Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of obesity: An indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg with semaglutide 2.4 mg using an indirect treatment comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SURMOUNT-1 and STEP 1 trial data, mean percentage change in body weight from baseline and odds ratio (OR) of achieving 5% or greater weight loss were compared between tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg at week 72 and semaglutide 2.4 mg at week 68 using matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy estimand. Sensitivity analyses were completed using different methods, including the Bucher method, also using different estimands and/or time points. RESULTS: Greater reductions in percentage change in body weight were observed with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2.4 mg (tirzepatide 10 mg mean difference: -4.67% [95% CI -5.91%, -3.43%]; tirzepatide 15 mg mean difference: -5.92% [95% CI -7.16%, -4.68%]; both P < .001). Similarly, more participants achieved 5% or greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 mg (OR 2.61 [95% CI 1.48, 4.57]; P < .001) and 15 mg (OR 2.75 [95% CI 1.57, 4.81]; P < .001) compared with semaglutide 2.4 mg. All sensitivity analyses were consistent, except for an OR of achieving 5% or greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 mg using the Bucher method to analyse the treatment regimen estimand (P = .074). CONCLUSIONS: Currently there are no direct comparisons of tirzepatide and semaglutide for weight management. Using the matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison method to compare the efficacy of tirzepatide and semaglutide for chronic weight management, this analysis showed greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2.4 mg.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Final patient-reported outcomes at 24 months.

AIM: To report health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM) with two commonly prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) from the prospective, observational TROPHIES study (The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients). MATERIALS AND METHODS: TROPHIES was a two-cohort, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany and Italy. Adults with a T2D diagnosis, naïve to injectable treatment for T2D and prescribed dulaglutide or liraglutide as their first injectable GLM, were eligible for inclusion. Study objectives included describing the following PROs associated with the treatment of T2D with GLP-1RAs: health-related quality of life; impact of weight on self-perception; life and work productivity; and patient satisfaction with treatment and injection device. Additional analyses formally compared PRO measures between the treatment cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, improvements from baseline in PRO scores were observed among people who started dulaglutide or liraglutide. A more pronounced trend of improvement was observed in the dulaglutide cohort for changes from baseline in treatment satisfaction and impact of weight on self-perception, supported by statistically significant differences between treatment cohorts in additional comparative analyses at 12, 18 and 24 months. More positive patient perceptions of the injection device were observed with dulaglutide than with liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in PROs observed in TROPHIES, which were more evident with dulaglutide than liraglutide, reflect a relevant clinical benefit. From the patients' perspective, satisfaction, and confidence in continuing treatment with GLP-1RAs is likely to contribute to long-term treatment persistence.

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (TROPHIES): Final, 24-month analysis of time to first significant treatment change, treatment persistence and clinical outcomes.

AIMS: To present the final results of the TROPHIES study (The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective, real-world TROPHIES study included patients with type 2 diabetes initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM), dulaglutide or liraglutide, in France, Germany and Italy. The primary endpoint was the time spent on dulaglutide or liraglutide until a significant treatment change over 24 months. Other endpoints measured persistence with treatment, clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and weight) and treatment patterns. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first significant treatment change and persistence with treatment were generated. Propensity-score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline imbalances in the comparison between cohorts. RESULTS: The 286 of 1014 patients (28.2%) in the dulaglutide cohort and 448 of 991 patients (45.2%) in the liraglutide cohort had a significant treatment change over 24 months. By IPTW analysis, dulaglutide-initiating patients were less likely to have a significant treatment change (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.63) and more likely to be persistent with treatment (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86) over 24 months than liraglutide-initiating patients. Dulaglutide and liraglutide yielded similar HbA1c (-11.80 mmol/mol [1.08%] and -11.91 mmol/mol [1.09%]) and weight (-3.5 kg and -3.3 kg) reductions from baseline to 24 months. Few changes in patterns of treatment with other GLMs were observed in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide-initiating patients had a longer time spent without any significant treatment change and higher persistence than those initiating liraglutide. Treatment with either glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist yielded similar and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight.

Glycaemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dulaglutide, with and without concomitant insulin: Post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials.

AIM: To investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide and glycaemic variability (GV) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post hoc analyses of six randomized, phase 3 studies were conducted to investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly and GV in adult patients with T2D. Using data from seven- and eight-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) profiles over up to 28 weeks of treatment, GV in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day fasting glucose from SMPG (FSMPG) was assessed according to standard deviation and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: Pooled data from five studies with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, revealed clinically meaningful reductions in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability from baseline in the dulaglutide group. Comparisons between treatment groups in two studies demonstrated that reductions from baseline in within-day and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability were greater for treatment with dulaglutide compared with insulin glargine, as well as for treatment with dulaglutide when added to insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, treatment with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, was potentially associated with a reduction in GV. Treatment with dulaglutide was associated with a reduction in GV to a greater degree than insulin glargine. When added to insulin glargine, treatment with dulaglutide was associated with greater decreases in GV compared with insulin glargine alone. As reduced GV may be associated with better outcomes, these findings may have clinical relevance.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (TROPHIES): Patient disposition, clinical characteristics and treatment persistence at 12 months.

AIMS: The primary objective of the TROPHIES observational study is to estimate the duration of treatment on dulaglutide or liraglutide without a significant treatment change by 24 months in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable treatment with these glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). This manuscript presents 12-month interim data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TROPHIES is a prospective, non-comparative, observational study of patients with T2D in Europe, naïve to injectable antihyperglycaemic treatments and initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide. Data on clinical characteristics, GLP-1 RA persistence and treatment patterns of glucose-lowering medication were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and by 12 months. RESULTS: By 12 months, 1014 dulaglutide and 991 liraglutide patients were eligible across France, Germany and Italy. Both cohorts presented a high probability [95% confidence interval (CI)] of GLP-1 RA persistence [dulaglutide, 0.88 (0.86 to 0.90); liraglutide, 0.83 (0.80 to 0.85)] and reduction in mean glycated haemoglobin percentage (95% CI) from baseline [dulaglutide, -1.18 (-1.27 to -1.08); liraglutide, -1.15 (-1.26 to -1.05)] with 48.2% of dulaglutide and 41.2% of liraglutide patients reaching their individualized glycated haemoglobin percentage target set by the physician at baseline. Mean weight (95% CI) change from baseline was -3.2 kg (-3.6 to -2.8) for dulaglutide and -3.4 kg (-3.9 to -3.0) for liraglutide. Slight changes in concomitant medications were observed compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world setting, dulaglutide and liraglutide cohorts achieved good persistence with similarly improved glycaemic control that was accompanied by weight loss at 12 months, consistent with previous clinical trial results.

Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection. RESULTS: Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.01), except the comparison between oral semaglutide and the dulaglutide injection (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

AIM: When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset. RESULTS: There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycaemic patterns: A post hoc analysis of the AWARD-2 clinical trial.

The long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide acts by stimulating insulin secretion and reducing glucagon levels in a glucose-dependent manner both in the fasting and postprandial states, resulting in reductions of both fasting glucose (FG) and postprandial glucose (PPG). In contrast, the main mechanism of action of basal insulin is to reduce elevated FG by inhibiting hepatic glucose production. The aim of the present post hoc analysis of the phase 3 AWARD-2 trial was to investigate whether specific baseline glycaemic patterns respond differentially to dulaglutide compared to insulin glargine (glargine). We categorized participants into four subgroups based on prespecified glucose thresholds and their baseline FG and daily 2-hour mean PPG: low FG/low PPG; low FG/high PPG; high FG/low PPG; and high FG/high PPG. Changes in glycaemic measures in response to treatment with dulaglutide or glargine were evaluated in each subgroup. At 52 weeks, significant reductions from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were observed in all subgroups with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with glargine (all P < .05), except in patients with low FG/low PPG who received glargine. Greater HbA1c reductions were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg compared to glargine in all subgroups (all P ≤ .05), except in the low FG/high PPG subgroup.

