Risks of peri- and postoperative complications with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

AIM: To assess whether adults with diabetes on oral hypoglycaemic agents undergoing general endotracheal anaesthesia during nine common surgical procedures who are glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) users, compared with non-users, are at increased risk of six peri- and post-procedure complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort analysis of over 130 million deidentified US adults with diabetes (defined as being on oral hypoglycaemic agents) from a nationally representative electronic health dataset between 1 January 2015 and 1 April 2023 was analysed. Cohorts were matched by high-dimensionality propensity scoring. We compared the odds of six peri- and postoperative complications in GLP1-RA users and non-users. A sensitivity analysis compared these odds in GLP1-RA users to non-users with diabetes and obesity. We measured the odds of (a) a composite outcome of postoperative decelerated gastric emptying, including antiemetic use, ileus within 7 days post-procedure, gastroparesis diagnosis, gastric emptying study; (b) postoperative aspiration or pneumonitis; (c) severe respiratory failure; (d) postoperative hypoglycaemia; (e) inpatient mortality; and (f) 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 13 361 adults with diabetes, 16.5% were treated with a GLP1-RA. In the high-dimensionality propensity score-matched cohort, GLP1-RA users had a lower risk of peri- and postoperative complications for decelerated gastric emptying and antiemetic use compared with non-users. The risk of ileus within 7 days, aspiration/pneumonitis, hypoglycaemia and 30-day mortality were not different. A sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in patients with diabetes and obesity. CONCLUSION: No increased risk of peri- and postoperative complications in GLP1-RA users undergoing surgery with general endotracheal anaesthesia was identified.

Early-Onset Type 2 Diabetes and Tirzepatide Treatment: A Post Hoc Analysis From the SURPASS Clinical Trial Program.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated baseline characteristics of participants with early-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SURPASS program and tirzepatide's effects on glycemic control, body weight (BW), and cardiometabolic markers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis compared baseline characteristics and changes in mean HbA1c, BW, waist circumference (WC), lipids, and blood pressure (BP) in 3,792 participants with early-onset versus later-onset T2D at week 40 (A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Not Controlled With Diet and Exercise Alone [SURPASS-1], A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] Versus Semaglutide Once Weekly as Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes [SURPASS-2]) or week 52 (A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] Versus Insulin Degludec in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes [SURPASS-3]). Analyses were performed by study on data from participants while on assigned treatment without rescue medication in case of persistent hyperglycemia. RESULTS: At baseline in SURPASS-2, participants with early-onset versus later-onset T2D were younger with longer diabetes duration (9 vs. 7 years, P < 0.001) higher glycemic levels (8.5% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001), higher BW (97 vs. 93 kg, P < 0.001) and BMI (35 vs. 34 kg/m2, P < 0.001), and a similarly abnormal lipid profile (e.g., triglycerides 167 vs. 156 mg/dL). At week 40, similar improvements in HbA1c (-2.6% vs. -2.4%), BW (-14 vs. -13 kg), WC (-10 vs. -10 cm), triglycerides (-26% vs. -24%), HDL (7% vs. 7%), and systolic BP (-6 vs. -7 mmHg) were observed in both subgroups with tirzepatide. CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age, participants with early-onset T2D from the SURPASS program had higher glycemic levels and worse overall metabolic health at baseline versus those with later-onset T2D. In this post hoc analysis, similar improvements in HbA1c, BW, and cardiometabolic markers were observed with tirzepatide, irrespective of age at T2D diagnosis. Future studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes of tirzepatide in early-onset T2D.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Prediabetes: What Are the Best Metrics?

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has transformed the care of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and there is potential for CGM to also become influential in prediabetes identification and management. However, to date, we do not have any consensus guidelines or high-quality evidence to guide CGM goals and metrics for use in prediabetes. METHODS: We searched PubMed for all English-language articles on CGM use in nonpregnant adults with prediabetes published by November 1, 2023. We excluded any articles that included subjects with type 1 diabetes or who were known to be at risk for type 1 diabetes due to positive islet autoantibodies. RESULTS: Based on the limited data available, we suggest possible CGM metrics to be used for individuals with prediabetes. We also explore the role that glycemic variability (GV) plays in the transition from normoglycemia to prediabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic variability indices beyond the standard deviation and coefficient of variation are emerging as prominent identifiers of early dysglycemia. One GV index in particular, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), may play a key future role in CGM metrics for prediabetes and is highlighted in this review.

