Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg doses), a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, versus semaglutide 1.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS-2 trial, from a US healthcare payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model was used to make projections of clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SURPASS-2 trial. Intensification to insulin therapy occurred when HbA1c reached 7.5%, in line with American Diabetes Association recommendations. Direct costs in 2021 US dollars (US$) and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: All three doses of tirzepatide were associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus semaglutide. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 75 803, 58 908 and 48 785 per quality-adjusted life year gained for tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively, versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus semaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on the SURPASS-2 trial results indicate that 5, 10 and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide are likely to be cost-effective versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis. RESULTS: The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

Exploring potential mediators of the cardiovascular benefit of dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in REWIND.

BACKGROUND: The REWIND trial demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes and multiple CV risk factors or established CV disease. This exploratory analysis evaluated the degree to which the effect of dulaglutide on CV risk factors could statistically account for its effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the REWIND trial. METHODS: Potential mediators of established CV risk factors that were significantly reduced by dulaglutide were assessed in a post hoc analysis using repeated measures mixed models and included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). These factors, for which the change in level during follow-up was significantly associated with incident MACE, were identified using Cox regression modeling. Each identified variable was then included as a covariate in the Cox model assessing the effect of dulaglutide on MACE to estimate the degree to which the hazard ratio of dulaglutide vs placebo was attenuated. The combined effect of the variables associated with attenuation was assessed by including all variables in an additional Cox model. RESULTS: Although all evaluated variables were significantly improved by treatment, only changes in HbA1c and UACR were associated with MACE and a reduction in the effect of dulaglutide on this outcome was observed. The observed hazard ratio for MACE for dulaglutide vs placebo reduced by 36.1% by the updated mean HbA1c, and by 28.5% by the updated mean UACR. A similar pattern was observed for change from baseline in HbA1c and UACR and a reduction of 16.7% and 25.4%, respectively in the hazard ratio for MACE with dulaglutide vs placebo was observed. When HbA1c and UACR were both included, the observed hazard ratio reduced by 65.4% for the updated mean and 41.7% for the change from baseline with no HbA1c-UACR interaction (P interaction = 0.75 and 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-induced improvement in HbA1c and UACR, but not changes in weight, systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol, appear to partly mediate the beneficial effects of dulaglutide on MACE outcomes. These observations suggest that the proven effects of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease benefit are partially related to changes in glycemic control and albuminuria, with residual unexplained benefit. Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT01394952. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01394952.

Adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with semaglutide and exenatide BCise: 6-month follow-up from US real-world data.

AIM: To compare 6-month adherence, persistence and treatment patterns among patients initiating once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dulaglutide versus semaglutide, and dulaglutide versus exenatide BCise, using claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years, with type 2 diabetes, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide, semaglutide or exenatide BCise during the index period February 2018 to December 2018 (index date = earliest GLP-1RA fill date), no claim for GLP-1RAs in the 6-month pre-index period, and continuous enrolment 6 months pre- and post-index were included. Dulaglutide users were propensity-matched 1:1 to semaglutide users (3852 pairs) or exenatide BCise users (1879 pairs). The proportions of adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) patients were compared using chi-squared tests. Persistence, measured as days to discontinuation, was analysed using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Matched cohorts (dulaglutide:semaglutide and dulagutide:exenatide BCise) were balanced in baseline characteristics and the mean age was 54 and 55 years, respectively, with approximately 51% and 49% women, respectively. At 6 months, significantly more dulaglutide users were adherent than semaglutide (59.7% vs. 42.7%; P <0.0001) or exenatide BCise users (58.1% vs. 40.3%; P <0.0001). Cox regression showed that dulaglutide users were less likely to discontinue therapy than semaglutide (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66, 0.76) or exenatide BCise users (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53, 0.65; P <0.0001, both). CONCLUSION: At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of patients initiating dulaglutide were adherent to and persistent with their treatment, compared to matched patients initiating either semaglutide or exenatide BCise.

Patients' preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study.

AIMS: To understand patient preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medication administration profiles, and reasons for their preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The REVISE study, a cross-sectional online survey of 600 participants with T2DM (United Kingdom, n = 300; United States, n = 300), elicited general preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications, and reasons for the preference. Participants then viewed two videos describing the administration procedures for injectable dulaglutide and oral semaglutide, based on the product instructions for use. Thereafter, participants indicated their preference for a once-weekly injectable or a once-daily oral medication based on the video descriptions. Participants who switched preferences were asked to identify the reasons influencing their decision. RESULTS: The participants were predominantly male (n = 349; 58.2%), with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11.3) years. Nearly all (n = 557; 92.8%) were taking an oral T2DM medication, and 158 (26.3%) were using an injectable. Initially, 76.5% (n = 459; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.1-79.9) preferred a once-daily oral and 23.5% a once-weekly injectable (n = 141; 95% CI 20.1-26.9; P < 0.0001). After viewing the videos describing the product-specific administration, the proportions of participants preferring each option were not statistically different (oral semaglutide administration description (n = 315; 52.5%; 95% CI 48.5-56.5; dulaglutide administration description (n = 285; 47.5%; 95% CI 43.5-51.5; NS, P = 0.2207). The most common reason for switching preferences was the timing and steps of administration. CONCLUSION: Several treatment-related characteristics, including route, frequency and complexity of the treatment, play a role in patients' preferences for T2DM treatments and should be considered during treatment selection.

Effect of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on weight in patients with type 2 diabetes: Exploratory analyses of AWARD-11.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg on body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) based on exploratory analyses of the AWARD-11 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 (n = 612), 3.0 (n = 616) or 4.5 mg (n = 614) for 52 weeks. The primary objective was superiority of dulaglutide 3.0 and/or 4.5 mg over 1.5 mg in HbA1c reduction at 36 weeks. Secondary and exploratory assessments included weight reduction in the overall trial population and baseline body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c subgroups. RESULTS: At baseline, patients had a mean age of 57.1 years, HbA1c 8.6% (70 mmol/mol), weight 95.7 kg and BMI 34.2 kg/m2 . At 36 weeks, dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg were superior to 1.5 mg for weight change from baseline (1.5 mg, -3.1 kg; 3.0 mg, -4.0 kg [P = .001]; 4.5 mg, -4.7 kg [P < .001]). Higher dulaglutide doses were associated with numerically greater weight reduction compared with 1.5 mg in each baseline BMI and HbA1c subgroup. Absolute weight reduction increased with increasing BMI category, but percentage weight loss was similar between subgroups. Weight reductions with dulaglutide were greater in patients with lower versus higher baseline HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, inadequately controlled by metformin, incremental weight loss was observed with dulaglutide 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 mg doses regardless of baseline BMI or HbA1c. Although absolute weight loss was numerically greater in patients with higher baseline BMI, percentage of weight loss was similar between BMI subgroups.

Adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly at 12-month follow-up in a real-world setting in the United States.

AIMS: To evaluate adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs at 12-month follow-up for patients initiating dulaglutide versus liraglutide or exenatide once weekly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present retrospective observational claims study included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for dulaglutide, liraglutide or exenatide once weekly from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%, and persistence was measured by time to discontinuation of index therapy. Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was assessed in a subset with pre- and post-index HbA1c results. Propensity scores were used to match the cohorts. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were balanced for the matched cohorts, dulaglutide versus liraglutide (n = 2471) and dulaglutide versus exenatide once weekly (n = 1891). Among those initiating dulaglutide there was a significantly higher proportion of adherent patients compared with the groups initiating liraglutide (51.2% vs. 38.2%; P < 0.001) and exenatide once weekly (50.7% vs. 31.9%; P < 0.001). At 12 months, 55% of patients in the dulaglutide group versus 43.8% in the liraglutide group (P < 0.001), and 54.9% in the dulaglutide versus 34.4% in the exenatide once-weekly group (P < 0.001) were persistent. The dulaglutide group had a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than the liraglutide group (-34.24 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.032), and a greater, but nonsignificant, reduction in HbA1c than the exenatide once-weekly group (-34.46 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.056). The diabetes-related total costs were not significantly different between the dulaglutide and the liraglutide group ($16,174 vs. $16,694; P = 0.184), and were significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly ($15,768 vs. $14,615; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence and persistence are important considerations in patient-centric treatment selection for patients with T2D. Higher adherence and persistence for dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly are relevant criteria when choosing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment for patients with T2D.

Generalizability of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials to the overall type 2 diabetes population in the United States.

AIM: To examine the generalizability of results from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) in the US type 2 diabetes (T2D) population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled or eligible for inclusion in four CVOTs (EXSCEL, LEADER, REWIND, and SUSTAIN-6) were examined in reference to a retrospective clinical database weighted to match the age and sex distribution of the US adult T2D population. We descriptively compared key baseline characteristics of the populations enrolled in each trial to those of the reference population and estimated the proportions of individuals in the reference population represented by those in the trials for each characteristic. We also estimated the proportions of individuals in the reference population that might have been enrolled in each trial based upon meeting the trial inclusion and exclusion (I/E) criteria. RESULTS: No trial's enrolled population perfectly matched the reference population in key characteristics. The EXSCEL population most closely matched in mean age (62.7 vs. 60.5 years) and percentage with estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 (18.6 vs. 17.3%), while REWIND most closely matched in HbA1c, sex distribution, and proportion with a prior myocardial infarction. Based on I/E criteria, 42.6% of the reference population were eligible for enrolment in REWIND, versus 15.9% in EXSCEL, 13.0% in SUSTAIN-6, and 12.9% in LEADER. CONCLUSIONS: Although none of the trials are fully representative of the general population, among the four trials examined, results from baseline REWIND were found to be more generalizable to the US adult T2D population than those of other GLP-1 RA CVOTs.

Treatment patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: Higher adherence and persistence with dulaglutide compared with once-weekly exenatide and liraglutide.

AIMS: To compare adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, and treatment patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). More specifically, the main objectives were to compare dulaglutide vs exenatide once weekly and dulaglutide vs liraglutide. METHODS: Patients with T2DM newly initiating dulaglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once weekly, exenatide twice daily and liraglutide between November 2014 and April 2015 were hierarchically selected from Truven Health's MarketScan Research Databases. Propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias. Adherence to and persistence with the index GLP-1RA, and switching and augmentation patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period. RESULTS: Mean adherence for the matched cohorts was significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly (0.72 vs 0.61; P < .0001) and liraglutide (0.71 vs 0.67; P < .0001). The percentage of patients achieving PDC ≥ 0.80 was significantly higher for dulaglutide compared with exenatide once weekly (54.2% vs 37.9%; P < .0001) and liraglutide (53.5% vs 44.3%; P < .0001). The mean (standard deviation) days on treatment for all matched patients was significantly higher for patients in the dulaglutide cohort compared with those in the exenatide once-weekly (148.4 [55.4] vs 123.6 [61.6]; P < .0001) and liraglutide cohorts (146.0 [56.9] vs 137.4 [60.1]; P < .0001). A significantly lower proportion of patients on dulaglutide discontinued treatment compared with those on exenatide once weekly (26.2% vs 48.4%; P < .0001) and those on liraglutide (28.0% vs 35.6%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide initiators had significantly higher adherence, were more persistent, and had lower discontinuation rates compared with initiators of exenatide once weekly or liraglutide during the 6-month follow-up period.

Mealtime-related dosing directions for proton-pump inhibitors in gastroesophageal reflux disease: physician knowledge, patient adherence.

OBJECTIVE To describe physicians' knowledge, patients' adherence, and perceptions of both regarding mealtime-related dosing directions for proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). DESIGN Chart review and survey of patients and physicians. SETTING United States, with data collected between January and July 2011. PARTICIPANTS Patients being treated for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with PPIs and their prescribing physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Patient- and physician-reported perception of PPI mealtime-related directions as important/inconvenient (seven-point Likert scale; 7 = very important/very inconvenient); physician-reported knowledge of PPI mealtime-related dosing directions based on whether the agent is labeled to be taken 30-60 minutes before eating (DIR-esomeprazole magnesium [Nexium-AstraZeneca], lansoprazole, and omeprazole) or labeled to be taken regardless of meals (NoDIR-dexlansoprazole [Dexilant-Takeda], rabeprazole, and pantoprazole); and patient-reported PPI mealtime-related directions received and adherence to directions. RESULTS Physicians (n = 262) recruited 501 patients who had been prescribed PPIs (262 DIR/239 NoDIR; mean age 51 years, 37% men, 56% nonerosive GERD [29% undocumented]). Across PPIs, physicians frequently reported incorrect directions or "did not know directions" (29% for esomeprazole to 69% for pantoprazole). While 98% of patients reported receiving directions from their physicians and 55% from their pharmacists, only 65% of DIR patients and 18% of NoDIR received directions consistent with product labeling. Physicians perceived greater inconvenience than patients (4.4 vs. 1.6, P < 0.001) and greater importance (5.2 vs. 4.5, P < 0.001) of mealtime-related directions. Overall, 81% of patients reported taking their PPI as directed. CONCLUSION While this patient cohort was adherent to directions given, physicians' directions were often inconsistent with product labeling. Understanding physician and patient knowledge gaps may be critical to ensuring patients receive appropriate directions, improving patient adherence to specific dosing instructions, attaining positive therapy outcomes, and identifying opportunities for pharmacist-led interventions.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective. METHODS: The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

Seasonal patterns of abdominal pain consultations among adults and children.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Consultations for chronic abdominal pain are frequent in adults and children. A seasonal pattern of abdominal pain consultations with winter predominance was shown in previous pediatric studies; however, no studies have investigated whether such a pattern exists in adult patients. Understanding the differences in seasonal patterns of abdominal pain consultations among adults and children may indicate that either different mechanisms exist for common chronic pain conditions or triggering factors may vary by age. The aim of the study was to investigate whether a seasonal variation in abdominal pain consultation patterns exists among adults and children. METHODS: The number of outpatient consultations among children (5-17 years) and adults (18 years or older) with a diagnosis of abdominal pain of nonspecified origin (International Classification of Diseases-9 code 789.0) from May 2000 to December 2008 was identified in an administrative claims database. The primary outcome measure was the rate of abdominal pain consultations (total number of abdominal pain consultations/total number of distinct patients by month×1000) by season in children and adults. Seasons were defined as follows: winter (December-February), spring (March-May), summer (June-August), and fall (September-November). A trend test was conducted to determine the degree of linearity in the patterns between the 2 groups. Among children, subanalyses by age 5 to 11 years and 12 to 17 years and sex were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 172.4 million distinct patients (13.4% children, 87.6% adults) were identified in the database between May 2000 and December 2008. During the same time period, 15.6 million patient consultations for abdominal pain were identified (10.1% children, 89.9% adults). Children demonstrated a seasonal pattern in abdominal pain consultations, which best fit a quadratic regression curve, with consultations less common during the summer months. Abdominal pain consultations in adults were linear with no seasonal predominance. The trend in seasonal variation of abdominal pain consultations among children stratified by age and sex remained consistent with the overall child population. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal pain consultations in children are less common during summer months, whereas no evidence of seasonal pattern of consultation was found in adults. Factors involved in the pathogenesis of abdominal pain in adults and children may differ.

Cost per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets and Number Needed to Treat with Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide 1 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving glycemic control can help reduce complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the pharmacy cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg versus semaglutide 1 mg to achieve glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints in patients with T2D in the United States. METHODS: The proportions of patients achieving glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints were obtained from the phase 3 SURPASS-2 randomized clinical trial which compared tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg to semaglutide 1 mg. Annual pharmacy costs were calculated using 2022 wholesale acquisition costs. Cost per responder and NNT were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Tirzepatide had a lower cost per responder to achieve glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) endpoints of ≤ 6.5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses) and < 5.7% (all doses) and weight loss endpoints of ≥ 5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses), ≥ 10% (all doses), and ≥ 15% (all doses). The cost per responder to achieve HbA1c < 7% (all doses of tirzepatide) and ≤ 6.5% (5 mg tirzepatide) were not statistically significantly different between tirzepatide and semaglutide 1 mg. The cost per patient to achieve the composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5%, or < 5.7%/weight loss ≥ 10%/no hypoglycemia) was statistically significantly lower for all doses of tirzepatide than for semaglutide 1 mg. The NNTs for all doses of tirzepatide were statistically significantly lower than that for semaglutide 1 mg to achieve all individual and composite endpoints, with the exception of the 5 mg dose for HbA1c < 7.0% and HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, where tirzepatide had numerically lower NNTs that were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) that may offer the potential to achieve stringent glycemic goals, weight loss targets, and composite treatment goals at a lower cost per responder compared to semaglutide 1 mg among people with T2D.

Maintenance of heartburn relief after step-down from twice-daily proton pump inhibitor to once-daily dexlansoprazole modified release.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) take a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) twice daily to control symptoms. Once-daily dexlansoprazole modified release (MR) has a dual-delayed release formulation, making it attractive for step-down management of patients whose symptoms are well controlled on twice-daily PPIs. We investigated whether step-down to once-daily dexlansoprazole controls heartburn in patients with GERD who were receiving twice-daily PPI therapy. METHODS: Patients 18 years and older taking a twice-daily PPI for symptom control were enrolled (n = 178) in a single-blind, multicenter study; 163 patients completed the study and 142 patients met criteria for the efficacy analysis. During the 6-week screening and treatment periods, patients recorded the presence of heartburn symptoms twice daily in electronic diaries. Patients' heartburn was considered well controlled if they had an average of 1 symptom or fewer per week during the last 4 weeks of screening and treatment. After screening, qualified patients were switched to masked dexlansoprazole MR 30 mg and placebo for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients whose heartburn remained well controlled after step-down. GERD-related symptoms and quality of life (QOL) also were evaluated using the Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM) and the PAGI-QOL questionnaires, respectively. RESULTS: After step-down to once-daily dexlansoprazole MR 30 mg, heartburn remained well controlled in 88% of patients (125 of 142). These patients were able to maintain their GERD-related symptom severity and QOL, indicated by marginal changes in the PAGI-SYM and PAGI-QOL total and subscale scores, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with GERD who take twice-daily PPI to control heartburn are able to successfully step down to once-daily dexlansoprazole 30 mg.

Are we there yet? Increasing use of cardioprotective antihyperglycemic agents in patients with T2D and CVD or CV risk in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the use of antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) by age (i.e. <65, ≥65 years) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cardiovascular risk (CV risk) factors in the United States. METHODS: Patients with T2D and CVD (CVD cohort) or T2D and an additional CV risk factor without pre-existing CVD (CV risk cohort) were identified from 2015 to 2019 in a claims database. Patients were followed from their first observed CVD diagnosis or CV risk factor for each year they were continuously enrolled or until occurrence of a CVD diagnosis (CV risk cohort only). Classes of AHAs received were reported by year, cohort, and age group. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2019, the percentage of patients <65 years on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) increased (CVD: 9-17%, CV risk: 9-17%) and was approximately twice that of those ≥65 years (CVD: 4-8%, CV risk: 4-8%); the percentage of patients <65 years on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors increased (CVD: 11-16%, CV risk: 11-17%) and was approximately triple that of those ≥65 years (CVD: 3-6%, CV risk: 4-7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors increased during the study period; however, most patients did not receive these medications. Patients aged ≥65 years were particularly disadvantaged.

Association of Dulaglutide Initiation Timing With Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States.

PURPOSE: To describe clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes for early or late initiation of dulaglutide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective, claims-based analysis evaluated adults with type 2 diabetes, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg once-weekly injection (between November 2014 and August 2019), and no prior use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists or insulin. Cohorts were defined based on the number of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) classes used within the 24-month baseline period before dulaglutide therapy initiation: 1 OAD, 2 OADs, or ≥3 OADs. The number of OAD classes used before dulaglutide therapy initiation served as a proxy for timing of initiation, with a higher number of OAD classes indicating a longer duration of T2D. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were compared across each cohort. Six-month follow-up outcomes, including change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and treatment patterns, were descriptively assessed within each cohort. FINDINGS: The study population consisted of 18,121 patients across the 1 OAD (n = 4822), 2 OADs (n = 6293), and ≥3 OADs (n = 7006) cohorts. Mean age at baseline was 54.7 years. Males were more prevalent in the ≥3 OADs cohort. Most patients (67%-70%) initiated treatment with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Dose escalation to 1.5 mg was uncommon (15%-20%) but trended higher in the ≥3 OAD cohort. Adherence to dulaglutide at 6-month follow-up (61%-67%) increased with higher baseline OAD use. The HbA1c assessment (n = 3178) included 761 patients in the 1 OAD cohort, 1088 patients in the 2 OADs cohort, and 1329 patients in the ≥3 OADs cohort. Baseline mean [SD] HbA1c level increased with number of OAD classes (1 OAD: 8.18% [1.80]; 2 OADs: 8.56% [1.66]; and ≥3 OADs: 8.73% [1.51]). Patients in the early dulaglutide therapy initiator group experienced larger reductions in HbA1c levels (1 OAD: -1.39%; 95% CI, -1.50 to -1.27; 2 OADs: -1.30%; 95% CI, -1.39 to -1.20; and ≥3 OADs: -1.01%; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.93) versus the patients in the delayed initiator group. Patients in the early dulaglutide therapy initiator group also achieved HbA1c <7% at 6-month follow-up more frequently than those in the later initiator group (1 OAD: 68%; 2 OADs: 51%; and ≥3 OADs: 33%). IMPLICATIONS: Cohorts of dulaglutide therapy initiators, defined by prior OAD use as a proxy of timing of initiation, differed in their baseline characteristics and short-term follow-up outcomes. Earlier dulaglutide therapy initiation was associated with lower mean HbA1c levels and increased probability of achievement of HbA1c <7% during the 6-month follow-up period.

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.

Greater Adherence and Persistence with Injectable Dulaglutide Compared with Injectable Semaglutide at 1-Year Follow-up: Data from US Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Greater medication adherence and persistence have been associated with improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study compared adherence, persistence, and treatment patterns among patients naïve to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists initiating once-weekly injectable treatment with dulaglutide versus semaglutide over 6-month (6M) and 12-month (12M) follow-up periods. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study used administrative claims data from three IBM MarketScan research databases. Data from adult patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating treatment with dulaglutide or semaglutide between January 2018 and January 2020 (index date was defined as the earliest fill date), without evidence of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use in the 6M baseline period, and with continuous enrollment in the 6M baseline and 6M or 12M follow-up period were included. Dulaglutide initiators were propensity score-matched, in a 1:1 ratio, to semaglutide initiators in each 6M and 12M follow-up cohort (26,284 and 13,837 pairs, respectively). FINDINGS: In the matched cohorts, baseline characteristics were balanced; the mean age was 53 years, and 50% of patients were women. Compared to semaglutide initiators, dulaglutide initiators were more adherent (6M, 63.4% vs 47.8%; 12M, 54.4% vs 43.3%; both, P < 0.0001), more persistent on therapy (6M, 72% vs 62%, 12M, 55.5% vs 45.3%, both, P < 0.001), and had more mean days of persistence (6M, 145 vs 132, 12M, 254.3 vs 220.7; both, P < 0.001). IMPLICATIONS: At both 6M and 12M follow-up, dulaglutide initiators had significantly greater adherence and greater persistence compared with matched semaglutide initiators.

