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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Either Cardiovascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors An Analysis of a US Health Insurance Database.

PURPOSE: Health care costs and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were evaluated among US patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CV risk factors. METHODS: Patients with ≥24 months of continuous enrollment were selected from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018. For the first qualifying 24-month period, months 1 to 12 defined the baseline period and months 13 to 24 defined the follow-up period. All patients had ≥2 T2D diagnoses during baseline. Two cohorts were created: (1) patients with ≥1 CVD diagnosis during baseline ("CVD cohort"); and (2) patients with ≥1 CV risk factor ("CV risk cohort") and no diagnosed CVD during baseline. The percentage of patients with subsequent CVD diagnoses and annual all-cause, T2D-related, and CV-related costs in baseline and follow-up periods were reported. FINDINGS: In total, 1,106,716 patients met inclusion criteria: CVD cohort, 224,018 patients; CV risk cohort, 812,144 patients; and no diagnosed CVD or CV risk factors, 70,554. During baseline, 40.2% of the CVD cohort had 2 or more CVD diagnoses. During follow-up, 10.5% of the CV risk cohort had evidence of CVD (ie, emergent CVD). During baseline, the CVD cohort had mean (SD) all-cause costs of $38,985 ($69,936); T2D-related costs, $16,208 ($34,104); and CV-related annual costs, $18,842 ($44,457). The CV risk cohort had mean all-cause costs of $13,207 ($27,057); T2D-related costs, $5226 ($12,268); and CV-related costs, $2754 ($10,586). During follow-up, the CV risk cohort with emergent CVD had higher mean all-cause, T2D-related, and CV-related annual costs than costs among patients without CVD (all-cause, $39,365 [$67,731] vs $13,401 [$27,530]; T2D related, $18,520 [$37,256] vs $5732 [$12,540]; and CV related, $18,893 [$43,584] vs $2650 [$10,501], respectively). IMPLICATIONS: Costs for patients with T2D and either CVD or CV risk are substantial. In this analysis, ∼10% of patients with CV risk were diagnosed with emergent CVD. All-cause costs among patients with emergent CVD were nearly 3 times higher than those among patients with CV risk only. Because costs associated with CVD in the T2D population are high, preventing CVD events in patients with T2D has the potential to decrease overall health care costs and avoid additional disease burden for these patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dulaglutide Shows Sustained Reduction in Glycosylated Hemoglobin Values: 2-Year US Real-world Study Results.

PURPOSE: Due to the chronic and progressive nature of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), it is important to understand the long-term outcomes associated with antihyperglycemic medications. There are currently few long-term studies evaluating the real-world effectiveness of dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. The primary objective of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate glycemic control over a 24-month follow-up period among dulaglutide initiators with continuous treatment. The study used US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between May 2014 and May 2019. METHODS: Patients were included if they were ≥18 years old with T2DM and had ≥1 pharmacy claim for dulaglutide during the index period between November 2014 and May 2017 (with index date = set as the earliest dulaglutide fill during index period), continuous enrollment in the 6 months' preindex and 24 months' postindex, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide or ≥60 days' supply in every quarter during the 24-month follow-up period, and ≥1 glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result at both baseline and 24 months. FINDINGS: At baseline, 872 patients (47.5% female) had a mean (SD) age of 54.5 (8.2) years and an HbA1c value of 8.68% (1.8%) (71.36 [19.7] mmol/mol). More than two thirds were being treated for dyslipidemia, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. A significant HbA1c reduction was observed from baseline to 24 months (-1.3% [-14.2 mmol/mol]; P < 0.0001) for dulaglutide initiators with continuous treatment. A significant reduction in HbA1c level was also observed for all prespecified subgroups (age, index dulaglutide dose [0.75 mg or 1.5 mg], insulin use, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor use, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use; all, P < 0.0001). Forty-three percent of patients achieved an HbA1c value < 7% (53 mmol/mol), and 73% achieved an HbA1c value < 8% (64 mmol/mol) at 24 months. Most (520 [59.6%]) patients were initiated on dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Of these patients, 70% increased to dulaglutide 1.5 mg during follow-up. The mean time to first dose change was 242 (196) days for 0.75 mg-1.5 mg and 225 (160) days for 1.5 mg-0.75 mg. Antihyperglycemic medication use preindex/postindex included: insulin, 28%/35%; dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 37%/20%; and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, 29%/44%. IMPLICATIONS: In this real-world study among dulaglutide initiators with continuous treatment, a clinically significant reduction in HbA1c value was seen at the 3-month assessment and persisted for up to 24 months. These data support the use of dulaglutide as an effective long-term treatment for T2DM in clinical practice.

