Liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes : a single technology appraisal

This paper presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucoselowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost

Evidence review : liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucose-lowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials, but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using the Center for Outcomes Research model. The health benefit was reported as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The manufacturer estimated the cost-effectiveness to be £15,130 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with glargine, £10,054 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide, £10,465 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with sitagliptin, and £9851 per QALY for liraglutide 1.2 mg compared with sitagliptin. The ERG conducted additional sensitivity analyses and concluded that the factors that carried most weight were: in the comparison with glargine, the direct utility effects of body mass index (BMI) changes and SBP, with some additional contribution from HbA1c in the comparison with exenatide, HbA1c, with some additional effects from cholesterol and triglycerides in the comparison with sitagliptin, HbA1c and direct utility effects of BMI changes. The European Medicines Agency has approved liraglutide in dual therapy with other oral glucose-lowering agents. NICE guidance recommends the use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in triple therapy when glycaemic control remains or becomes inadequate with a combination of two oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in a dual therapy is indicated only in patients who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, three oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.8 mg was not approved by NICE. The ERG recommends research into the (currently unlicensed) use of liraglutide in combination with long-acting insulin

SGLT-2 receptor inhibitors for treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus : a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective Because of the lack of head-to-head trials, the aim was to indirectly compare sodium glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 2005 to January 2015. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone or metformin monotherapy. Minimum duration 24 weeks. Indirect comparison was undertaken using Bayesian methods. Results In monotherapy, a greater proportion of patients achieved a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level of <7% on canagliflozin 300 mg than on canagliflozin 100 mg (risk ratio (RR) 0.72%, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.59% to 0.87%) and dapagliflozin 10 mg (RR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.48 to 0.85) but there were no significant differences compared with either dose of empagliflozin. In monotherapy, canagliflozin 300 mg reduced HbA1c more than other SGLT-2 inhibitors (mean difference ranged from 0.20% to 0.64%). There were no significant differences in weight reduction. All the flozins reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) more than placebo, ranging from a reduction of 6 mm Hg with canagliflozin 300–2.6 mm Hg with empagliflozin 10 mg. In dual therapy with metformin, all flozins were more effective than placebo for achieving HbA1c <7%, and reducing HbA1c, weight and SBP. The proportions achieving HbA1c level of <7% were mostly similar. Canagliflozin 300 mg reduced HbA1c more than the other drugs but this just reached statistical significance only against canagliflozin 100 mg (MD 0.15, CrI 0.04 to 0.26). Conclusions There were few differences among the SGLT-2 inhibitors, but in monotherapy, the glucose-lowering effect of canagliflozin 300 mg is slightly greater than most other SGLT-2 inhibitors

Acessibilidade e utilização dos espaços verdes urbanos nas cidades de Coimbra (Portugal) e Salamanca (Espanha)

ACCESSIBILITY AND USE OF URBAN GREEN SPACES IN THE CITIES OF COIMBRA (PORTUGAL) AND SALAMANCA (SPAIN). In a society that values more and more wellbeing, health and free time, the introduction of urban green spaces (UGS) next to residential areas has become a citizen’s right and requirement. This paper analyses the distribution and accessibility of UGS in the cities of Coimbra and Salamanca and evaluates their influence on the needs of the resident populations, in terms of users’ age, frequency of usage, as well as of motivation and ways to enjoy the facilities. In Coimbra there is a concentration of UGS, whereas in Salamanca there is a dispersion of such spaces, which has resulted in the different usage that people make of them. In fact, although Coimbra offers more urban green space (per inhabitant), their usage is reduced as people go there mainly by car, contrary to what happens in Salamanca. Consequently, Coimbra’s inhabitants choose these green spaces because of the activities they can be used for, whereas Salamanca’s inhabitants choose them for their proximity

Metformin for non-diabetic patients with coronary heart disease (the CAMERA study): a randomised controlled trial

