Frequency of Leaving the House and Mortality from Age 70 to 95

Objectives

To determine the association between frequency of leaving the house and mortality.

Design

Prospective follow‐up of an age‐homogenous, representative, community‐dwelling birth cohort (born 1920–21) from the Jerusalem Longitudinal Study (1990–2015).

Setting

Home.

Participants

Individuals aged 70 (n = 593), 78 (n = 973), 85 (n = 1164), and 90 (n = 645), examined in 1990, 1998, 2005, and 2010, respectively.

Measurements

Frequency of leaving the house, defined as daily (6–7/week), often (2–5/week), and rarely (≤1/week); geriatric assessment; all‐cause mortality (2010–15). Kaplan‐Meier survival charts and proportional hazards models adjusted for social (sex, marital status, financial status, loneliness), functional (sex, self‐rated health, fatigue, depression, physical activity, activity of daily living difficulty), and medical (sex, chronic pain, visual impairment, hearing impairment, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease) covariates.

Results

At ages 70, 78, 85, and 90, frequency of going out daily was 87.0%, 80.6%, 65.6%, and 48.4%; often was 6.4%, 9.5%, 17.4%, and 11.3%; and rarely was 6.6%, 10.0%, 17.0%, and 40.3% respectively. Decreasing frequency of going out was associated with negative social, functional, and medical characteristics. Survival rates were lowest among those leaving rarely and highest among those going out daily throughout follow‐up. Similarly, compared with rarely leaving the house, unadjusted mortality hazard ratios (HRs) were lowest among subjects leaving daily and remained significant after adjustment for social, functional and medical covariates. Among subjects leaving often, unadjusted HRs showed a similar effect of smaller magnitude, with attenuation of significance after adjustment in certain models. Findings were unchanged after excluding subjects dying within 6 months of follow‐up.

Conclusion

In community‐dwelling elderly adults aged 70 to 90, leaving the house daily was associated with lower mortality risk, independent of social, functional, or medical status.     

Tirzepatide versus semaglutide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A value for money analysis

Aims

Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist semaglutide and, more recently, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist showed a significant reduction in body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to establish which provides better value for money.

Materials and Methods

We calculated the cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using high-dose tirzepatide (15 mg) versus semaglutide (2.4 mg). The body weight reductions were extracted from published results of SURMOUNT-1 and STEP 1 trials, respectively. In addition, we performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the two study populations. Drug costs were based on US GoodRx prices as of October 2022.

Results

Using tirzepatide resulted in a weight loss of 17.8% (95% CI: 16.3%-19.3%) compared with 12.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-13.4%) for semaglutide. The total cost of 72 weeks of tirzepatide was estimated at $17 527 compared with $22 878 for 68 weeks of semaglutide. Accordingly, the cost needed to treat per 1% of body weight reduction with tirzepatide is estimated at $985 (95% CI: $908-$1075) compared with $1845 (95% CI: $1707-$1989) with semaglutide. Scenario analysis confirmed these findings.

Conclusions

Tirzepatide provides better value for money than semaglutide for weight reduction.