Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

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.).

Dose-response effects on HbA1c and bodyweight reduction of survodutide, a dual glucagon/GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo and open-label semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response effects of the subcutaneous glucagon receptor/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor dual agonist survodutide (BI 456906) on HbA1c levels and bodyweight reduction. METHODS: This Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, conducted in clinical research centres, assessed survodutide in participants aged 18-75 years with type 2 diabetes, an HbA1c level of 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%) and a BMI of 25-50 kg/m2 on a background of metformin therapy. Participants were randomised via interactive response technology to receive survodutide (up to 0.3, 0.9, 1.8 or 2.7 mg once weekly [qw; dose group (DG) 1-4, respectively] or 1.2 or 1.8 mg twice weekly [DG 5 and 6, respectively]), placebo or semaglutide (up to 1.0 mg qw). Participants and all those involved in the trial conduct/analysis were blinded; the semaglutide arm was open-label. The primary endpoint was absolute change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks' treatment. The key secondary endpoint was relative change from baseline in bodyweight after 16 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: A total of 413 participants were randomised (DG1, n=50; DG2, n=50; DG3, n=52; DG4, n=50; DG5, n=51; DG6, n=50; semaglutide, n=50; placebo, n=60). The full analysis set comprised 411 treated participants (DG6, n=49; placebo, n=59). Adjusted mean (95% CI) HbA1c decreased from baseline (mean ± SD 64.7±9.2 mmol/mol [8.07±0.84%] after 16 weeks' treatment: DG1 (n=41), -9.92 mmol/mol (-12.27, -7.56; -0.91% [-1.12, -0.69]); DG2 (n=46), -15.95 mmol/mol (-18.27, -13.63; -1.46% [-1.67, -1.25]); DG3 (n=36), -18.72 mmol/mol (-21.15, -16.29; -1.71% [-1.94, -1.49]); DG4 (n=33), -17.01 mmol/mol (-19.59, -14.43; -1.56% [-1.79, -1.32]); DG5 (n=44), -17.84 mmol/mol (-20.18, -15.51; -1.63% [-1.85, -1.42]); DG6 (n=36), -18.38 mmol/mol (-20.90, -15.87; -1.68% [-1.91, -1.45]). The mean reduction in HbA1c was similar with low-dose survodutide (DG2: -15.95 mmol/mol [-1.46%]; n=46) and semaglutide (-16.07 mmol/mol [-1.47%]; n=45). Mean (95% CI) bodyweight decreased dose-dependently up to -8.7% (-10.1, -7.3; DG6, n=37); survodutide ≥1.8 mg qw produced greater bodyweight reductions than semaglutide (-5.3% [-6.6, -4.1]; n=45). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 77.8% of survodutide-treated participants (mainly gastrointestinal), 52.5% receiving placebo and 52.0% receiving semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Survodutide reduced HbA1c levels and bodyweight after 16 weeks' treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes. Dose-related gastrointestinal AEs could be mitigated with slower dose escalations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153929 and EudraCT 2019-002390-60. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany.

Exploring the Relationship Between Efpeglenatide Dose and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the AMPLITUDE-O Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AMPLITUDE-O (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes) cardiovascular outcomes trial, adding either 4 mg or 6 mg weekly of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist efpeglenatide to usual care reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. Whether these benefits are dose related remains uncertain. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo, 4 mg or 6 mg of efpeglenatide. The effect of 6 mg versus placebo and of 4 mg versus placebo on MACE (a nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes) and on all the secondary composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes was assessed. A dose-response relationship was assessed using the log-rank test and χ2 statistic for trend. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, MACE occurred in 125 (9.2%) participants assigned to placebo, 84 (6.2%) participants assigned to 6 mg of efpeglenatide (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.5-0.86]; P=0.0027), and 105 (7.7%) assigned to 4 mg of efpeglenatide (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.63-1.06]; P=0.14). Participants receiving high-dose efpeglenatide also experienced fewer secondary outcomes, including the composite of MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina (HR, 0.73 for 6 mg, P=0.011; HR, 0.85 for 4 mg, P=0.17), a kidney composite outcome comprising sustained new macroalbuminuria, a ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate or renal failure (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P<0.0001; HR, 0.73 for 4 mg, P=0.0009), MACE or any death (HR, 0.67 for 6 mg, P=0.0021; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P=0.08), a kidney function outcome comprising a sustained ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal failure, or death (HR, 0.61 for 6 mg, P=0.0072; HR, 0.97 for 4 mg, P=0.83), and the composite of MACE, any death, heart failure hospitalization, or the kidney function outcome (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P=0.0002; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P=0.067). A clear dose-response was noted for all primary and secondary outcomes (all P for trend ≤0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The graded salutary relationship between efpeglenatide dose and cardiovascular outcomes suggests that titrating efpeglenatide and potentially other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists to high doses may maximize their cardiovascular and renal benefits. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03496298.

Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, semaglutide 50 mg, taken once per day versus placebo for the treatment of overweight or obesity in adults without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, superiority trial enrolled adults with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with bodyweight-related complications and comorbidities, without type 2 diabetes. The trial was done at 50 outpatient clinics in nine countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) via an interactive web-response system to oral semaglutide escalated to 50 mg, or visually matching placebo, once per day for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention. Group assignment was masked for participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes. Coprimary endpoints were the percentage change in bodyweight and whether participants reached a bodyweight reduction of at least 5% at week 68 for oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo, assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of other bodyweight-lowering therapies (an intention-to-treat analysis). Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05035095), is now complete. FINDINGS: From Sept 13 to Nov 22, 2021, 709 participants were screened, of whom 667 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 50 mg (n=334) or placebo (n=333). The estimated mean bodyweight change from baseline to week 68 was -15·1% (SE 0·5) with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus -2·4% (0·5) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -12·7 percentage points, 95% CI -14·2 to -11·3; p<0·0001). More participants reached bodyweight reductions of at least 5% (269 [85%] of 317 vs 76 [26%] of 295; odds ratio [OR] 12·6, 95% CI 8·5 to 18·7; p<0·0001), 10% (220 [69%] vs 35 [12%]; OR 14·7, 9·6 to 22·6), 15% (170 [54%] vs 17 [6%]; OR 17·9, 10·4 to 30·7), and 20% (107 [34%] vs 8 [3%]; OR 18·5, 8·8 to 38·9) at week 68 with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo. Adverse events were more frequent with oral semaglutide 50 mg (307 [92%] of 334) than with placebo (285 [86%] of 333). Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild to moderate) were reported in 268 (80%) participants with oral semaglutide 50 mg and 154 (46%) with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide 50 mg once per day led to a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Retatrutide, a GIP, GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist, for people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 trial conducted in the USA.

BACKGROUND: According to current consensus guidelines for type 2 diabetes management, bodyweight management is as important as attaining glycaemic targets. Retatrutide, a single peptide with agonist activity at the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed clinically meaningful glucose-lowering and bodyweight-lowering efficacy in a phase 1 study. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of retatrutide in people with type 2 diabetes across a range of doses. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 trial, participants were recruited from 42 research and health-care centres in the USA. Adults aged 18-75 years with type 2 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5% (53·0-91·3 mmol/mol), and BMI of 25-50 kg/m2 were eligible for enrolment. Eligible participants were treated with diet and exercise alone or with a stable dose of metformin (≥1000 mg once daily) for at least 3 months before the screening visit. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1:1:1:1:2) using an interactive web-response system, with stratification for baseline HbA1c and BMI, to receive once-weekly injections of placebo, 1·5 mg dulaglutide, or retatrutide maintenance doses of 0·5 mg, 4 mg (starting dose 2 mg), 4 mg (no escalation), 8 mg (starting dose 2 mg), 8 mg (starting dose 4 mg), or 12 mg (starting dose 2 mg). Participants, study site personnel, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until after study end. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks, and secondary endpoints included change in HbA1c and bodyweight at 36 weeks. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned, except inadvertently enrolled, participants, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04867785. FINDINGS: Between May 13, 2021, and June 13, 2022, 281 participants (mean age 56·2 years [SD 9·7], mean duration of diabetes 8·1 years [7·0], 156 [56%] female, and 235 [84%] White) were randomly assigned and included in the safety analysis (45 in the placebo group, 46 in the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group, and 47 in the retatrutide 0·5 mg group, 23 in the 4 mg escalation group, 24 in the 4 mg group, 26 in the 8 mg slow escalation group, 24 in the 8 mg fast escalation group, and 46 in the 12 mg escalation group). 275 participants were included in the efficacy analyses (one each in the retatrutide 0·5 mg group, 4 mg escalation group, and 8 mg slow escalation group, and three in the 12 mg escalation group were inadvertently enrolled). 237 (84%) participants completed the study and 222 (79%) completed study treatment. At 24 weeks, least-squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c with retatrutide were -0·43% (SE 0·20; -4·68 mmol/mol [2·15]) for the 0·5 mg group, -1·39% (0·14; -15·24 mmol/mol [1·56]) for the 4 mg escalation group, -1·30% (0·22; -14·20 mmol/mol [2·44]) for the 4 mg group, -1·99% (0·15; -21·78 mmol/mol [1·60]) for the 8 mg slow escalation group, -1·88% (0·21; -20·52 mmol/mol [2·34]) for the 8 mg fast escalation group, and -2·02% (0·11; -22·07 mmol/mol [1·21]) for the 12 mg escalation group, versus -0·01% (0·21; -0·12 mmol/mol [2·27]) for the placebo group and -1·41% (0·12; -15·40 mmol/mol [1·29]) for the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group. HbA1c reductions with retatrutide were significantly greater (p<0·0001) than placebo in all but the 0·5 mg group and greater than 1·5 mg dulaglutide in the 8 mg slow escalation group (p=0·0019) and 12 mg escalation group (p=0·0002). Findings were consistent at 36 weeks. Bodyweight decreased dose dependently with retatrutide at 36 weeks by 3·19% (SE 0·61) for the 0·5 mg group, 7·92% (1·28) for the 4 mg escalation group, 10·37% (1·56) for the 4 mg group, 16·81% (1·59) for the 8 mg slow escalation group, 16·34% (1·65) for the 8 mg fast escalation group, and 16·94% (1·30) for the 12 mg escalation group, versus 3·00% (0·86) with placebo and 2·02% (0·72) with 1·5 mg dulaglutide. For retatrutide doses of 4 mg and greater, decreases in weight were significantly greater than with placebo (p=0·0017 for the 4 mg escalation group and p<0·0001 for others) and 1·5 mg dulaglutide (all p<0·0001). Mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting, and constipation, were reported in 67 (35%) of 190 participants in the retatrutide groups (from six [13%] of 47 in the 0·5 mg group to 12 [50%] of 24 in the 8 mg fast escalation group), six (13%) of 45 participants in the placebo group, and 16 (35%) of 46 participants in the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group. There were no reports of severe hypoglycaemia and no deaths during the study. INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes, retatrutide showed clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control and robust reductions in bodyweight, with a safety profile consistent with GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonists. These phase 2 data also informed dose selection for the phase 3 programme. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850. FINDINGS: Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec. INTERPRETATION: In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial.

BACKGROUND: ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide Once Weekly in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of once-weekly tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist, are unknown. METHODS: In an open-label, 40-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1879 patients, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive tirzepatide at a dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg or semaglutide at a dose of 1 mg. At baseline, the mean glycated hemoglobin level was 8.28%, the mean age 56.6 years, and the mean weight 93.7 kg. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. RESULTS: The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -2.01 percentage points, -2.24 percentage points, and -2.30 percentage points with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg of tirzepatide, respectively, and -1.86 percentage points with semaglutide; the estimated differences between the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups and the semaglutide group were -0.15 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.28 to -0.03; P = 0.02), -0.39 percentage points (95% CI, -0.51 to -0.26; P<0.001), and -0.45 percentage points (95% CI, -0.57 to -0.32; P<0.001), respectively. Tirzepatide at all doses was noninferior and superior to semaglutide. Reductions in body weight were greater with tirzepatide than with semaglutide (least-squares mean estimated treatment difference, -1.9 kg, -3.6 kg, and -5.5 kg, respectively; P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and were primarily mild to moderate in severity in the tirzepatide and semaglutide groups (nausea, 17 to 22% and 18%; diarrhea, 13 to 16% and 12%; and vomiting, 6 to 10% and 8%, respectively). Of the patients who received tirzepatide, hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) was reported in 0.6% (5-mg group), 0.2% (10-mg group), and 1.7% (15-mg group); hypoglycemia was reported in 0.4% of those who received semaglutide. Serious adverse events were reported in 5 to 7% of the patients who received tirzepatide and in 3% of those who received semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide was noninferior and superior to semaglutide with respect to the mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly; SURPASS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03987919.).

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Efpeglenatide in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Four glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that are structurally similar to human GLP-1 have been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events among persons with type 2 diabetes. The effect of an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist, efpeglenatide, on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who are also at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 344 sites across 28 countries, we evaluated efpeglenatide in participants with type 2 diabetes and either a history of cardiovascular disease or current kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 25.0 to 59.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of efpeglenatide at a dose of 4 or 6 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified according to use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. The primary outcome was the first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes). RESULTS: A total of 4076 participants were enrolled; 2717 were assigned to receive efpeglenatide and 1359 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 1.81 years, an incident MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide (3.9 events per 100 person-years) and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (5.3 events per 100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.92; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.007 for superiority). A composite renal outcome event (a decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.79; P<0.001). Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes who had either a history of cardiovascular disease or current kidney disease plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor, the risk of cardiovascular events was lower among those who received weekly subcutaneous injections of efpeglenatide at a dose of 4 or 6 mg than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi; AMPLITUDE-O ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03496298.).

Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global health challenge with few pharmacologic options. Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we enrolled 1961 adults with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or greater (≥27 in persons with ≥1 weight-related coexisting condition), who did not have diabetes, and randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to 68 weeks of treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. The coprimary end points were the percentage change in body weight and weight reduction of at least 5%. The primary estimand (a precise description of the treatment effect reflecting the objective of the clinical trial) assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue interventions. RESULTS: The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -14.9% in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.4% with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -12.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -11.5; P<0.001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight reductions of 5% or more (1047 participants [86.4%] vs. 182 [31.5%]), 10% or more (838 [69.1%] vs. 69 [12.0%]), and 15% or more (612 [50.5%] vs. 28 [4.9%]) at week 68 (P<0.001 for all three comparisons of odds). The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.6 kg in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference, -12.7 kg; 95% CI, -13.7 to -11.7). Participants who received semaglutide had a greater improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and a greater increase in participant-reported physical functioning from baseline than those who received placebo. Nausea and diarrhea were the most common adverse events with semaglutide; they were typically transient and mild-to-moderate in severity and subsided with time. More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group discontinued treatment owing to gastrointestinal events (59 [4.5%] vs. 5 [0.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03548935).

Characterizing diabetic cardiomyopathy: baseline results from the ARISE-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic cardiomyopathy (DbCM) is a form of Stage B heart failure (HF) at high risk for progression to overt disease. Using baseline characteristics of study participants from the Aldose Reductase Inhibition for Stabilization of Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure (ARISE-HF) Trial we sought to characterize clinical characteristics of individuals with findings consistent with DbCM. METHODS: Among study participants meeting inclusion criteria, clinical characteristics, laboratory testing, imaging, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Physical Activity Scale of the Elderly (PASE) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) results were tabulated. Cluster phenogroups were identified. RESULTS: Among 691 study participants (mean age 67.4 years; 50% were female), mean duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was 14.5 years. The median (Q1, Q3) N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide and high sensitivity cardiac troponin T were 71 (35, 135) ng/L and 9 [6, 12] ng/L. The most common echocardiographic abnormalities were reduced global longitudinal strain in 25.3% and impaired diastolic relaxation in 17.7%. Despite rather well-preserved KCCQ scores the average PASE score was markedly impaired at 155 accompanied by an average maximal oxygen consumption of 15.7 mL/Kg/minute on CPET. In K-means clustering, 4 phenogroups were identified including a higher-risk group with more advanced age, greater elevation of cardiac biomarkers, and more prevalent evidence for diastolic dysfunction and left ventricular hypertrophy. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline data from the ARISE-HF Trial provide clinical characterization of individuals with T2DM and features of stage B HF, and may help clarify the diagnosis of DbCM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ARISE-HF, NCT04083339.

Advancing type 2 diabetes therapy with iGlarLixi in older people: Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in older people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) advancing or switching from oral agents, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years from four LixiLan trials (LixiLan-O, LixiLan-G, LixiLan-L, SoliMix) were evaluated over 26 or 30 weeks. RESULTS: Participants aged <65/≥65 years (n = 1039/n = 497) had a mean baseline body mass index of 31.4 and 30.7 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%) and 65 mmol/mol (8.1%), respectively. Least squares mean HbA1c change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) was -14.32 mmol/mol (-1.31%) (95% confidence interval [CI] -14.97, -13.77 [-1.37%, -1.26%]) for those aged <65 years and -13.66 mmol/mol (-1.25%) (95% CI -14.54, -12.79 [-1.33%, -1.17%]) for those aged ≥65 years. At EOT, achievement of HbA1c targets was similar between the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years: <53 mmol/mol (<7%) (59.0% and 56.5%, respectively), <59 mmol/mol (<7.5%) (75.5% and 73.0%, respectively) and <64 mmol/mol (<8%) (83.8% and 84.1%, respectively). The incidence and event rate of American Diabetes Association Level 1 hypoglycaemia during the studies were also comparable between the two groups: 26.7% and 28.2% and 1.7 and 2.1 events per patient-year for the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years, respectively. A clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c (>1% from baseline for HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol [≥8%] or ≥0.5% from baseline for HbA1c <64 mmol/mol [<8%]) without hypoglycaemia was attained by 50.0% and 47.6% of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. Adverse events were similar between the two age groups. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is a simple, well-tolerated, once-daily alternative for treatment advancement in older people with T2D that provides significant improvements in glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk, thus reducing the treatment burden.

Once-weekly insulin icodec compared with daily basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: Participant-level meta-analysis of the ONWARDS 1-5 trials.

AIM: To perform a participant-level post hoc meta-analysis of Phase 3a trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) to characterize the hypoglycaemia safety and glycaemic efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All ONWARDS 1-5 randomized participants were pooled as overall T2D, insulin-naive, an insulin-experienced subgroups, and by once-daily trial comparator (degludec or glargine U100). The main outcomes included incidence and rates of clinically significant and severe hypoglycaemia. Additional endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline and HbA1c target achievement without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 3765 participants (1882 icodec vs. 1883 comparators). In the overall T2D pool, clinically significant hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in the icodec group versus the comparator group (17.9% vs. 16.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94, 1.38); however, rates were low but significantly higher in the icodec group (1.15 vs. 1.00 episodes/participant-year of exposure, estimated rate ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.24, 1.85]). Fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred with icodec than with comparators (8 vs. 18). A greater reduction in HbA1c occurred with icodec versus comparators, irrespective of subgroup (estimated treatment difference range [-0.10 to -0.29%]; all p < 0.05). Across subgroups, except for the insulin-experienced subgroup, the odds of achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were greater with icodec than with comparators (OR range 1.30-1.55; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Icodec was associated with a similar incidence but higher rates of clinically significant hypoglycaemia (equating to one additional hypoglycaemic episode every 6 years) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes versus comparators. Our findings also confirmed the greater efficacy of icodec that was demonstrated in the ONWARDS trial programme.

Greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% with oral semaglutide versus oral comparators: An exploratory analysis of the PIONEER studies.

AIM: To assess how long participants with type 2 diabetes spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% and how likely they were to maintain this target with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg or oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg or subcutaneous liraglutide 1.8 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analyses used on-treatment data without rescue medication for all randomized participants (semaglutide [approved maintenance doses], n = 1880; comparators [not including placebo], n = 1412). Duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was calculated using an HbA1c time curve. A binary endpoint of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 26 (week 24 for PIONEER 7) and 52 of each trial (and week 78 for PIONEER 3) was analysed. RESULTS: Mean duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was greater with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin in PIONEER 3 (27 vs. 22 weeks) and with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin (27-34 vs. 19 vs. 22 weeks, respectively), and similar versus subcutaneous liraglutide. A greater proportion of participants achieved and maintained HbA1c less than 7.0% for more than 75% of the trial with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators. The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 24/26 and 52/78 were significantly greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators or subcutaneous liraglutide, and with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg resulted in greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0%, and a greater likelihood of achieving and maintaining HbA1c less than 7.0% versus oral comparators.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with varying degrees of kidney disease in high-risk people with type 2 diabetes: An epidemiological analysis of data from the AMPLITUDE-O trial.

AIMS: To estimate the incidence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and a composite kidney outcome across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) levels, and to determine whether efpeglenatide's effect varies with these indices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AMPLITUDE-O trial data were used to estimate the relationship of eGFR, UACR, and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) category to the hazard of MACE and the kidney composite. Interactions on these outcomes between eGFR and the UACR, and between each of these variables and efpeglenatide were also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline eGFR and UACR were available for 3983 participants (mean age 64.5 years). During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, the hazards of MACE and the kidney composite for the lowest versus highest eGFR third were 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 2.2) and 2.3 (95% CI 1.9, 2.8), respectively. The hazards for the highest versus the lowest UACR third were 2.3 (95% CI 1.8, 3.1) and 18.0 (95% CI 12.7, 25.5), respectively, and for the high- versus low-risk KDIGO categories the hazards were 2.4 (95% CI 1.8, 3.1) and 16.0 (95% CI 11.6, 22.0), respectively. eGFR and UACR were independent determinants of both outcomes, but negatively interacted with each other for the kidney outcome. Efpeglenatide's effect on both outcomes did not vary with any kidney disease measure (all interaction p values ≥0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk people with diabetes, eGFR, UACR, and KDIGO category have different relationships to incident cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. The beneficial effect of efpeglenatide on these outcomes is independent of kidney-related risk category.

