Effect of tirzepatide on body fat distribution pattern in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To describe the overall fat distribution patterns independent of body mass index (BMI) in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the SURPASS-3 MRI substudy by comparison with sex- and BMI-matched virtual control groups (VCGs) derived from the UK Biobank imaging study at baseline and Week 52. METHODS: For each study participant at baseline and Week 52 (N = 296), a VCG of ≥150 participants with the same sex and similar BMI was identified from the UK Biobank imaging study (N = 40 172). Average visceral adipose tissue (VAT), abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (aSAT) and liver fat (LF) levels and the observed standard deviations (SDs; standardized normal z-scores: z-VAT, z-aSAT and z-LF) were calculated based on the matched VCGs. Differences in z-scores between baseline and Week 52 were calculated to describe potential shifts in fat distribution pattern independent of weight change. RESULTS: Baseline fat distribution patterns were similar across pooled tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) and insulin degludec (IDeg) arms. Compared with matched VCGs, SURPASS-3 participants had higher baseline VAT (mean [SD] z-VAT +0.42 [1.23]; p < 0.001) and LF (z-LF +1.24 [0.92]; p < 0.001) but similar aSAT (z-aSAT -0.13 [1.11]; p = 0.083). Tirzepatide-treated participants had significant decreases in z-VAT (-0.18 [0.58]; p < 0.001) and z-LF (-0.54 [0.84]; p < 0.001) but increased z-aSAT (+0.11 [0.50]; p = 0.012). Participants treated with IDeg had a significant change in z-LF only (-0.46 [0.90]; p = 0.001), while no significant changes were observed for z-VAT (+0.13 [0.52]; p = 0.096) and z-aSAT (+0.09 [0.61]; p = 0.303). CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, treatment with tirzepatide in people with T2D resulted in a significant reduction of z-VAT and z-LF, while z-aSAT was increased from an initially negative value, suggesting a possible treatment-related shift towards a more balanced fat distribution pattern with prominent VAT and LF loss.

Tirzepatide vs Insulin Lispro Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tirzepatide is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of adding tirzepatide vs prandial insulin to treatment in patients with inadequate glycemic control with basal insulin have not been described. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide vs insulin lispro as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3b clinical trial was conducted at 135 sites in 15 countries (participants enrolled from October 19, 2020, to November 1, 2022) in 1428 adults with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin. Interventions: Participants were randomized (in a 1:1:1:3 ratio) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) vs insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine, in HbA1c change from baseline at week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary end points included change in body weight and percentage of participants achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of less than 7.0%. Results: Among 1428 randomized participants (824 [57.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [9.7] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.8% [1.0%]), 1304 (91.3%) completed the trial. At week 52, estimated mean change from baseline in HbA1c with tirzepatide (pooled cohort) was -2.1% vs -1.1% with insulin lispro, resulting in mean HbA1c levels of 6.7% vs 7.7% (estimated treatment difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.17% to -0.79%]; P < .001); results met noninferiority criteria and statistical superiority was achieved. Estimated mean change from baseline in body weight was -9.0 kg with tirzepatide and 3.2 kg with insulin lispro (estimated treatment difference, -12.2 kg [95% CI, -13.4 to -10.9]). The percentage of participants reaching HbA1c less than 7.0% was 68% (483 of 716) with tirzepatide and 36% (256 of 708) with insulin lispro (odds ratio, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.2-5.5]). The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea: 14%-26%; diarrhea: 11%-15%; vomiting: 5%-13%). Hypoglycemia event rates (blood glucose level <54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia) were 0.4 events per patient-year with tirzepatide (pooled) and 4.4 events per patient-year with insulin lispro. Conclusions and Relevance: In people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, weekly tirzepatide compared with prandial insulin as an additional treatment with insulin glargine demonstrated reductions in HbA1c and body weight with less hypoglycemia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04537923.

Relationship between body weight change and glycaemic control with tirzepatide treatment in people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc assessment of the SURPASS clinical trial programme.

