MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808825425 · doi:10.2337/db18-136-lb

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1.0 mg vs. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg as Add-On to Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Canada

2018· article· en· W2808825425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Johansen, Jonas Håkan‐Bloch, Aiden R. Liu, Sofie Persson, Emilie Toresson Grip

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideDulaglutideMedicineType 2 diabetesExenatideCohortInternal medicineMetforminDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyInsulinLiraglutide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semaglutide is a novel GLP-1R agonist with prolonged half-life due to enhanced binding to albumin and inhibition of degradation by dipeptidyl peptidase-4. SUSTAIN 7, an open-label, parallel-group, phase 3b trial of 1,201 individuals with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy compared semaglutide to dulaglutide over 40 weeks. Semaglutide 1.0 mg demonstrated statistical superiority to dulaglutide 1.5 mg in HbA1c lowering (-1.8% vs. -1.4% [ETD -0.41%; 95% CI -0.57 to -0.25]) and reductions in body weight (-6.5 kg vs. -3.0 kg [ETD -3.55 kg; -4.32 to -2.78]). We used a validated non-product specific cost-effectiveness cohort model (the IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes) to extrapolate outcomes and costs associated with semaglutide 1.0 mg vs. dulaglutide 1.5 mg over a 40-year time horizon. Treatment effects (e.g., HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure) as well as cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7. Treatment with semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg were assumed to continue for three years, after which the cohort discontinued the initial treatments, and started insulin therapy. Costs and health-related quality of life impact associated with developing macro- and microvascular complications were sourced from a Canadian perspective where possible. In the base case, semaglutide 1.0 mg was associated with fewer micro- and macrovascular complications (driven by observed differences in risk factors). For example, for every 1,000 individuals, four fewer patients in the semaglutide 1.0 mg arm were simulated to experience a stroke. Fewer events led to an increase in quality-adjusted life years of 0.05 at lower total costs for patients in the semaglutide 1.0 mg arm compared to the dulaglutide 1.5 mg arm. Results were tested in sensitivity analyses and found to be robust, suggesting that semaglutide 1.0 mg provides better health outcomes at a lower cost, compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Disclosure P. Johansen: Consultant; Self; Janssen Global Services, LLC.. Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. J. Håkan-Bloch: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Novo Nordisk A/S. A.R. Liu: None. S. Persson: None. E. Toresson Grip: None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207