The effect of dexlansoprazole MR on nocturnal heartburn and GERD-related sleep disturbances in patients with symptomatic GERD.

OBJECTIVES: Nocturnal heartburn and related sleep disturbances are common among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study evaluated the efficacy of dexlansoprazole MR 30 mg in relieving nocturnal heartburn and GERD-related sleep disturbances, improving work productivity, and decreasing nocturnal symptom severity in patients with symptomatic GERD. METHODS: Patients (N=305) with frequent, moderate-to-very severe nocturnal heartburn and associated sleep disturbances were randomized 1:1 in a double-blind fashion to receive dexlansoprazole MR or placebo once daily for 4 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of nights without heartburn. Secondary end points were the percentage of patients with relief of nocturnal heartburn and of GERD-related sleep disturbances over the last 7 days of treatment. At baseline and week 4/final visit, patients completed questionnaires that assessed sleep quality, work productivity, and the severity and impact of nocturnal GERD symptoms. RESULTS: Dexlansoprazole MR 30 mg (n=152) was superior to placebo (n=153) in median percentage of nights without heartburn (73.1 vs. 35.7%, respectively; P<0.001). Dexlansoprazole MR was significantly better than placebo in percentage of patients with relief of nocturnal heartburn and GERD-related sleep disturbances (47.5 vs. 19.6%, 69.7 vs. 47.9%, respectively; P<0.001), and led to significantly greater improvements in sleep quality and work productivity and decreased nocturnal symptom severity. Adverse events were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic GERD, dexlansoprazole MR 30 mg is significantly more efficacious than placebo in providing relief from nocturnal heartburn, in reducing GERD-related sleep disturbances and the consequent impairments in work productivity, and in improving sleep quality/quality of life.

Development and psychometric evaluation of 2 age-stratified versions of the Pediatric GERD Symptom and Quality of Life Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The Pediatric Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom and Quality of Life Questionnaire (PGSQ) represents 2 related age-stratified tools developed to assess pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). These include the PGSQ-Cp (for children ages 2 to 8 years, parent/caregiver report) and the PGSQ-A (for adolescents ages 9-17 years). The objective of the present study was to develop and evaluate PGSQ measurement properties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PGSQ items were generated based on information from focus groups, expert clinician review, and cognitive debriefing interviews. The symptoms of pediatric GERD and the effect of these symptoms were addressed. The tools were evaluated in a 3-week psychometric evaluation with participants from 11 clinical sites in the United States. The study included other measures such as the Pediatric Quality of Life questionnaire (PedsQL) and clinician-rated GERD severity. After item reduction, internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, known-group validity, and responsiveness were assessed. RESULTS: The 231 participants included 75 parents of children ages 2 to 8 years and 75 children ages 9 to 17 years with GERD and 41 parents of children and 40 children ages 9 to 17 years without GERD. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated 4 symptom subscales for the PGSQ-Cp and 3 symptom subscales for the PGSQ-A. Both had subscales for total impact and school impact. High to moderate internal consistency was observed, ranging from 0.76 to 0.96 for the PGSQ-Cp and from 0.67 to 0.94 for the PGSQ-A. The PGSQ significantly differentiated between patients with GERD and controls (P < 0.0001, PGSQ-Cp; P < 0.0022-0.0001, PGSQ-A) and demonstrated responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of both versions of the PGSQ. The instruments should be useful for clinical studies.