AIM: To assess the relationship between HbA1c and body weight reductions with tirzepatide treatment (5, 10 or 15 mg). MATERIALS AND METHODS: HbA1c and body weight data at 40 weeks (SURPASS-1, -2 and -5) and 52 weeks (SURPASS-3 and -4) were analysed by trial. RESULTS: Across the SURPASS clinical trials, HbA1c reductions from baseline were observed in 96%-99%, 98%-99% and 94%-99% of participants treated with tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively. Moreover, 87%-94%, 88%-95% and 88%-97% of participants, respectively, experienced weight loss associated with HbA1c reductions. Statistically significant associations (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.1438 to 0.3130 across studies; P ≤ .038) between HbA1c and body weight changes were observed with tirzepatide in SURPASS-2, -3, -4 (all doses) and -5 (tirzepatide 5 mg only). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, consistent reductions in both HbA1c and body weight were observed in most participants treated with tirzepatide at doses of 5, 10 or 15 mg. A statistically significant but modest association between HbA1c and body weight change was observed in SURPASS-2, SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4, suggesting that both weight-independent and weight-dependent mechanisms are responsible for the tirzepatide-induced improvement in glycaemic control.

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.

Systolic blood pressure reduction with tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes: insights from SURPASS clinical program.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/ glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is approved in the United States, Europe and Japan for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Across the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical studies, tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg demonstrated significant improvements in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (- 1.9 to - 2.6%), body weight (- 6.6 to - 13.9%) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (- 2.8 to - 12.6 mmHg) at the end of study treatment. METHODS: Post-hoc mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate weight-loss dependent and weight-loss independent effects of tirzepatide on SBP reductions across the 5 SURPASS studies. The safety population (all randomized patients who took at least 1 dose of study drug) of each study was analyzed. Additional analyses were conducted at individual study level or pooled across 5 SURPASS trials. RESULTS: The difference in mean SBP change from baseline at 40 weeks (total effect) between the tirzepatide and comparator groups was - 1.3 to - 5.1 mmHg (tirzepatide 5 mg), - 1.7 to - 6.5 mmHg (tirzepatide 10 mg) and - 3.1 to - 11.5 mmHg (tirzepatide 15 mg). These SBP reductions were primarily mediated through weight loss, with different degrees of contributions from weight-loss independent effects across the different trials. In the SURPASS-4 study, which enrolled patients with established cardiovascular disease, weight-loss independent effects explained 33% to 57% of difference in SBP change between tirzepatide and insulin glargine groups. In a pooled analysis of the SURPASS-1 to -5 studies, there was a significant (p < 0.001) but weak correlation (r = 0.18 to 0.22) between change in body weight and SBP. Reductions in SBP with tirzepatide were not dependent on concomitant antihypertensive medications at baseline as similar reductions were observed whether participants were receiving them or not (interaction p = 0.77). The largest SBP reductions were observed in the highest baseline category (> 140 mmHg), while those in the first quartile of baseline SBP category (< 122 mmHg) observed no further decrease in SBP. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide-induced SBP reduction was primarily mediated through weight loss, with different degrees of contributions from weight-loss independent effects across the different trials. SBP reduction was not dependent on antihypertensive medication use but dependent on baseline SBP value, alleviating theoretical concerns of hypotension.

