Glycemic and Cost Outcomes among Hispanic/Latino People with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA Initiating Dulaglutide versus Basal Insulin: a Real-World Study.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycemic management after diabetes onset remains a challenge in Hispanic/Latino adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), often resulting in poor health outcomes and higher rates of diabetes-related complications. The aim of this study was to examine and compare demographic and clinical characteristics, glycemic outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among injection-naïve Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D initiating dulaglutide or basal insulin. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts on the basis of pharmacy claims and were propensity-score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Measures of glycemic management included 12 month follow-up glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and change in HbA1c from baseline. Follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related HCRU and costs, including costs per 1% change in HbA1c, were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: The final propensity-score matched sample included 2872 patients: 1436 patients in each cohort. Mean (SD) reduction in HbA1c from baseline to 12 month follow-up was greater in the dulaglutide cohort compared with the basal insulin cohort [-1.40% (1.88) versus -0.92% (2.07); p < 0.001]. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower proportions of patients with ≥ 1 all-cause and diabetes-related outpatient visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient stays compared with the basal insulin cohort (p < 0.05). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction than the basal insulin cohort ($13,768 versus $19,128; p < 0.001). Diabetes-related costs per 1% reduction were numerically lower for the dulaglutide cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant ($9737 versus $11,403; p = 0.081). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide demonstrated better glycemic outcomes and lower all-cause costs per 1% HbA1c reduction among Hispanic/Latino adults compared with those initiating basal insulin. Our real-world findings in the Hispanic/Latino population were consistent with results obtained from the overall population and confirm the glycemic benefits of dulaglutide observed in clinical settings.

Practical Applications of a Nausea and Vomiting Model in the Clinical Development of Additional Doses of Dulaglutide.

Dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg weekly doses were approved for additional glycemic control in adult patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and 0.75 or 1.5 mg weekly doses of dulaglutide. Effects such as nausea and vomiting are commonly reported with dulaglutide and other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies. Based on a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model-informed approach, a stepwise dose-escalation scheme with 4-week intervals between dose increments was suggested to mitigate gastrointestinal events for dulaglutide. These gastrointestinal events are dose dependent and attenuate over time with repeated dosing. A Markov chain Monte Carlo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic joint model was developed using AWARD-11 data (N = 1842) to optimize dulaglutide dose escalation to 3.0 and 4.5 mg to mitigate gastrointestinal events. Model simulations evaluated probabilities of nausea and vomiting events for various dosing scenarios in patients needing higher doses for additional glycemic control. The model indicated that patients may dose escalate from 1.5 to 3.0 mg, then 4.5 mg weekly after at least 4 weeks on each dose. No clinically meaningful differences in nausea or vomiting events were expected when patients escalated to 3.0 or 4.5 mg following initiation at 0.75 or 1.5 mg dulaglutide. Based on the findings of this model, a minimum 4-week duration at each dose before escalation was appropriate to reduce gastrointestinal events of dulaglutide, consistent with observed gastrointestinal events data from the AWARD-11 study and supporting the currently recommended dose-escalation regimen of dulaglutide doses of 3.0 and 4.5 mg for additional glycemic control.

Daily Oral GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Orforglipron for Adults with Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major risk factor for many leading causes of illness and death worldwide. Data are needed regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonpeptide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist orforglipron as a once-daily oral therapy for weight reduction in adults with obesity. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled adults with obesity, or with overweight plus at least one weight-related coexisting condition, and without diabetes. Participants were randomly assigned to receive orforglipron at one of four doses (12, 24, 36, or 45 mg) or placebo once daily for 36 weeks. The percentage change from baseline in body weight was assessed at week 26 (primary end point) and at week 36 (secondary end point). RESULTS: A total of 272 participants underwent randomization. At baseline, the mean body weight was 108.7 kg, and the mean body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) was 37.9. At week 26, the mean change from baseline in body weight ranged from -8.6% to -12.6% across the orforglipron dose cohorts and was -2.0% in the placebo group. At week 36, the mean change ranged from -9.4% to -14.7% with orforglipron and was -2.3% with placebo. A weight reduction of at least 10% by week 36 occurred in 46 to 75% of the participants who received orforglipron, as compared with 9% who received placebo. The use of orforglipron led to improvement in all prespecified weight-related and cardiometabolic measures. The most common adverse events reported with orforglipron were gastrointestinal events, which were mild to moderate, occurred primarily during dose escalation, and led to discontinuation of orforglipron in 10 to 17% of participants across dose cohorts. The safety profile of orforglipron was consistent with that of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class. CONCLUSIONS: Daily oral orforglipron, a nonpeptide GLP-1 receptor agonist, was associated with weight reduction. Adverse events reported with orforglipron were similar to those with injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. (Funded by Eli Lilly; GZGI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05051579.).

Efficacy and safety of oral orforglipron in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, dose-response, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Orforglipron, an oral, non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is in development for type 2 diabetes and obesity. We assessed the efficacy and safety of orforglipron versus placebo or dulaglutide in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 2, double-blind, randomised, multicentre study, participants were recruited from 45 centres (private clinics, hospitals, and research centers) in the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Adult participants aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with diet and exercise, with or without metformin, and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5%, and stable BMI of 23 kg/m2 or more, were randomly assigned (5:5:5:5:5:3:3:3:3) via an interactive web-response system to placebo, dulaglutide 1·5 mg once per week, or orforglipron 3 mg, 12 mg, 24 mg, 36 mg (group 1), 36 mg (group 2), 45 mg (group 1), or 45 mg (group 2) once per day with no food or water restrictions. Two different dose escalation regimens were evaluated for each of the 36 mg and 45 mg cohorts. Participants were masked to the study drug, dulaglutide, and placebo. The primary efficacy outcome The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in HbA1c from baseline with orforglipron versus placebo at week 26. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and excluded data after the permanent discontinuation of study drug or initiation of rescue medication. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05048719) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2021, and Sept 30, 2022, 569 participants were screened and 383 were enrolled and randomly assigned to a group. 352 (92%) completed the study and 303 (79%) completed 26 weeks of treatment. At baseline, the mean age was 58·9 years, HbA1c was 8·1%, BMI was 35·2 kg/m2, 226 (59%) were men, and 157 (41%) were women. At week 26, mean change in HbA1c with orforglipron was up to -2·10% (-1·67% placebo adjusted), versus -0·43% with placebo and -1·10% with dulaglutide. HbA1c reduction was statistically superior with orforglipron versus placebo (estimated treatment difference -0·8% to -1·7%). Change in mean bodyweight at week 26 was up to -10·1 kg (95% CI -11·5 to -8·7; 7·9 kg placebo adjusted [-9·9 to -5·9]) with orforglipron versus -2·2 kg (-3·6 to -0·7) for placebo and -3·9 kg (-5·3 to -2·4) for dulaglutide. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events ranged from 61·8% to 88·9% in orforglipron-treated participants, compared with 61·8% with placebo and 56·0% with dulaglutide. The majority were gastrointestinal events (44·1% to 70·4% with orforglipron, 18·2% with placebo, and 34·0% with dulaglutide) of mild to moderate severity. Three participants receiving orforglipron and one participant receiving dulaglutide had clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia and no participants had severe hypoglycaemia. One death occurred in the placebo group and was not related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: In this phase 2 trial the novel, oral, non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonist orforglipron at doses of 12 mg or greater showed significant reductions in HbA1c and bodyweight compared with placebo or dulaglutide. The adverse event profile was similar to other GLP-1 receptor agonists in similar stage of development. Orforglipron might provide an alternative to injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists and oral semaglutide, with the prospect of less burdensome administration to achieve treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

General versus central adiposity as risk factors for cardiovascular-related outcomes in a high-risk population with type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of the REWIND trial.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, anthropometric measures other than BMI are rarely assessed yet may be more predictive of cardiovascular (CV) risk. We analyzed the placebo group of the REWIND CV Outcomes Trial to compare several anthropometric measures as baseline risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related outcomes in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Data from the REWIND trial placebo group (N = 4952) were analyzed. All participants had T2D, age ≥ 50 years, had either a previous CV event or CV risk factors, and a BMI of ≥ 23 kg/m2. Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate if BMI, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist circumference (WC) were significant risk factors for major adverse CV events (MACE)-3, CVD-related mortality, all-cause mortality, and heart failure (HF) requiring hospitalization. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and additional baseline factors selected by LASSO method. Results are presented for one standard deviation increase of the respective anthropometric factor. RESULTS: Participants in the placebo group experienced 663 MACE-3 events, 346 CVD-related deaths, 592 all-cause deaths, and 226 events of HF requiring hospitalization during the median follow-up of 5.4 years. WHR and WC, but not BMI, were identified as independent risk factors of MACE-3 (hazard ratio [HR] for WHR: 1.11 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.21]; p = 0.009; HR for WC: 1.12 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.22]; p = 0.012). WC adjusted for hip circumference (HC) showed the strongest association with MACE-3 compared to WHR, WC, or BMI unadjusted for each other (HR: 1.26 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.46]; p = 0.002). Results for CVD-related mortality and all-cause mortality were similar. WC and BMI were risk factors for HF requiring hospitalization, but not WHR or WC adjusted for HC (HR for WC: 1.34 [95% CI 1.16 to 1.54]; p < 0.001; HR for BMI: 1.33 [95% CI 1.17 to 1.50]; p < 0.001). No significant interaction with sex was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of the REWIND placebo group, WHR, WC and/or WC adjusted for HC were risk factors for MACE-3, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality; while BMI was only a risk factor for HF requiring hospitalization. These findings indicate the need for anthropometric measures that consider body fat distribution when assessing CV risk.

Real-World Treatment Patterns of Glucose-Lowering Agents Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease or At Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: An Observational, Cross-Sectional, Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited published literature on longitudinal utilization of glucose-lowering agents (GLAs) among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD or risk of CVD). This retrospective, observational study aimed to provide updated evidence on patient characteristics and utilization of GLAs among patients with T2D and CVD or risk of CVD in the United States. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional evaluation of patients with T2D aged 50-89 years with annual continuous enrolment in a Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug plan, identified from administrative claims data (Humana Research Database). Patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or heart failure (HF) (CVD cohort), or T2D and an additional CVD risk factor without pre-existing CVD (CVD risk cohort) were identified from 2015 to 2019. Patients were followed from their first observed ASCVD/HF diagnosis or CVD risk factor for each year they were continuously enrolled or until occurrence of a CVD diagnosis (CVD risk cohort only). Use of GLA classes were reported by year, cohort, and age groups (50-64 years and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: The percentage of patients on sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), and GLP-1 RAs with proven cardiovascular benefit, respectively, increased from 2015 to 2019 among ≥ 65 years (CVD cohort: 1.1-3.4%, 1.6-4.0%, and 1.2-3.8%; CVD risk cohort: 1.4-3.7%, 2.0-4.3%, and 1.5-4.1%); and among 50-64 years (CVD cohort: 2.6-7.3%, 4.3-10.1%, and 3.4-9.4%; CVD risk cohort: 3.3-6.8%, 4.6-9.6%, and 3.5-8.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of SGLT-2is and GLP-1 RAs increased over time, overall utilization of these agents in patients with T2D and ASCVD/HF or at risk for ASCVD/HF remained low, especially for those aged ≥ 65 years.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are types of glucose-lowering medications for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and American College of Endocrinology have recommended these medications for patients who have been diagnosed with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or heart failure (ASCVD/HF). The purpose of this study was to find out how many patients in a US-based health insurance population with T2D and ASCVD/HF were treated with SGLT-2is, GLP-1 RAs, and other glucose-lowering medications from 2015 to 2019. Using insurance claims data, we identified 50- to 89-year-old patients with T2D and either ASCVD/HF or at least one risk factor for ASCVD/HF. We tracked the number of patients with T2D and either ASCVD/HF or ASCVD/HF risk factors who were using different glucose-lowering medications. Glucose-lowering medications were used in most patients (60­78%), but fewer than 11% of patients aged 50­64 years, and fewer than 5% of patients over 65 years of age were prescribed SGLT-2i and GLP-1 RA medications, despite clinical guidelines recommending their use for the above-mentioned indications. Increasing awareness among healthcare providers may be required to ensure patients with T2D and ASCVD/HF or ASCVD/HF risk factors are prescribed the guideline-recommended cardioprotective glucose-lowering agents.