Should We Stop Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Before Surgical or Endoscopic Procedures? Balancing Limited Evidence With Clinical Judgment.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Task Force recently recommended discontinuing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) agents before surgery because of the potential risk of pulmonary aspiration. However, there is limited scientific evidence to support this recommendation, and holding GLP-1 RA treatment may worsen glycemic control in patients with diabetes. As we await further safety data to manage GLP-1 RA in the perioperative period, we suggest an alternative multidisciplinary approach to manage patients undergoing elective surgery. Well-conducted observational and prospective studies are needed to determine the risk of pulmonary aspiration in persons receiving GLP-1 RA for the treatment of diabetes and obesity, as well as the short-term impact of discontinuing GLP-1 RA on glycemic control before elective procedures in persons with diabetes.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Administration in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) in adjusting insulin therapy in long-term care facilities (LTCF). DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted to LTCF. METHODS: Participants in the standard of care wore a blinded CGM with treatment adjusted based on point-of-care capillary glucose results before meals and bedtime (POC group). Participants in the intervention (CGM group) wore a Dexcom G6 CGM with treatment adjusted based on daily CGM profile. Treatment adjustment was performed by the LTCF medical team, with a duration of intervention up to 60 days. The primary endpoint was difference in time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) between treatment groups. RESULTS: Among 100 participants (age 74.73 ± 11 years, 80% admitted for subacute rehabilitation and 20% for nursing home care), there were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups, and CGM data were compared for a median of 17 days. There were no differences in TIR (53.38% ± 30.16% vs 48.81% ± 28.03%, P = .40), mean daily mean CGM glucose (184.10 ± 43.4 mg/dL vs 190.0 ± 45.82 mg/dL, P = .71), or the percentage of time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL (0.83% ± 2.59% vs 1.18% ± 3.54%, P = .51), or TBR <54 mg/dL (0.23% ± 0.85% vs 0.56% ± 2.24%, P = .88) between rt-CGM and POC groups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The use of rtCGM is safe and effective in guiding insulin therapy in patients with T2D in LTCF resulting in a similar improvement in glycemic control compared to POC-guided insulin adjustment.

Diabetes Technology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Novel Indications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes technology has been continuously evolving. Current versions of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use minimally invasive designs, monitor glucose values with high accuracy, and can be used to guide insulin dosing. Extensive evidence supports the use of diabetes technology for monitoring and insulin administration in people with type 1 diabetes. However, there is emerging evidence for people with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we present the different technological devices used to monitor glucose and deliver insulin and the evidence supporting their use in people with type 2 diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of CGMs in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or non-insulin therapies has been associated with improvements in glycemic control and time spent in hypoglycemia. Smart insulin pens and smart connected devices are options to track compliance and guide insulin delivery in people who do not require insulin pump therapy. Mechanical patch pumps can be used to reduce the burden of multiple daily insulin injections. Automated insulin delivery algorithms improve glycemic control without an increase in hypoglycemia. The use of technology in the management of type 2 diabetes generates glycemic data previously inaccessible, reduces barriers for insulin initiation, improves glycemic control, tracks adherence to therapy, and improves user satisfaction.

Assessment of Glycemic Control by Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Hemoglobin A1c, Fructosamine, and Glycated Albumin in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease and Burnt-Out Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may experience "burnt-out diabetes," defined as having an HbA1c value <6.5% without antidiabetic therapy for >6 months. We aim to assess glycemic control by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6 CGM) metrics and glycemic markers in ESKD patients on hemodialysis with burnt-out diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this pilot prospective study, glycemic control was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), HbA1c measures, and glycated albumin and fructosamine measurements in patients with burnt-out diabetes (n = 20) and without a history of diabetes (n = 20). RESULTS: Patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher CGM-measured daily glucose levels, lower percent time in the range 70-180 mg/dL, higher percent time above range (>250 mg/dL), and longer duration of hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL (hours/day) compared with patients without diabetes (all P < 0.01). HbA1c and fructosamine levels were similar; however, patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher levels of glycated albumin than did patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CGM demonstrated that patients with burnt-out diabetes have significant undiagnosed hyperglycemia. CGM and glycated albumin provide better assessment of glycemic control than do values of HbA1c and fructosamine in patients with ESKD.

