A review of the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Switzerland

The economic burden associated with osteoporosis is considerable. As such, cost-effectiveness analyses are important contributors to the diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making process. The aim of this study was to review the cost effectiveness of treating post-menopausal osteoporosis with bisphosphonates and identify the key factors that influence the cost effectiveness of such treatment in the Swiss setting. A systematic search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify published literature on the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in post-menopausal osteoporosis in the Swiss setting. Outcomes were compared with similar studies in Western European countries. Three cost-effectiveness studies of bisphosphonates in this patient population were identified; all were from a healthcare payer perspective. Outcomes showed that, relative to no treatment, treatment with oral bisphosphonates was predicted to be cost saving for most women aged ≥70 years with osteoporosis or at least one risk factor for fracture, and cost effective for women aged ≥75 years without prior fracture when used as a component of a population-based screen-and-treat programme. Results were most sensitive to changes in fracture risk, cost of fractures, cost of treatment, nursing home admissions and adherence with treatment. Swiss results were generally comparable to those in other European settings. Assuming similar clinical efficacy, lowering treatment cost (through the use of price-reduced brand-name or generic drugs) and/or improving adherence should both contribute to further improving the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis. Published evidence indicates that bisphosphonates are estimated to be similarly cost effective or cost saving in most treatment scenarios of post-menopausal osteoporosis in Switzerland and in neighbouring European countries.

Respiratory function during anesthesia: effects on gas exchange

Anaesthesia causes a respiratory impairment, whether the patient is breathing spontaneously or is ventilated mechanically. This impairment impedes the matching of alveolar ventilation and perfusion and thus the oxygenation of arterial blood. A triggering factor is loss of muscle tone that causes a fall in the resting lung volume, functional residual capacity. This fall promotes airway closure and gas adsorption, leading eventually to alveolar collapse, that is, atelectasis. The higher the oxygen concentration, the faster will the gas be adsorbed and the aleveoli collapse. Preoxygenation is a major cause of atelectasis and continuing use of high oxygen concentration maintains or increases the lung collapse, that typically is 10% or more of the lung tissue. It can exceed 25% to 40%. Perfusion of the atelectasis causes shunt and cyclic airway closure causes regions with low ventilation/perfusion ratios, that add to impaired oxygenation. Ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure reduces the atelectasis but oxygenation need not improve, because of shift of blood flow down the lung to any remaining atelectatic tissue. Inflation of the lung to an airway pressure of 40 cmH2O recruits almost all collapsed lung and the lung remains open if ventilation is with moderate oxygen concentration (< 40%) but recollapses within a few minutes if ventilation is with 100% oxygen. Severe obesity increases the lung collapse and obstructive lung disease and one-lung anesthesia increase the mismatch of ventilation and perfusion. CO2 pneumoperitoneum increases atelectasis formation but not shunt, likely explained by enhanced hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction by CO2. Atelectasis may persist in the postoperative period and contribute to pneumonia.

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND: Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION: Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations.