AimTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide as add-on to metformin vs. glimepiride or sitagliptin in patients with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with first-line metformin.MethodsData were sourced from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. glimepiride, both in combination with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, both as add-on to metformin. Only the subgroup of patients in whom liraglutide was added to metformin monotherapy was included in the cost–utility analysis. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate outcomes and costs with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride and vs. sitagliptin over patients’ lifetimes. Treatment effects were taken directly from the trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum and costs were accounted from a third-party payer (UK National Health System) perspective.ResultsTreatment with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg resulted, respectively, in mean increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.32 ± 0.15 and 0.28 ± 0.14 quality-adjusted life years vs. glimepiride, and 0.19 ± 0.15 and 0.31 ± 0.15 quality-adjusted life years vs. sitagliptin, and was associated with higher costs of £3003 ± £678 and £4688 ± £639 vs. glimepiride, and £1842 ± £751 and £3224 ± £683 vs. sitagliptin, over a patient’s lifetime. Both liraglutide doses were cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £9449 and £16 501 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. glimepiride, and £9851 and £10 465 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. sitagliptin, respectively.ConclusionsLiraglutide, added to metformin monotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in a UK setting.

Treatment with analogue insulin was associated with a decreased incidence of long-term complications and improved QALE, but slightly higher treatment costs compared to human insulin therapy. Analogue insulin treatment had an ICER within the range generally considered to represent good value for money in the UK.

Short-term improvements seen with IDet combinations versus NPH combinations led to decreased complications, improvements in QALYs and reductions in complication costs, which partially offset the additional costs of detemir, leading to a cost-effectiveness ratio which fell within a range considered to represent excellent value for money (< 35,000 pounds sterling/QALY gained).

No abstract

SUMMARY1. Pieces of human bronchi, from lung resected for carcinoma of the bronchus, were mounted in Ussing chambers and given [35S]sulphate as radiolabelled precursor of mucous glycoproteins (mucins). The release of 35S, bound to macromolecules, into the luminal half-chamber was used as an index of mucin secretion.2. Noradrenaline, at concentrations of 1,10 and 100ftM, was given into both halves of the Ussing chamber. At the lowest concentration, noradrenaline failed to change mucin output, but at the two higher concentrations it stimulated output.3. In other experiments the sympathetic nerves in the bronchial wall were labelled with 5-hydroxydopamine and examined under the electron microscope. The distances between adrenergic nerve varicosities and submucosal glands were measured; some sympathetic nerve varicosities were seen within 1 /tm of gland cells. 4. A simple mathematical model for the diffusion of noradrenaline was used to predict the concentrations of the transmitter likely to result at different distances from a nerve if one or more vesicles of noradrenaline were released. 5. The model predicts that the release of a single large vesicle of noradrenaline is likely to generate an effective concentration of transmitter provided that the nerve is within 1 ,um of the target cell.

Purpose Semaglutide has demonstrated safe and effective weight loss for overweight and obesity, including participants with concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), in randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg with pharmacological comparators for weight management in overweight or obesity. Methods The SLR was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. NMAs were performed to compare weight change for semaglutide 2.4 mg with comparators using data identified in the SLR. The populations of interest were total population, normal glucose tolerance, non-T2DM, pre-diabetes, and T2DM. Included outcomes were weight change from baseline (CFB, %) at 52 weeks and proportion of participants losing ≥5% baseline fasting body weight at 12 weeks (at full therapeutic dose). Results The SLR identified 108 RCTs examining non-surgical interventions, of which 41 were considered for inclusion in the NMAs. In all populations, semaglutide 2.4 mg was associated with a greater percentage weight CFB with 52 weeks of treatment versus all available comparators. In all populations, semaglutide was associated with a higher likelihood of participants losing ≥5% of baseline fasting body weight at 12 weeks versus all available comparators. Conclusion In NMA, semaglutide 2.4 mg demonstrated effective weight loss (≥5%) in the total population and all subpopulations of glucose tolerance versus active comparators. Semaglutide is an effective treatment that may address unmet need in the management of overweight and obesity.

Objectives: The objective of the current preliminary study was to present the cost-effectiveness analyses submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (TA10765) that deemed semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection a cost-effective option for weight management in the United Kingdom (UK) alongside diet and exercise (D&E). Methods: The study was conducted from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services perspective and based on the

None