&lt;br&gt;Background: Metformin reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes seemingly independent of lowering blood glucose concentration. We assessed the cardiovascular effects of metformin in individuals without type 2 diabetes.&lt;/br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Methods: We did a single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Glasgow Clinical Research Facility (Glasgow, UK). We enrolled patients taking statins who did not have type 2 diabetes but who did have coronary heart disease and large waist circumferences. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either metformin (850 mg twice daily) or matching placebo in block sizes of four. Patients, investigators, trial staff, and statisticians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression of mean distal carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) over 18 months in the modified intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were changes in carotid plaque score (in six regions), measures of glycaemia (HbA1c, fasting glucose, and insulin concentrations, and Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance [HOMA-IR]), and concentrations of lipids, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, and tissue plasminogen activator. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00723307.&lt;/br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Findings: We screened 356 patients, of whom we enrolled 173 (86 in the metformin group, 87 in the placebo group). Average age was 63 years. At baseline, mean cIMT was 0·717 mm (SD 0·129) and mean carotid plaque score was 2·43 (SD 1·55). cIMT progression did not differ significantly between groups (slope difference 0·007 mm per year, 95% CI −0·006 to 0·020; p=0·29). Change of carotid plaque score did not differ significantly between groups (0·01 per year, 95% CI −0·23 to 0·26; p=0·92). Patients taking metformin had lower HbA1c, insulin, HOMA-IR, and tissue plasminogen activator compared with those taking placebo, but there were no significant differences for total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, or fasting glucose. 138 adverse events occurred in 64 patients in the metformin group versus 120 in 60 patients in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and nausea or vomiting were more common in the metformin group than in the placebo group (28 vs 5).&lt;/br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Interpretation: Metformin had no effect on cIMT and little or no effect on several surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease in non-diabetic patients with high cardiovascular risk, taking statins. Further evidence is needed before metformin can be recommended for cardiovascular benefit in this population.&lt;/br&gt

Test accuracy of drug and antibody assays for predicting response to anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor treatment in Crohn’s disease : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To present meta-analytic test accuracy estimates of levels of anti-TNF and antibodies to anti-TNF to predict loss of response or lack of regaining response in anti-TNF managed Crohn’s disease patients. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index were searched from inception to October / November 2014 to identify studies which reported 2x2 table data of the association between levels of anti-TNF or its antibodies and clinical status. Hierarchical / bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken with the user-written “metandi” package of Harbord and Whiting using Stata 11 software, for Infliximab, Adalimumab, anti-Infliximab and anti-Adalimumab levels as predictors of loss of response. Prevalence of Crohn’s disease in included studies was meta-analysed using a random effects model in MetaAnalyst software to calculate positive and negative predictive values. The search was updated in January 2017. Results: 31 studies were included in the review. Studies were heterogeneous with respect to type of test used, criteria for establishing response and loss of response, population examined, and results. Metaanalytic summary point estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 65.7% and 80.6% for Infliximab trough levels and 56% and 79% for antibodies to Infliximab, respectively. Pooled results for Adalimumab trough levels and antibodies to Adalimumab were similar. Pooled positive and negative predictive values ranged between 70% and 80% implying that between 20% and 30% of both positive and negative test results may be incorrect in predicting loss of response. Conclusion: The available evidence suggests that these tests have modest predictive accuracy for clinical status, direct test accuracy comparisons in the same population are needed. More clinical trial evidence from test-treat studies is required before the clinical utility of the tests can be reliably evaluated

Benefits and Harms of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-i) are a novel drug class for the treatment of diabetes. We aimed at describing the maximal benefits and risks associated with SGLT2-i for patients with type 2 diabetes.Systematic review and meta-analysis.We included double-blinded, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SGLT2-i administered in the highest approved therapeutic doses (canagliflozin 300 mg/day, dapagliflozin 10 mg/day, and empagliflozin 25 mg/day) for ≥12 weeks. Comparison groups could receive placebo or oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) including metformin, sulphonylureas (SU), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4-i). Trials were identified through electronic databases and extensive manual searches. Primary outcomes were glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, serious adverse events, death, severe hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and CVD. Secondary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose, body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, lipids, liver function tests, creatinine and adverse events including infections. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.Meta-analysis of 34 RCTs with 9,154 patients showed that SGLT2-i reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (mean difference -0.69%, 95% confidence interval -0.75 to -0.62%). We downgraded the evidence to 'low quality' due to variability and evidence of publication bias (P = 0.015). Canagliflozin was associated with the largest reduction in HbA1c (-0.85%, -0.99% to -0.71%). There were no differences between SGLT2-i and placebo for serious adverse events. SGLT2-i increased the risk of urinary and genital tract infections and increased serum creatinine, and exerted beneficial effects on bodyweight, blood pressure, lipids and alanine aminotransferase (moderate to low quality evidence). Analysis of 12 RCTs found a beneficial effect of SGLT2-i on HbA1c compared with OAD (-0.20%, -0.28 to -0.13%; moderate quality evidence).This review includes a large number of patients with type 2 diabetes and found that SGLT2-i reduces HbA1c with a notable increased risk in non-serious adverse events. The analyses may overestimate the intervention benefit due bias