Tirzepatide in Hispanic/Latino Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Subgroup Analysis of the SURPASS Program.

CONTEXT: Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, have been studied in patients with type 2 diabetes in the global phase 3 SURPASS program. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino patients in SURPASS-1 to -4 clinical trials. METHODS: A total of 5679 patients were included, 2895 of self-reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, in this exploratory analysis of SURPASS-1 to -4 trial data. Interventions included tirzepatide 5, 10, or 15 mg, placebo, or active comparator (semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine). Change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to week 40 (SURPASS-1 and -2) and to week 52 (SURPASS-3 and -4), and other efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated within Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino subgroups. RESULTS: Among Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino patients treated with tirzepatide, respectively, HbA1c decreased significantly from baseline, ranging from 1.9% to 2.7% and 1.7% to 2.5%, and body weight decreased significantly from baseline, ranging from 5.3 kg to 12.4 and 6.5 kg to 17.1 kg (both P < .05) vs comparators across all trials. Subgroup trends were consistent with the overall trial populations. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in similar proportions across the subgroups and were primarily gastrointestinal disorders. The incidence of hypoglycemia was low. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide significatively reduced HbA1c and body weight in Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino patients. Tirzepatide was generally well tolerated in both subgroups. Efficacy and safety trends were comparable between subgroups and within the overall trial populations.

Use and continuity of weight-modifying medications among adults with diabetes and overweight/obesity: US population study.

OBJECTIVE: Trends in use and continuity of use of diabetes-specific and non-diabetes weight-reducing (WR), weight-inducing (WI), and weight-neutral (WN) medications were examined among US adults with diabetes and overweight/obesity. METHODS: Serial cross-sectional data from Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (2010-2019) for adults (≥18 years) with diabetes and BMI ≥27 kg/m2 (≥25 kg/m2 for Asians) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 7402 US adults with diabetes and overweight/obesity (mean age 60.0 years [SD 13], 50% female), 64.9% of participants used any WI medications, decreasing from 68.9% (95% CI: 64.3%-73.5%) in 2010 to 58.6% (95% CI: 54.7%-62.5%) in 2019. It was estimated that 13.5% used WR medications, increasing 3.31-fold, from 6.4% (95% CI: 4.1%-8.7%) to 21.2% (95% CI: 18.0%-24.4%) and that 73.1% used WN medications, ranging from 70.5% (95% CI: 66.5-74.6) to 75.0% (95% CI: 71.7%-78.4%). Among adults using diabetes-specific WI (53.7%), WR (7.1%), and WN (62.4%) medications during the first year, 7.3%, 16.4%, and 9.0% discontinued it in the second year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2010-2019, 64.9% of adults with diabetes and overweight/obesity were treated with WI medications, 13.5% with WR medications, and 73.1% with WN medications. Discontinuation of WR medications was nearly twice that of WI medications.

Advances in the management of type 2 diabetes in adults.

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic and progressive cardiometabolic disorder that affects more than 10% of adults worldwide and is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, disability, and high costs. Over the past decade, the pattern of management of diabetes has shifted from a predominantly glucose centric approach, focused on lowering levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), to a directed complications centric approach, aimed at preventing short term and long term complications of diabetes, and a pathogenesis centric approach, which looks at the underlying metabolic dysfunction of excess adiposity that both causes and complicates the management of diabetes. In this review, we discuss the latest advances in patient centred care for type 2 diabetes, focusing on drug and non-drug approaches to reducing the risks of complications of diabetes in adults. We also discuss the effects of social determinants of health on the management of diabetes, particularly as they affect the treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes.

A Consensus Statement for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics for Inpatient Clinical Trials.