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.

Effect of once weekly dulaglutide by baseline beta-cell function in people with type 2 diabetes in the AWARD programme.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists lower blood glucose in type 2 diabetes (T2D) partially through glucose-dependent stimulation of insulin secretion. The aim of this study was to investigate whether beta-cell function (as measured by HOMA2-%B) at baseline affects the glycaemic response to dulaglutide. Dulaglutide-treated patients from AWARD-1, AWARD-3 and AWARD-6 clinical studies were categorised based on their homeostatic model assessment of beta-cell function (HOMA2-%B) tertiles. Changes in glycaemic measures in response to treatment with once-weekly dulaglutide were evaluated in each HOMA2-%B tertile. Patients with low HOMA2-%B had higher baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial blood glucose, and longer duration of diabetes (P < .001, all) (mean low, middle and high tertiles with dulaglutide 1.5 mg: HOMAB-2%B, 31%, 58%, 109%; HbA1c, 8.7%, 7.7%, 7.3%, respectively). At 26 weeks, the low tertile experienced larger reductions in HbA1c compared to the high tertile with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (mean; -1.55% vs. -0.98% [-16.94 vs. -10.71 mmol/mol]). Differences between low and high tertiles disappeared when adjusted for baseline HbA1c (LSM; -1.00 vs. -1.18% [-10.93 vs. -12.90 mmol/mol]). Greater decreases in fasting blood glucose and greater increases in fasting C-peptide were observed in the low tertile. Similar increases in HOMA2-%B were observed in all tertiles. Dulaglutide demonstrated clinically relevant HbA1c reduction irrespective of estimated baseline beta-cell function.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose in patient subpopulations by gender, duration of diabetes and baseline HbA1c.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes by subgroups of gender, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the dulaglutide clinical development programme (AWARD-1 to -6 and -8 clinical trials). METHODS: Change in HbA1c was analysed by gender, duration of diabetes (<5, ≥5 years and <10, ≥10 years), and baseline HbA1c (<8.5%, ≥8.5%) in pooled and individual studies. Changes from baseline in weight, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were evaluated for individual trials. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg at 6 months, the reductions in HbA1c from baseline were similar across gender (men: least squares [LS] mean -1.26% [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.36, -1.16]; women: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.24]) and among duration of diabetes subgroups (<5 years: LS mean -1.32% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥5 and <10 years: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥10 years: -1.24% [95% CI -1.35, -1.14]). Patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% had greater HbA1c reductions than patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5%, (≥8.5%: LS mean -1.86% [95% CI -1.97, -1.75]; <8.5%: LS mean -1.02% [95% CI -1.12, -0.93]). Reductions in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were consistent with HbA1c changes. Similar results were observed with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. In general, body weight changes were similar among duration of diabetes and in baseline HbA1c subgroups, respectively; women had a numerically greater weight loss or less weight gain than men with both dulaglutide doses. There was no clinically meaningful difference in hypoglycaemia trends by gender or duration of diabetes. Hypoglycaemia incidence and rate were generally lower in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% than in those with <8.5%, except for the AWARD-4 study (combination with mealtime insulin). CONCLUSIONS: Across the AWARD studies, dulaglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control irrespective of gender, duration of diabetes, or baseline HbA1c, with greater HbA1c and FBG reductions in patients with a higher baseline HbA1c. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): resource use and costs of treatment in clinical practice in France, Germany, and Italy.