Impact of empagliflozin on insulin needs in patients with heart failure and diabetes: An EMPEROR-Pooled analysis.

AIM: To assess the effect of empagliflozin on patients with comorbid heart failure (HF) and diabetes with or without baseline insulin, and to study the impact of empagliflozin on insulin requirements over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of pooled patient-level data from two cardiovascular outcomes trials of empagliflozin in HF (EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials). We undertook a subgroup analysis stratified by baseline insulin use, including all patients with diabetes. The studied endpoints included the primary composite endpoint of first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death, rate of decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate, composite renal outcome and rates of sustained insulin initiation. RESULTS: Among 4794 patients with diabetes, 1333 (658 in empagliflozin, 675 in placebo) were using insulin at baseline. The treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary endpoint was consistent irrespective of insulin use [no insulin, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.86; using insulin, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-1.00, pinteraction = .49], as was the effect on the rate of decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (pinteraction = .75). There was no effect of empagliflozin on the composite renal outcome in patients using or not using insulin (pinteraction = .30). Among patients not using insulin at baseline, those randomized to empagliflozin initiated insulin less frequently throughout the follow-up period compared with those receiving placebo (2.6% vs. 3.8%, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin exerts a consistent benefit on cardiovascular outcomes and renal function decline, irrespective of baseline insulin use, and reduces the need for sustained insulin initiation in patients with HF and diabetes.

The cardiovascular effects of novel weight loss therapies.

The prevalence of overweight and obesity has reached pandemic proportions. Obesity is known to increase the risk for Type 2 diabetes and hypertension, as well as the risk for overt cardiovascular (CV) disease, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. The rising prevalence of obesity may counteract the recent advances in primary and secondary prevention of CV disease. Overweight and obesity are common in patients with CV disease; however, cardiologists face several challenges in managing body weight in this population. Many may not consider obesity as a therapeutic target probably because there were no previous highly effective and safe pharmacologic interventions to consider. In addition, they may not have the expertise or resources to implement lifestyle interventions and may have limited familiarity with obesity pharmacotherapy. Moreover, the long-term CV effects of obesity pharmacotherapy remain uncertain due to limited CV outcome data with weight loss as the primary intervention. Although current CV guidelines recognize the importance of weight loss, they primarily focus on lifestyle modifications, with fewer details on strategies to utilize obesity pharmacotherapy and surgery. However, the recent 2022 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on the management of Type 2 diabetes has moved up weight management to the front of the treatment algorithm, by prioritizing the use of pharmacologic interventions such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, which have potent weight-lowering effects, in addition to glucose-lowering effects. This review appraises the current evidence regarding the CV effects of weight-loss interventions. Considering this evidence, practical guidance is provided to assist cardiologists in developing and implementing treatment plans, which may allow optimal weight management while maximizing CV benefits and minimizing side effects to improve the overall well-being of people with CV disease.

Empagliflozin for Heart Failure With Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With and Without Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction, but whether the effects are consistent in patients with and without diabetes remains to be elucidated. METHODS: Patients with class II through IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo in addition to usual therapy. We undertook a prespecified analysis comparing the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 5988 patients enrolled, 2938 (49%) had diabetes. The risk of the primary outcome (first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death), total hospitalizations for heart failure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline was higher in patients with diabetes. Empagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome irrespective of diabetes status (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67, 0.94] for patients with diabetes versus hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.64, 0.95] in patients without diabetes; Pinteraction=0.92). The effect of empagliflozin to reduce total hospitalizations for heart failure was also consistent in patients with and without diabetes. The effect of empagliflozin to attenuate estimated glomerular filtration rate decline during double-blind treatment was also present in patients with and without diabetes, although more pronounced in patients with diabetes (1.77 in diabetes versus 0.98 mL/min/1.73m2 in patients without diabetes; Pinteraction=0.01). Across these 3 end points, the effect of empagliflozin did not differ in patients with prediabetes or normoglycemia (33% and 18% of the patient population, respectively). When investigated as a continuous variable, baseline hemoglobin A1c did not modify the effects on the primary outcome (Pinteraction=0.26). There was no increased risk of hypoglycemic events in either subgroup as compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of heart failure outcomes irrespective of diabetes status at baseline. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057951.