Diabetes Technology Society organized an expert consensus panel to develop metrics for research in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in a hospital setting. The experts met virtually in small groups both before and after an April 13, 2023 virtual meeting of the entire panel. The goal of the panel was to develop consensus definitions in anticipation of greater use of CGMs in hospital settings in the future. Establishment of consensus definitions of inpatient analytical metrics will be easier to compare outcomes between studies. Panelists defined terms related to 10 dimensions of measurements related to the use of CGMs including (1) hospital hypoglycemia, (2) hospital hyperglycemia, (3) hospital time in range, (4) hospital glycemic variability, (5) hospital glycemia risk index, (6) accuracy of CGM devices and reference methods for CGMs in the hospital, (7) meaningful time blocks for hospital glycemic goals, (8) hospital CGM data sufficiency, (9) using CGM data for insulin dosing, and (10) miscellaneous factors. The panelists voted on 51 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 51 recommendations were classified as either strong (43) or mild (8). Additional research is needed on CGM performance in the hospital. This consensus report is intended to support that type of research intended to improve outcomes for hospitalized people with diabetes.

Continuous glucose monitoring for inpatient diabetes management: an update on current evidence and practice.

Over the last few years, several exciting changes in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology have expanded its use and made CGM the standard of care for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using insulin therapy. Consequently, hospitals started to notice increased use of these devices in their hospitalized patients. Furthermore during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, and several hospitals started to implement CGM protocols in their daily practice. Subsequently, a plethora of studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of CGM use in the hospital, leading to clinical practice guideline recommendations. Several studies have also suggested that CGM has the potential to become the standard of care for some hospitalized patients, overcoming the limitations of current capillary glucose testing. Albeit, there is a need for more studies and particularly regulatory approval. In this review, we provide a historical overview of the evolution of glycemic monitoring in the hospital and review the current evidence, implementation protocols, and guidance for the use of CGM in hospitalized patients.

Diabetic retinopathy in African-Americans with end-stage kidney disease: a cross-sectional study on prevalence and impact on quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence, severity, and quality of life (QoL) impact of diabetic retinopathy (DR) among African-Americans (AAs) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing dialysis are unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 93 AA adults with diabetes and ESKD. The diagnosis of DR was based on a review of medical records and/or a positive photograph with a portable hand-held device reviewed by both artificial intelligence software and a retinal specialist. QoL, physical disability social determinants of health (SDoHs) were assessed by standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: The prevalence of DR was 75%, with 33% of participants having mild, 9.6% moderate and 57.4% severe DR. A total of 43% had normal visual acuity; 45% had moderate visual impairment; and 12% had severe visual impairment. We found a high burden of disease, multiple SDoH challenges, and low QoL and general health among patients with ESKD. The presence of DR had no significant impact on physical health and QoL compared with participants without DR. CONCLUSIONS: DR is present in 75% of AA patients with diabetes and ESKD on haemodialysis. ESKD has a significant burden on general health and QoL; however, DR has a minor additional impact on the overall physical health and QoL in people with ESKD.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDegLira Versus Basal-Bolus in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes and Very High HbA1c ≥9-15%: DUAL HIGH Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HbA1c >9.0-10.0%, guidelines recommend treatment with basal-bolus insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus among participants with high HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, previously treated with 2 or 3 oral agents and/or basal insulin, allocated (1:1) to basal-bolus (n = 73) or IDegLira (n = 72). The primary end point was noninferiority (0.4%) in HbA1c reduction between groups. RESULTS: Among 145 participants (HbA1c 10.8% ± 1.3), there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c reduction (3.18% ± 2.29 vs. 3.00% ± 1.79, P = 0.65; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18%, 95% CI -0.59, 0.94) between the IDegLira and basal-bolus groups. IDegLira resulted in significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (26% vs. 48%, P = 0.008; odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19, 0.78), and less weight gain (1.24 ± 8.33 vs. 5.84 ± 6.18 kg, P = 0.001; ETD -4.60, 95% CI -7.33, -1.87). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with T2D and HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, IDegLira resulted in similar HbA1c reduction, less hypoglycemia, and less weight gain compared with the basal-bolus regimen.

Accuracy and Potential Interferences of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors in the Hospital.