Efficacy of once-weekly tirzepatide versus once-daily insulin degludec on glycaemic control measured by continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3 CGM): a substudy of the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptor agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. In this study, we used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to compare the 24 h glucose profile for participants given tirzepatide compared with those given insulin degludec. METHODS: This substudy of the open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial, was done at 45 sites across six countries (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ukraine, and the USA). Eligible participants in the main study were adults with type 2 diabetes, a baseline HbA1c of 7·0-10·5% (53-91 mmol/mol), and a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or more, who were insulin-naive, and treated with metformin alone or in combination with a SGLT2 inhibitor for at least 3 months before screening. Participants in the main study were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injection of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or once-daily subcutaneous injection of titrated insulin degludec (100 U/mL), using an interactive web-response system. Participants were stratified by country, HbA1c concentration, and concomitant oral antihyperglycaemic medication. A subset of these patients with a normal wake-sleep cycle were enrolled into this substudy, and interstitial glucose values were collected by CGM for approximately 7 days at baseline, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was to compare pooled participants assigned to 10 mg and 15 mg tirzepatide versus insulin degludec for the proportion of time that CGM values were in the tight target range (71-140 mg/dL) at 52 weeks, assessed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had an evaluable CGM session at either baseline or after baseline. The secondary outcomes were to compare tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) versus insulin degludec for the proportion and duration of time in tight target range at 24 and 52 weeks. This was a substudy of the trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03882970, and is complete. FINDINGS: From April 1 to Nov 27, 2019, 313 participants were screened for eligibility, 243 of whom were enrolled in CGM substudy (tirzepatide 5 mg, n=64; tirzepatide 10 mg, n=51; tirzepatide 15 mg, n=73; and insulin degludec, n=55). Patients given once-weekly tirzepatide (pooled 10 mg and 15 mg groups) had a greater proportion of time in tight target range compared with patients given insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference 25% [95% CI 16-33]; p<0·0001). Participants assigned to tirzepatide spent significantly more time in tight target range at 52 weeks compared with those assigned to insulin degludec (5 mg 12% [1-22], p=0·031; 10 mg 24% [13-35], p<0·0001; and 15 mg 25% [14-35], p<0·0001). Participants assigned to tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg, but not to tirzepatide 5 mg, spent significantly more time in tight target range at 24 weeks compared with insulin degludec (10 mg 19% [8-30], p=0·0008; 15 mg 21% [11-31], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly treatment with tirzepatide showed superior glycaemic control measured using CGM compared with insulin degludec in participants with type 2 diabetes on metformin, with or without a SGLT2 inhibitor. These new data provide additional evidence to the effect of tirzepatide and potential for achieving glycaemic targets without increase of hypoglycaemic risk compared with a basal insulin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Effect of tirzepatide versus insulin degludec on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue in people with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3 MRI): a substudy of the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The aim of this substudy was to characterise the changes in liver fat content (LFC), volume of visceral adipose tissue (VAT), and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (ASAT) in response to tirzepatide or insulin degludec in a subpopulation of the SURPASS-3 study. METHODS: This substudy of the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial was done at 45 medical research centres and hospitals across eight countries (Argentina, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Spain, and the USA). Eligible participants were adults with type 2 diabetes, a baseline HbA1c 7·0-10·5% (53-91 mmol/mol), a BMI of at least 25 kg/m2, stable weight, were insulin-naive, and on treatment with metformin alone or in combination with a SGLT2 inhibitor for at least 3 months before screening. In addition to the main study inclusion criteria, substudy participants had a fatty liver index of at least 60. Participants had an MRI scan and were randomised (1:1:1:1) in the main study to subcutaneous injection once per week of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or subcutaneous injection once per day of titrated insulin degludec, using an interactive web-response system, and were stratified by country, HbA1c, and concomitant oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in LFC (as measured by MRI-proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF]) at week 52 using pooled data from the tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg groups versus insulin degludec. Analyses were assessed in the enrolled MRI population, which consisted of participants in the modified intention-to-treat population of the main study who also had a valid MRI at either baseline or after baseline. This is a substudy of the trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03882970, and is complete. FINDINGS: From April 1, 2019, to Nov 15, 2019, 502 participants were assessed for eligibility to participate in this substudy, 296 (59%) of whom were included in the enrolled MRI population and randomly assigned to treatment (tirzepatide 5 mg, n=71; tirzepatide 10 mg, n=79; tirzepatide 15 mg, n=72; and insulin degludec, n=74). Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar across all treatment groups. From an overall mean baseline LFC of 15·71% (SD 8·93), the absolute reduction in LFC at week 52 was significantly greater for the pooled tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg groups (-8·09%, SE 0·57) versus the insulin degludec group (-3·38%, 0·83). The estimated treatment difference versus insulin degludec was -4·71% (95% CI -6·72 to -2·70; p<0·0001). The reduction in LFC was significantly correlated (p≤0·0006) with baseline LFC (ρ=-0·71), reductions in VAT (ρ=0·29), reductions in ASAT (ρ=0·33), and reductions in body weight (ρ=0·34) in the tirzepatide groups. INTERPRETATION: Tirzepatide showed a significant reduction in LFC and VAT and ASAT volumes compared with insulin degludec in this subpopulation of patients with type 2 diabetes in the SURPASS-3 study. These data provide additional evidence on the metabolic effects of this novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Health state utilities associated with weight loss in type 2 diabetes and obesity.