The Relationship Between Timing of Initiation on a Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist and Glycosylated Hemoglobin Values Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: This study examines the relationship between timing of initiation on a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan databases were used to identify adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated GLP-1 RA therapy and had multiple recorded HbA1c results. Time to GLP-1 RA initiation was proxied by the number of classes of glucose-lowering agents prescribed in the 2 years before GLP-1 RA initiation, with fewer glucose-lowering agents indicating initiation of a GLP-1 RA earlier in disease progression. Paired t tests examined differences in HbA1c values from preperiod to 2-year postperiod. Multivariable analyses examined the relationship between time to GLP-1 RA initiation and postperiod HbA1c values. FINDINGS: Initiation on a GLP-1 RA was associated with a 0.6% reduction in HbA1c values over 2 years (P < 0.0001). Earliest starts were associated with a 1.3% reduction in HbA1c levels (P < 0.0001) and the highest likelihood of achieving a postperiod HbA1c level <7% (odds ratio, 4.9; 95% CI, 3.0-8.1). IMPLICATIONS: Results indicate that although initiation on a GLP-1 RA is generally associated with reduced HbA1c levels, there may be additional clinical benefits associated with earlier initiation of a GLP-1 RA.

Real-World Effectiveness of Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of dulaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but results may not be generalizable in routine practice. This pragmatic literature review aimed to summarize real-world evidence (RWE) for dulaglutide. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from January 2014 to July 2019 for studies providing RWE for dulaglutide in adults with T2DM regarding at least one outcome of interest (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]; weight; adherence; persistence; discontinuation; costs; healthcare resource utilization; health-related quality of life; patient satisfaction; and preference). Relevant congress abstracts were identified from EMBASE. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies (11 articles; 18 abstracts) were included. RWE for dulaglutide was not identified for all outcomes of interest. Dulaglutide reduced HbA1c from baseline to 3-24 months by 0.5-2.2% across studies (n = 20), and 23.4-55.7% of patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0%. Weight was reduced by 2.1-6.4 kg across studies of 3-12 months (n = 15). Based on outcomes from ten studies, 27.2-61.0% of dulaglutide patients were adherent. Mean persistence was 146-152 days and > 250 days in 6- and 12-month studies, respectively. Most studies reported discontinuation rates of 26.2-37.0%. Adherence and persistence were consistently reported to be greater in dulaglutide-treated patients in RW settings compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Dulaglutide was associated with lower costs per 1% reduction in HbA1c compared with exenatide, liraglutide, or basal insulin (n = 3 studies). CONCLUSION: Evidence from RWE studies suggests that dulaglutide may be associated with clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c, with a favorable adherence, persistence, and discontinuation profile in patients with T2DM in routine clinical practice. These findings provide additional insights regarding the potential value of dulaglutide in real-world settings that may assist healthcare decision makers in the delivery of patient-centered care.

Chronic Medication Burden and Complexity for US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Glucose-Lowering Agents.

INTRODUCTION: Most adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have several chronic conditions treated with complex regimens and multiple medications. The burden and complexity of multiple medication use are associated with worse patient outcomes, including reduced adherence and increased costs, hospitalizations, mortality rates, and HbA1c. This study quantifies the chronic medication burden, regimen complexity, and potential medication interactions in patients with T2D using a nationwide claims database in the USA. METHODS: Adults with T2D treated for greater than half of the year with at least one glucose-lowering agent (GLA) in 2017 were included in this descriptive study. Chronic medications were defined as all GLAs and non-GLA medications prescribed for at least 90 days in 2017 to at least 2% of the cohort. Medication burden, defined as the number of medications prescribed, was examined. Medication complexity, proxied by the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI), and potential use of interacting medications were also examined. Results were investigated for all chronic medications and were reported on the basis of the disease treated (diabetes or other condition) and the route of administration (oral or other). RESULTS: On average, in 2017, the 814,156 patients included in the study filled prescriptions for 4.1 chronic medications (standard deviation [SD] = 2.0), 3.7 oral chronic medications (SD = 1.9), 1.5 GLAs (SD = 0.8), and 1.1 oral GLAs (SD = 0.7). The average MRCI was 14.7 for all chronic medications (SD = 7.4), with a mean of 12.4 for all oral chronic medications (SD = 6.3), 6.6 for all GLAs (SD = 3.8), and 4.9 for oral GLAs (SD = 2.6). CONCLUSION: On average, patients with T2D used multiple medications, had a complex medication regimen, and were at potential risk of medication interactions. These findings suggest that patients, practitioners, pharmacists, and payers may benefit from interventions which decrease medication burden, complexity, and/or adverse events related to the treatment of T2D.

Clinical and economic outcomes among injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with basal insulin in a US real-world setting: the DISPEL Study.

Aims: To report 1-year clinical and economic outcomes from the retrospective DISPEL (Dulaglutide vs Basal InSulin in Injection Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness in ReaL World) Study. Materials and methods: This observational claims study included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ≥1 claim for dulaglutide or basal insulin between November 2014 and April 2017 (index date=earliest fill date). Propensity score matching was used to address treatment selection bias. Change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was compared between the matched cohorts using analysis of covariance; diabetes-related costs were analyzed using generalized linear models. Results: Matched cohorts (903 pairs total; 523 pairs with complete cost data) were balanced in baseline characteristics with mean HbA1c 8.6%, mean age 54 years. At 1 year postindex, dulaglutide patients had significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than basal insulin (-1.12% vs -0.51%, p<0.01), lower medical costs ($3753 vs $7604, p<0.01), higher pharmacy costs ($9809 vs $6175, p<0.01), and similar total costs ($13 562 vs $13 779, p=0.76). Medical and total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction were lower for dulaglutide than basal insulin (medical: $3128 vs $12 673, p<0.01; total: $11 302 vs $22 965, p<0.01), while pharmacy costs per 1% HbA1c reduction were lower without reaching statistical significance ($8174 vs $10 292, p=0.15). Conclusions: In this real-world study, patients with T2D initiating dulaglutide demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction compared with those initiating basal insulin. Although total diabetes-related costs were similar, the total diabetes-related costs per HbA1c reduction were lower for dulaglutide, highlighting the importance of evaluating effectiveness along with the economic impact of medications.

The association between the severity of chronic kidney disease and medical costs among patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Examine healthcare costs across chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages for US patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IQVIA Real World Data Adjudicated Claims linked electronic medical records and insurance claims from January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2017 were used for this retrospective study. Adults diagnosed with T2D and comorbid CKD were included. General linear models incorporating splines were constructed, and information from these regressions were used to inform the relationship between medical costs and CKD. Multivariable analyses controlled for patient characteristics, vital signs, general health, prior medication use, prior visit to specialists, index A1c, and year of index date. RESULTS: There were 6,645 individuals who met the study criteria. Results generally indicate sharp increases in annual total medical costs and non-drug medical costs in the 1 year post-period for patients with Stage 4 or 5 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) with each 1 point reduction in eGFR from 30 associated with an increase of $1,870 in all-cause total medical costs (p < 0.0001) and $1,805 of all-cause non-drug medical costs (p < 0.0001). Similarly, each point decline below 30 mL/min was associated annual cost increases of $1,701 for CKD-related total medical costs, $1,695 for CKD-related non-drug medical costs, $173 for diabetes-related medical costs, and $187 for diabetes-related non-drug medical costs (all p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: The investigation included only patients with medical insurance and laboratory test results, and results may not be generalizable to all T2D patients with CKD. The methodology allowed us to determine associations, not causation, and potential confounders, such as duration of diabetes, diet, exercise, or social support, could not be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate there are sharp and significant increases in medical costs among T2D patients with Stage 4 and 5 CKD compared to those with earlier stages of CKD.

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.