For years, the standard of care for monitoring dysglycemia in hospitalized patients was capillary blood glucose (CBG) testing with point-of-care glucose meters. Recently, there has been a revolution in novel factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Newer CGMs are smaller and less expensive, have improved accuracy and longer wear time, and do not require fingerstick CBG for calibration, resulting in increased utilization in ambulatory settings. Consequently, hospitals have noticed increased usability of CGMs among hospitalized patients and expect a progressive continued increase. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, with several pilot implementation projects using CGM in the intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit settings, further boosting the evidence in this area. Hence, recent guidelines have provided recommendations for the use of CGM in specific hospital scenarios and highlighted the potential of CGM to overcome CBG limitations for glucose monitoring in the inpatient setting. In this review, we provide the following: 1) an up-to-date review of the accuracy of the newer CGMs in hospitalized patients, 2) a discussion of standards for CGM accuracy metrics, 3) a contemporary overview of potential interferences that may cause inaccuracies or poor CGM performance, and 4) required steps for full regulatory approval of CGMs in the hospital and future research steps to advance the field forward.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm - 2023 Update.

OBJECTIVE: This consensus statement provides (1) visual guidance in concise graphic algorithms to assist with clinical decision-making of health care professionals in the management of persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve patient care and (2) a summary of details to support the visual guidance found in each algorithm. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) selected a task force of medical experts who updated the 2020 AACE Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm based on the 2022 AACE Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan and consensus of task force authors. RESULTS: This algorithm for management of persons with type 2 diabetes includes 11 distinct sections: (1) Principles for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes; (2) Complications-Centric Model for the Care of Persons with Overweight/Obesity; (3) Prediabetes Algorithm; (4) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Dyslipidemia; (5) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Hypertension; (6) Complications-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (7) Glucose-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (8) Algorithm for Adding/Intensifying Insulin; (9) Profiles of Antihyperglycemic Medications; (10) Profiles of Weight-Loss Medications (new); and (11) Vaccine Recommendations for Persons with Diabetes Mellitus (new), which summarizes recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Aligning with the 2022 AACE diabetes guideline update, this 2023 diabetes algorithm update emphasizes lifestyle modification and treatment of overweight/obesity as key pillars in the management of prediabetes and diabetes mellitus and highlights the importance of appropriate management of atherosclerotic risk factors of dyslipidemia and hypertension. One notable new theme is an emphasis on a complication-centric approach, beyond glucose levels, to frame decisions regarding first-line pharmacologic choices for the treatment of persons with diabetes. The algorithm also includes access/cost of medications as factors related to health equity to consider in clinical decision-making.

Time to Reach Glycaemic and Body Weight Loss Thresholds with Tirzepatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pre-planned Exploratory Analysis of SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3.

INTRODUCTION: Tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, provides clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control and body weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes. The early efficacy profile of tirzepatide after treatment initiation is of interest. In this exploratory pre-planned analysis, we evaluated the time to achieve glycaemic control and body weight loss thresholds with tirzepatide. METHODS: In two randomised studies, we compared time to achieve HbA1c (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%) and weight loss (≥ 5%, SURPASS-2 only) thresholds among people treated with tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15 mg), semaglutide 1 mg in SURPASS-2, and titrated insulin degludec in SURPASS-3. Longitudinal logistic regression models were used to explore the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c and body weight loss thresholds at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. The time to achieve these thresholds was analysed and compared between groups using the Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Overall, greater proportions of participants achieved the HbA1c and body weight loss thresholds at 4, 12, and 24 weeks with tirzepatide compared with semaglutide 1 mg and insulin degludec. The median time to achieve HbA1c < 7.0% (8.1 weeks with each tirzepatide dose, 12.0 weeks with semaglutide 1 mg, and 12.1 weeks with insulin degludec) and ≤ 6.5% (12.1, 15.7, and 24.1 weeks, respectively) was faster with tirzepatide than semaglutide 1 mg and insulin degludec. In SURPASS-2, the median time to first achieve a body weight loss of ≥ 5% was faster with tirzepatide 5 mg (16.0 weeks) and 10 and 15 mg (12.4 weeks) than with semaglutide 1 mg (24.0 weeks). CONCLUSION: Analyses of data from SURPASS-2 and -3 revealed that tirzepatide treatment enabled more people with type 2 diabetes to achieve glycaemic thresholds and these were achieved faster than with semaglutide 1 mg or insulin degludec. Tirzepatide-treated participants also achieved a body weight loss of ≥ 5% significantly faster with tirzepatide than with semaglutide 1 mg. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03987919; NCT03882970.