The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Colombian adults.

Background: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a highly prevalent disease worldwide and in Colombia, representing one of the main causes of death and placing a considerable burden on healthcare systems. 13 classes of drugs are approved for the treatment of T2DM, with Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists being a first-line treatment option for patients with or at high risk of certain cardiovascular diseases and chronic kidney disease. The objective of this study is to conduct a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide in Colombian adults with T2DM, from a third-party payer perspective. Methods: Numbers needed to treat were calculated for different single and composite endpoints of the SUSTAIN 7 trial, annual costs for once weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg were extracted from the public SISMED database. With these inputs a cost of control model was developed, to obtain the annual cost of bringing one T2DM patient to relevant clinical outcomes by using semaglutide or dulaglutide. Results: Semaglutide was considered cost-effective compared to dulaglutide across all pre-specified endpoints, even in the different scenarios evaluated in the sensitivity analyses, and in a particularly pronounced manner for weight loss outcomes. Semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg once-weekly was cost-effective compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg across all outcomes in the short-term, making it an appropriate first-line choice in the treatment of T2DM when deciding between these two GLP-1 receptor agonists. Conclusions: This is the first short-term cost-effectiveness study of semaglutide and dulaglutide in T2DM Colombian patients. Our modeled results suggest that once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals with T2DM in Colombia who are not achieving glycaemia control with metformin, and it would be expected to improve HbA1C, promote greater weight loss and reduce costs from a third-payer perspective compared with treatment with dulaglutide.

Hospital Adverse Event Reporting Systems: A Systematic Scoping Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing the incidence of reportable events with undesirable effects (REUE) is a priority in the hospital environment, which is why reporting systems have been implemented to identify and manage them. Information is required regarding the performance of reporting systems, barriers, or facilitators for reporting and strategies that improve passive reporting. METHODOLOGY: Systematic scoping review of the literature that included studies performed in the population exposed to the occurrence of REUE in the health system (teams, patients, and family). A search was performed in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Daily Update, EMBASE, LILACS, and databases of the World Health Organization and Pan-American Health Organization. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were found, 1 systematic review, 2 clinical trials, 8 observational studies, 3 qualitative studies, and 1 mixed study. In 4 of them, the effectiveness of active versus passive reporting systems was compared. The measures to improve the passive systems were education about REUE, simplification of the reporting format, activities focused on increasing the motivation for self-report, adoption of self-report as an obligatory institutional policy, and using specific report formats for each service. CONCLUSIONS: There is information that allows to find differences between the performance of the active and passive reporting systems. The reviewed research articles found that passive techniques significantly underreported adverse events. It is recommended that institutions adopt both active and passive techniques in adverse event surveillance. New studies should be directed to answer the comparative efficiency of the reporting systems.