AIMS: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs after initiation of injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy by adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the prospective, observational, 24-month TROPHIES study in France, Germany, and Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HCRU data for cost calculations were collected by treating physicians during patient interviews at baseline and follow-up visits approximately 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after GLP-1 RA initiation with once-weekly dulaglutide or once-daily liraglutide. Costs were evaluated from the national healthcare system (third-party payer) perspective and updated to 2018 prices. RESULTS: In total, 2,005 patients were eligible for the HCRU analysis (1,014 dulaglutide; 991 liraglutide). Baseline patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups and countries. The largest proportions of patients using ≥2 oral glucose-lowering medications (GLMs) at baseline (42.9-43.4%) and month 24 (44.0-45.1%) and using another injectable GLM at month 24 (15.3-23.2%) were in France. Mean numbers of primary and secondary healthcare contacts during each assessment period were highest in France (range = 4.0-10.7) and Germany (range = 2.9-5.7), respectively. The greatest proportions (≥60%) of mean annualized costs per patient comprised medication costs. Mean annualized HCRU costs per patient varied by treatment cohort and country: the highest levels were in the liraglutide cohort in France (€909) and the dulaglutide cohort in Germany (€883). LIMITATIONS: Limitations included exclusion of patients using insulin at GLP-1 RA initiation and collection of HCRU data by physician, not via patient-completed diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world HCRU and costs associated with the treatment of adults with T2D with two GLP-1 RAs in TROPHIES emphasize the need to avoid generalization with respect to HCRU and costs associated with a particular therapy when estimating the impact of a new treatment in a country-specific setting.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have become frequent treatments of hyperglycemia in type-2 diabetes (T2D). Not all types of clinical study provide information about the cost of these treatments or the effects they might have on use of other medicines and equipment to control T2D or the need for visits to a doctor or nurse and different types of treatment in hospital. This study collected this information during the regular care of adults in France, Germany, or Italy who were prescribed either dulaglutide or liraglutide (both types of GLP-1 RAs) by their family doctor or a specialist in T2D. There were differences in costs and the need for other medicines and medical services between people using either dulaglutide or liraglutide and for people who were using the same GLP-1 RA in each of the three countries. The information from this study could be used to more accurately understand the overall costs and medical care needed when patients use dulaglutide or liraglutide in France, Germany, or Italy.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Design and Baseline Characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: The TROPHIES observational study enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating their first injectable treatment with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) dulaglutide or liraglutide. This manuscript focuses on the study design, baseline characteristics of the enrolled population, and factors associated with GLP-1 RA choice. METHODS: TROPHIES is a prospective, observational, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany, and Italy. Inclusion criteria include adult patients with T2DM, naïve to injectable antihyperglycemic treatments, initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide per routine clinical practice. The primary outcome is the duration of treatment on dulaglutide or liraglutide without a significant treatment change. RESULTS: The analysis included 2181 patients (dulaglutide, 1130; liraglutide, 1051) (cutoff date May 15, 2019). The population was 56% male with mean [standard deviation (SD)] patient characteristics at baseline as follows: age, 59.2 (11.0) years; body mass index (BMI), 33.9 (6.6) kg/m2; T2DM duration, 8.5 (6.9) years; and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 8.2 (1.3)%. Between-cohort demographic and clinical characteristics were balanced. The mean (SD) HbA1c and BMI values for French, German, and Italian patients were, respectively, 8.6 (1.4)%, 8.2 (1.4)%, 8.0 (0.8)%; 33.3 (6.1) kg/m2, 36.0 (7.2) kg/m2, and 32.6 (5.9) kg/m2. CONCLUSION: This study analysis at baseline provides an opportunity to evaluate between-country differences in baseline HbA1c, weight, macrovascular complications, and factors driving GLP-1 RA selection for patients with T2DM in daily practice.

Dulaglutide and liraglutide are medications that can help people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to control their blood sugar levels. These medications may also reduce body weight and reduce the risk of major cardiovascular disease. Given these treatment effects, it is essential to know how they are used in everyday clinical practice. Therefore, a study is being performed in three countries (France, Germany, and Italy) in people with T2DM who had a first-ever injectable therapy for T2DM with dulaglutide or liraglutide. Here, we present the study design, the patient characteristics at the start of treatment, and the factors driving the choice of one or the other medication. We analyzed data from 2181 people with T2DM. On average, it was shown that they were middle-aged and obese. On average, these people were diagnosed with T2DM 8.5 years before the start of dulaglutide or liraglutide and had high blood sugar levels when these medications were started. The patient characteristics were slightly different between the three countries. Country-specific factors driving the choice of either medication were also identified.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Although patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures provide important information beyond clinical data, studies that assess the PROs of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients initiating injectable glucose-lowering medications in routine clinical practice are limited. We describe the perspectives of patients based on a diversified panel of generic and disease-specific PRO measures at the time of enrollment (baseline) in the TROPHIES study. METHODS: TROPHIES is a 24-month prospective observational study performed in France, Germany, and Italy in patients with T2DM who initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering medication with once-weekly dulaglutide or once-daily liraglutide. To better understand the perspectives of these patients regarding their overall health, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life and work, the patients' responses to the following questionnaires were collected at baseline before they initiated treatment with dulaglutide or liraglutide: EQ-5D-5L (scale: 0-1), EQ-VAS (visual analog scale: 0-100), Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions Questionnaire (IW-SP; scale: 0-100), Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Status (DTSQs; scale: 0-36), and Diabetes Productivity Measure (DPM; scale: 0-100). Analyses were descriptive in nature, with higher scores reflecting better outcomes. RESULTS: Data from patients at the time of enrollment were analyzed. At baseline, patients initiating dulaglutide (N = 1130) or liraglutide (N = 1051) rated their quality of life in terms of mean EQ-5D-5L index as 0.84 and 0.83, and in terms of mean EQ-VAS as 67.5 and 67.5, respectively. The mean baseline scores in patients initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide were 59.8 and 61.3 for IW-SP, 24.6 and 25.8 for DTSQs, 78.6 and 79.5 for DPM Life Productivity, and 87.5 and 86.8 for DPM Work Productivity, respectively. CONCLUSION: The information from this varied panel of PRO instruments collected at baseline complements clinical outcomes data.

Effect of dulaglutide on cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment. We aimed to investigate the association between the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist dulaglutide and cognitive impairment as an exploratory analysis within the Researching Cardiovascular Events With a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. METHODS: REWIND is a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at 371 sites in 24 countries. We included men and women (aged ≥50 years) with either established or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors, glycated haemoglobin of up to 9·5% (80 mmol/mol) on a maximum of two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin, and a body-mass index of at least 23 kg/m2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) subcutaneous injections once a week of either dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or an equal volume of matching placebo. Randomisation was done using a computer-generated code with stratification by site. Participants and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the database was locked. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline and during follow-up using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). We present here the exploratory primary cognitive outcome, which was the first occurrence of a follow-up score on MoCA or DSST that was 1·5 SDs or more below the baseline mean score in the participant's country. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach. The REWIND trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During median follow-up of 5·4 (IQR 5·1-5·9) years, 8828 participants provided a baseline and one or more follow-up MoCA or DSST scores, of whom 4456 were assigned dulaglutide and 4372 were assigned placebo. The cognitive outcome occurred in 4·05 per 100 patient-years in participants assigned dulaglutide and 4·35 per 100 patient-years in people assigned placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·85-1·02; p=0·11). After post-hoc adjustment for individual standardised baseline scores, the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment was reduced by 14% in those assigned dulaglutide (HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·79-0·95; p=0·0018). INTERPRETATION: Long-term treatment with dulaglutide might reduce cognitive impairment in people with type 2 diabetes. Further studies of this drug focused on brain health and cognitive function are clearly indicated. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor-agonist treatment attributes.