INTRODUCTION: Health state utilities associated with weight change are needed as inputs for cost-utility analyses (CUAs) examining the value of treatments for obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although some pharmaceutical treatments currently in development are associated with substantial weight loss, little is known about the utility impact of weight decreases greater than 10%. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with body weight decreases up to 20% based on preferences of individuals with obesity, with and without T2D. METHODS: Health state vignettes were developed to represent respondents' own current weight and weight decreases of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20%. Health state utilities were elicited in time trade-off interviews in two UK locations (Edinburgh and London) with a sample of participants with obesity, with and without T2D. Mean utility increases associated with each amount of weight decrease were calculated. Regression analyses were performed to derive a method for estimating utility change associated with weight decreases. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted with data from 405 individuals with obesity (202 with T2D, 203 without T2D). Utility increases associated with various levels of weight decrease ranged from 0.011 to 0.060 in the subgroup with T2D and 0.015 to 0.077 in the subgroup without T2D. All regression models found that the percentage of weight decrease was a highly significant predictor of change in utility (p < .0001). The relationship between weight change and utility change did not appear to be linear. Equations are recommended for estimating utility change based on the natural logarithm of percentage of weight decrease. DISCUSSION: Results of this study may be used to provide inputs for CUAs examining and comparing the value of treatments that are associated with substantial amounts of weight loss in patients with obesity, with or without T2D.

