared to open thoracic surgery. Conclusions: Improved endoscopic linear stapling device stability is a critical component of thoracic surgery likely to result in more frequent positive surgical outcomes when compared to a device with greater instability.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, disabling, and costly disease with several treatment options available; however, there is variability in evidence-based clinical guidelines. Therefore, payers are at a disadvantage when making management decisions without the benefit of definitive guidance from treatment guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To outline approaches for the management of agents used to treat MS, as determined from a group of U.S. managed care pharmacists and physicians. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to develop consensus statements regarding MS management approaches. The panel was composed of experts in managed care and included 8 pharmacy directors and 6 medical directors presently or previously involved in formulary decision making from 12 health plans, 1 specialty pharmacy, and 1 consulting company. These decision makers, who have experience designing health care benefits that include MS treatments, provided anonymous feedback through 2 rounds of web-based surveys and participated in 1 live panel meeting held in December 2010. Consensus was defined as a mean response of at least 3.3 or 100% of responses either "agree" or "strongly agree" (i.e., no panelist answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree") on a 4-item Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree). RESULTS: After 3 phases, these managed care representatives reached consensus on 25 statements for management of patients with MS. Consistent with managed care principles, this group of managed care experts found that health plans should consider efficacy, effectiveness, and safety, as well as patient preference, when evaluating MS therapies for formulary placement. Cost and contracting should be considered if efficacy and safety are judged to be comparable between agents. CONCLUSION: The consensus statements developed by a panel of managed care representatives provide some insight into decision making in formulary and utilization management of MS therapies.