PURPOSE: The importance of patient-centered care in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is widely advocated. Understanding the attributes of T2DM medications important to patients is thus essential for effective management, in order to limit disease progression. This literature review aimed to identify studies comparing patient preferences, based on process and outcome attributes, between GLP1-receptor agonist (RA) profiles and between GLP1 RA and insulin profiles. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library (2005-present) were searched for studies in patients with T2DM or the general population that compared preferences for GLP1 RAs or GLP1 RAs versus insulin using contingent valuation, conjoint analysis (discrete-choice experiments [DCEs], willingness to pay), rating-based approaches of specific attributes, standard gamble, or time trade-off. Studies comparing drug A versus drug B without explicit attribute valuation were excluded. RESULTS: Ten records met eligibility criteria. Eight studies compared preferences for GLP1 RA- profile attributes, one compared GLP1 RA versus insulin glargine profiles, and one addressed both comparisons. Important attributes driving patient preferences in DCEs were dose frequency, type of device, needle size, change in glycated hemoglobin, and adverse-event profile. Time trade-off evaluations demonstrated that weekly GLP1 RA injection-device attributes (reconstitution, waiting during preparation, needle handling) had a measurable impact on preference. Willingness-to-pay analysis showed that patients were more willing to pay extra for attributes of once-daily liraglutide over twice-weekly exenatide or insulin. Direct preference elicitation in DCEs revealed that patients preferred medication profiles representing GLP1 RAs with less frequent dosing and preferred GLP1 RA profiles over insulin. CONCLUSION: Process and outcome attributes are important drivers of patient preference for GLP1 RAs. Findings from patient-preference studies can inform clinical decision-making and help align care with patient values, which has the potential to improve medication adherence and outcomes.

Timing of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Initiation for Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who fail to meet glycaemic control are at increased risk of diabetes complications. For patients who cannot maintain glycaemic control with oral medication, one recommended option is to add an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) to their treatment regimen. The purpose of this study was to examine time to treatment intensification with GLP-1 RAs, including the duration of time that patients did not maintain glycaemic control with oral medication. METHODS: This was a medical record review conducted in the UK via a physician survey. Patients eligible to have their records reviewed were required to be ≥ 18 years of age, have a confirmed T2DM diagnosis, and have initiated GLP-1 RA treatment for T2DM in the past 6 months. All glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values within 5 years prior to GLP-1 RA initiation were collected. RESULTS: A total of 113 physicians contributed data for 1096 patients (mean age at the time of GLP-1 RA initiation was 54.9 years, 55.4% were male, and 71.4% were White). Median time from T2DM diagnosis to GLP-1 RA initiation was 6.1 years. Median consecutive time patients taking oral regimens were not under glycaemic control (HbA1c > 7.0%) prior to GLP-1 RA initiation was 13.5 months. Patients treated by general practitioners (GPs) had a significantly longer duration of time with insufficient glycaemic control prior to GLP-1 RA initiation compared with patients treated by diabetes specialists (median time for specialists was 11.0 months vs. 17.0 months for GPs; p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that treatment intensification is often delayed despite consistently poor glycaemic control for more than 12 months, contrary to treatment guideline recommendations. Findings from this study highlight that some T2DM patients may benefit from more rapid treatment intensification, which could improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk for many short- and long-term health complications.