Once-weekly tirzepatide versus once-daily insulin degludec as add-on to metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide versus titrated insulin degludec in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors. METHODS: In this open-label, parallel-group, multicentre (122 sites), multinational (13 countries), phase 3 study, eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5%, body-mass index of at least 25 kg/m2, stable weight, and were insulin-naive and treated with metformin alone or in combination with an SGLT2 inhibitor for at least 3 months before screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), using an interactive web-response system, to once-weekly subcutaneous injection of tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) or once-daily subcutaneous injection of titrated insulin degludec, and were stratified by country, HbA1c, and concomitant use of oral antihyperglycaemic medications. Tirzepatide was initially given at 2·5 mg and the dose was escalated by 2·5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was reached. Insulin degludec was initially given at 10 U per day and was titrated once weekly to a fasting self-monitored blood glucose of less than 5·0 mmol/L (<90 mg/dL), following a treat-to-target algorithm, for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was non-inferiority of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were non-inferiority of tirzepatide 5 mg versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52, superiority of all doses of tirzepatide versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA1c and bodyweight, and the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 52. We used a boundary of 0·3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA1c difference between treatments. Efficacy and safety analyses were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants who received at least one dose of study drug). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03882970, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and Nov 15, 2019, we assessed 1947 participants for eligibility, 1444 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment. The modified intention-to-treat population was 1437 participants from the tirzepatide 5 mg (n=358), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=360), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=359), and insulin degludec (n=360) groups. From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8·17% (SD 0·91), the reductions in HbA1c at week 52 were 1·93% (SE 0·05) for tirzepatide 5 mg, 2·20% (0·05) for tirzepatide 10 mg, and 2·37% (0·05) for tirzepatide 15 mg, and 1·34% (0·05) for insulin degludec. The non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) versus insulin degludec ranged from -0·59% to -1·04% for tirzepatide (p<0·0001 for all tirzepatide doses). The proportion of participants achieving a HbA1c of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 52 was greater (p<0·0001) in all three tirzepatide groups (82%-93%) versus insulin degludec (61%). At week 52, from a baseline of 94·3 kg (SD 20·1), all three tirzepatide doses decreased bodyweight (-7·5 kg to -12·9 kg), whereas insulin degludec increased bodyweight by 2·3 kg. The ETD versus insulin degludec ranged from -9·8 kg to -15·2 kg for tirzepatide (p<0·0001 for all tirzepatide doses). The most common adverse events in tirzepatide-treated participants were mild to moderate gastrointestinal events that decreased over time. A higher incidence of nausea (12-24%), diarrhoea (15-17%), decreased appetite (6-12%), and vomiting (6-10%) was reported in participants treated with tirzepatide than in those treated with insulin degludec (2%, 4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively). Hypoglycaemia (<54 mg/dL or severe) was reported in five (1%), four (1%), and eight (2%) participants on tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg, respectively, versus 26 (7%) on insulin degludec. Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event was more common in the tirzepatide groups than in the insulin degludec group. Five participants died during the study; none of the deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the study treatment. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15 mg) was superior to titrated insulin degludec, with greater reductions in HbA1c and bodyweight at week 52 and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Tirzepatide showed a similar safety profile to that of GLP-1 receptor agonists. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Efficacy and safety of a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in care, many people with type 2 diabetes do not meet treatment goals; thus, development of new therapies is needed. We aimed to assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide monotherapy versus placebo in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet and exercise alone. METHODS: We did a 40-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SURPASS-1), at 52 medical research centres and hospitals in India, Japan, Mexico, and the USA. Adult participants (≥18 years) were included if they had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet and exercise alone and if they were naive to injectable diabetes therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via computer-generated random sequence to once a week tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg), or placebo. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at 40 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03954834. FINDINGS: From June 3, 2019, to Oct 28, 2020, of 705 individuals assessed for eligibility, 478 (mean baseline HbA1c 7·9% [63 mmol/mol], age 54·1 years [SD 11·9], 231 [48%] women, diabetes duration 4·7 years, and body-mass index 31·9 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to tirzepatide 5 mg (n=121 [25%]), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=121 [25%]), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=121 [25%]), or placebo (n=115 [24%]). 66 (14%) participants discontinued the study drug and 50 (10%) discontinued the study prematurely. At 40 weeks, all tirzepatide doses were superior to placebo for changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, bodyweight, and HbA1c targets of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) and less than 5·7% (<39 mmol/mol). Mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 1·87% (20 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 5 mg, 1·89% (21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 10 mg, and 2·07% (23 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 15 mg versus +0·04% with placebo (+0·4 mmol/mol), resulting in estimated treatment differences versus placebo of -1·91% (-21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 5 mg, -1·93% (-21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 10 mg, and -2·11% (-23 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 15 mg (all p<0·0001). More participants on tirzepatide than on placebo met HbA1c targets of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol; 87-92% vs 20%) and 6·5% or less (≤48 mmol/mol; 81-86% vs 10%) and 31-52% of patients on tirzepatide versus 1% on placebo reached an HbA1c of less than 5·7% (<39 mmol/mol). Tirzepatide induced a dose-dependent bodyweight loss ranging from 7·0 to 9·5 kg. The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate and transient gastrointestinal events, including nausea (12-18% vs 6%), diarrhoea (12-14% vs 8%), and vomiting (2-6% vs 2%). No clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycaemia were reported with tirzepatide. One death occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Tirzepatide showed robust improvements in glycaemic control and bodyweight, without increased risk of hypoglycaemia. The safety profile was consistent with GLP-1 receptor agonists, indicating a potential monotherapy use of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes treatment. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

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.).

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg as an add-on option for patients uncontrolled on insulin: Subgroup analysis by age, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin concentration.

AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 mg combined with insulin, categorized by subgroups of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; ≤9% and >9% [≤74.9 and >74.9 mmol/mol]), age (<65 and ≥65 years), and duration of diabetes (<10 and ≥10 years) at 6 months in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis was conducted in a population of patients with T2D with similar baseline characteristics who were included in the AWARD-4 and AWARD-9 clinical trials and randomized to dulaglutide 1.5 mg (pooled mean baseline age 59 years, duration of diabetes 13 years, HbA1c 8.4% [68.3 mmol/mol]). Weight and hypoglycaemia were analysed by individual trial. In AWARD-4, dulaglutide plus lispro three times daily was assessed against glargine plus lispro three times daily. In AWARD-9, dulaglutide added to glargine was assessed against placebo added to glargine. Insulins were titrated to target in both trials. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included in this analysis (73% with HbA1c ≤9%, 27% [≤74.9 mmol/mol] with HbA1c >9% [>74.9 mmol/mol]; 70% aged <65 years, 30% aged ≥65 years; 36% with duration of diabetes <10 years, 64% with duration of diabetes ≥10 years). At 6 months, dulaglutide 1.5 mg significantly reduced HbA1c in all subgroups (P < .001), with the highest reduction observed in patients with baseline HbA1c >9% (>74.9 mmol/mol) (range - 1.3% to -2.5% [-14.2 to -27.3 mmol/mol]). The incidence rates of documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were similar in all subgroups in both trials. The most common adverse events observed in each trial were gastrointestinal in nature. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg combined with basal or prandial insulin is efficacious for patients with T2D irrespective of age, duration of diabetes or baseline HbA1c.

Real-world effectiveness, adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating dulaglutide treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To assess glycemic effectiveness, adherence and persistence within 6 months of treatment initiation with dulaglutide, a once weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, in a US real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis included adults (≥18 years) with T2DM from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, who had HbA1c laboratory results around initiation and within 6 months after initiation. Glycemic control was assessed by change in HbA1c from pre-initiation to post-initiation. Patients were considered adherent if their proportion of days covered (PDC) was ≥0.80; persistence was measured as days of continuous therapy from initiation to 6 months after initiation with no gaps >45 days between fills. RESULTS: Of the 308 analyzed patients, the majority (n = 188; 61%) were adherent to dulaglutide (mean PDC 0.76; SD 0.26), with 115 patients (37%) discontinuing treatment. Mean persistence was 152 days/5 months. Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.49% (SD 1.70, median 8.20%) at baseline to 7.59% (SD 1.51, median 7.30%) at follow-up, corresponding to a mean HbA1c change of -0.90% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.08 to -0.73; p < .01; median -0.70%). Patients who were adherent to or persistent with dulaglutide experienced larger reductions (-1.14% and -1.12% respectively), as did those without prior GLP-1 RA use (-1.03%). The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% increased from 18% to 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide was associated with a significant decrease in HbA1c levels 6 months after treatment initiation. Patients who adhered to or persisted with dulaglutide therapy, or were naïve to GLP-1 RA use, experienced greater decreases in HbA1c levels.

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

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

Liraglutide Versus Exenatide Once Weekly: Persistence, Adherence, and Early Discontinuation.