Examining the evidence for weight management in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

The obesity epidemic has been linked to the worsening diabetes epidemic. Despite this, weight reduction for individuals with obesity is seen as a secondary, or even tertiary, consideration in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim of this review is to examine the benefits of weight management in individuals with T2D. A literature review of current available published data on the benefits of weight reduction in individuals with T2D was conducted. In individuals with T2D who have obesity or overweight, modest and sustained weight reduction results in improvement in glycaemic control and decreased utilization of glucose-lowering medication. A total body weight loss of 5% or higher reduces HbA1c levels and contributes to mitigating risk factors of cardiovascular disease, such as hyperlipidaemia and hypertension, as well as other disease-related complications of obesity. Progressive improvements in glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors can occur when the total body weight loss increases to 10% or more. In the approach to treating patients with T2D and obesity, prioritizing weight management and the use of therapeutics that offer glycaemic control as well as the additional weight loss should be emphasized given their potential to attenuate the progression and severity of T2D.

HbA1c Reduction in Dulaglutide-Treated Patients Irrespective of Duration of Diabetes, Microvascular Disease, and BMI: A Post Hoc Analysis From the REWIND Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participant characteristics and long-term changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg in a post hoc analysis of the Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Change from baseline in HbA1c was assessed during and up to 72 months of treatment before and after adjustment for duration of diabetes, prior microvascular disease (nephropathy or retinopathy), and BMI. Slope analyses were used to assess the change in HbA1c during 0-12 months and 12-72 months of therapy. RESULTS: HbA1c was significantly reduced in patients treated with dulaglutide compared with placebo during 72 months of treatment (least-squares mean difference = -0.61%, P < 0.001), regardless of diabetes duration, prior microvascular disease, and BMI (all interaction P > 0.07). Significant reductions were apparent at all time points and were independent of these baseline characteristics. Slope analyses revealed that the dulaglutide group experienced a higher rate of HbA1c reduction compared with the placebo group from 0 to 12 months before and after adjustment. The dulaglutide group also experienced a higher rate of HbA1c increase from 12 to 72 months compared with the placebo group that became nonsignificant after adjustment for diabetes duration, prior microvascular disease, and BMI combined. Despite the greater rate of HbA1c increase in the dulaglutide group during this period, mean HbA1c values remained below baseline in the dulaglutide group and below mean HbA1c values in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide 1.5-mg treatment was statistically associated with a long-lasting decrease in HbA1c over 72 months, irrespective of baseline duration of diabetes, microvascular disease, and BMI.

A model-based simulation of glycaemic control and body weight when switching from semaglutide to 3.0- and 4.5-mg doses of once-weekly dulaglutide.

AIM: To evaluate HbA1c and body weight changes when semaglutide 0.5- or 1.0-mg once-weekly (QW) is switched to dulaglutide 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via exposure-response modelling. METHODS: HbA1c and body weight time-course models were developed and validated with data from the SUSTAIN 1 to 10 trials for semaglutide and the AWARD-11 trial for dulaglutide. Simulations were conducted for HbA1c and body weight over 52 weeks. In the initial 26 weeks, semaglutide was initiated at 0.25-mg and titrated to 0.5- or 1.0-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration, followed by 26 weeks of dulaglutide initiated at 0.75- or 1.5-mg QW and escalated to 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, model-predicted mean changes from baseline in HbA1c and weight for semaglutide 0.5 mg were up to -1.55% and -3.44 kg, respectively. After switching to dulaglutide 3.0 mg, further reductions were 0.19% and 1.40 kg, respectively, at 52 weeks. Predicted mean HbA1c and weight changes for semaglutide 1.0 mg at 26 weeks were -1.84% and -4.96 kg, respectively; after switching to dulaglutide 4.5 mg, HbA1c was maintained with additional weight reduction of up to 0.57 kg at 52 weeks. Glycaemic control was preserved when switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 mg. CONCLUSION: Switching from semaglutide 0.5 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 or 4.5 mg with dose escalation potentially yields additional HbA1c and weight reductions; switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 4.5 mg may enhance weight loss.