Dulaglutide as add-on therapy to SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (AWARD-10): a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes through different mechanisms. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to the ongoing treatment regimen in patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with SGLT2 inhibitors, with or without metformin. METHODS: AWARD-10 was a phase 3b, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, 24-week study done at 40 clinical sites in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Spain, and the USA. Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c concentration ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤9·5% [80 mmol/mol]), a BMI of 45 kg/m2 or less, and taking stable doses (>3 months) of an SGLT2 inhibitor (with or without metformin) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injections of either dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or placebo once per week for 24 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to dulaglutide and placebo assignment, and those assessing outcomes were masked to study drug assignment. The primary objective was to test for the superiority of dulaglutide (1·5 mg or 0·75 mg) versus placebo for change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at 24 weeks. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02597049. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2015, and Feb 3, 2017, 424 patients were randomly assigned to dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=142), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=142), and placebo (n=140). One patient in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group was excluded from the analysis because they did not receive any dose of the study drug. The reduction in HbA1c concentration at 24 weeks was larger in patients receiving dulaglutide (least squares mean [LSM] for dulaglutide 1·5 mg -1·34% [SE 0·06] or -14·7 mmol/mol [0·6]; dulaglutide 0·75 mg -1·21% [0·06] or -13·2 mmol/mol [0·6]) than in patients receiving placebo (-0·54% [0·06] or -5·9 mmol/mol [0·6]; p<0·0001 for both groups vs placebo). The LSM differences were -0·79% (95% CI -0·97 to -0·61) or -8·6 mmol/mol (-10·6 to -6·7) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·66% (-0·84 to -0·49) or -7·2 mmol/mol (-9·2 to -5·4) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg (p<0·0001 for both). Serious adverse events were reported for five (4%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, three (2%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and five (4%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in patients treated with dulaglutide than in patients who received placebo, mainly because of an increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Nausea (21 [15%] patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group vs seven [5%] in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group vs five [4%] in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [6%] vs 14 [10%] vs four [3%]), and vomiting (five [4%] vs four [3%] vs one [1%]) were more common with dulaglutide than with placebo. One episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group. Two (1%) patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg died, but these deaths were not considered to be related to study drug; no deaths occurred in the other groups. INTERPRETATION: Dulaglutide as add-on treatment to SGLT2 inhibitors (with or without metformin) resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control, with acceptable tolerability that is consistent with the established safety profile of dulaglutide. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Medication adherence and improved outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the association between adherence to glucose-lowering agents (GLAs) and patient outcomes in an adult type 2 diabetes (T2D) population. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: Truven's Commercial Claims and Encounters database supplied data from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014. Patients 18 to 64 years with T2D were included if they received a GLA from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. Multivariable analyses examined the relationships among 3-year patient outcomes and adherence, defined as proportion of days covered 80% or more. Outcomes included all-cause medical costs, acute care resource utilization, and acute complications. RESULTS: Although there was no statistically significant difference in total costs when comparing adherent and nonadherent patients ($38,633 vs $38,357; P = .0720), acute care costs ($12,153 vs $8233; P <.0001) and outpatient costs ($16,964 vs $15,457; P <.0001) were significantly lower for adherent patients. Adherence was also associated with a lower probability of hospitalization (22.71% vs 17.65%; P <.0001) and emergency department (ED) visits (45.61% vs 38.47%; P <.0001), fewer hospitalizations (0.40 vs 0.27; P <.0001) and ED visits (1.23 vs 0.83; P <.0001), and a shorter hospital length of stay (2.16 vs 1.25 days; P <.0001). Adherent patients were also less likely to be diagnosed with an acute complication in the 3-year post period (12.54% vs 9.64%; P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonadherence, adherence to GLAs among patients with T2D was associated with a significant reduction in acute care costs and resource utilization, outcomes that may positively impact the welfare of patients.

Associations between adherence and outcomes among older, type 2 diabetes patients: evidence from a Medicare Supplemental database.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between adherence to glucose-lowering agents and patient outcomes, including costs, acute-care resource utilization, and complications, in an older, type 2 diabetic population. DATA AND METHODS: The study used Truven's Medicare Supplemental database from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014. Patients aged 65 years or older were included if they had at least two type 2 diabetes diagnoses and received a glucose-lowering agent from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. Multivariable analyses examined the relationships among 3-year patient outcomes and levels of adherence, proxied by the proportion of days covered. Outcomes included all-cause medical costs, diabetes-related medical costs, acute-care resource utilization, and acute complications. RESULTS: In this study (N=123,235), higher adherence was linked to reduced costs and improved health outcomes. For example, comparing an individual with adherence of proportion of days covered <20% to one with proportion of days covered ≥80% illustrates an average saving of $28,824 in total 3-year costs. Furthermore, a 1% increase in adherence among 1,000 patients was associated with all-cause savings of $65,464 over 3 years. The probability of a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or an acute complication decreased monotonically as adherence levels got higher, as did the number of hospitalizations, ER visits, and days hospitalized (P<0.005). CONCLUSION: Higher adherence was associated with substantially less need for acute care, as indicated by a lowered probability of hospitalization or ER use, a reduced risk of an acute complication, and a decreased number of hospitalizations, ER visits, and days hospitalized. Higher adherence was also generally associated with lower all-cause and diabetes-related total costs, despite higher drug costs. These lower total costs were driven by the diminished acute care and outpatient costs. Results suggest that higher glucose-lowering agent adherence is associated with significant benefits for payers and older patients with type 2 diabetes.