PURPOSE: This study examines real-world, evidence-based comparisons of persistence and adherence to daily versus weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This retrospective observational study used U.S. insurance claims data to compare persistence and adherence to GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with T2D initiating once weekly (QW) exenatide or daily liraglutide over a 6-month follow-up period. Eligible patients had ≥2 diagnoses of T2D, were 18 years of age or older, initiated a new prescription of either the index drug between February 1, 2012 (market availability launch date of exenatide QW) and March 31, 2013, and had ≥6 months continuous eligibility in the pre- and postindex periods. A 1:1 propensity score match was used to account for selection bias. Outcome measures included persistence as measured by the percentage of patients who continued to take the index drug over an index period of 182 days with an allowable gap of 60 days and adherence as measured by the proportion of days covered (PDC). The percentage of patients achieving PDC ≥0.8 and ≥0.9 was also calculated. FINDINGS: There were no significant differences between baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. Each matched cohort included 12,306 patients. The overall persistence observed with liraglutide was 66% compared with 63% for exenatide QW. The mean (SD) PDC adherence during the 6-month follow-up period was 0.694 (0.309) for the exenatide QW cohort and 0.689 (0.286) for the liraglutide cohort. The PDC threshold of ≥0.8 during the 6-month follow-up period was met by 6309 (51%) and 5820 (47%) patients in the exenatide QW and liraglutide cohorts, respectively. For the exenatide QW cohort, 76% of patients treated previously with BID exenatide continued treatment in the 6-month follow-up period compared with 59% who were not previously treated with exenatide BID. For the liraglutide cohort, 77% of previous exenatide BID patients continued treatment versus 63% of patients who were not previously treated with exenatide BID. IMPLICATIONS: These results reveal slight differences in persistence and adherence rates in patients receiving exenatide QW versus patients receiving liraglutide daily that vary by outcome and previous incretin-based therapy used. Differences may be due to dosing device differences for exenatide QW and liraglutide, which, in the case of liraglutide, allows the opportunity for daily self-titration dosing. Implications of these findings for clinical practice are that persistence is determined by the broader context of treatment and medications being used and should be considered when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

[Starting an insulin regimen with insulin lispro mix 25 versus glargine insulin for type 2 diabetes]. / Régimen con insulina lispro mix 25 versus insulina glargina para la diabetes tipo 2.

Information on starting insulin regimens in specific populations with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is limited. This analysis compared efficacy and safety of two starter insulin regimens: insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and basal insulin glargine (GL) in patients from Argentina. This post-hoc analysis evaluated 193 insulin-naïve patients who participated in the DURABLE trial 24-week initiation phase. Patients 30-79 years with T2D inadequately controlled (HbA1c > 7.0%) with = 2 oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs), were randomized to add LM25 (25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension) twice daily or GL (basal insulin glargine) once daily to pre-study OAMs. Primary efficacy was measured by HbA1c at 24-week endpoint. Secondary measures included: proportion of patients achieving HbA1c = 6.5% and = 7.0%, body weight change, self-monitored blood glucose (BG) values, and hypoglycemia rates. LM25 demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction (- 2.4% ± 0.16 vs. -2.0% ± 0.16, P = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c = 7.0% (P = 0.012), and lower BG levels after the morning (P = 0.028) and evening (P = 0.011) meals, and at 3:00AM (P = 0.005) compared with GL. Fasting BG and proportion of patients achieving HbA1c = 6.5% were similar between groups. Both groups increased body weight, although the gain was higher at endpoint with LM25 (6.35 kg vs. 4.23 kg, P < 0.001). No differences in hypoglycemia rates were observed between groups, and no serious adverse events were reported for either group. In this subgroup from Argentina, LM25 demonstrated greater improvement in glucose control with similar risk of hypoglycemia and more weight gain than GL.

Régimen con insulina lispro mix 25 versus insulina glargina para la diabetes tipo 2 / Starting an insulin regimen with insulin lispro mix 25 versus glargine insulin for type 2 diabetes

La información sobre el inicio de regímenes de insulina en poblaciones específicas con diabetes tipo 2 (DT2) es limitada. Se comparó eficacia y seguridad de dos regímenes de inicio: insulina lispro mix 25 (LM25) e insulina glargina basal (GL). Se evaluaron 193 pacientes no tratados previamente con insulina, en la fase de iniciación de 24 semanas del ensayo DURABLE; edades: 30-79 años, DT2 controlada inadecuadamente (HbA1c > 7.0%) con = 2 medicaciones orales antidiabéticas (MOAs), aleatorizados para LM25 (25% de insulina lispro, 75% de insulina lispro protamina en suspensión) dos veces/día, o GL (insulina glargina basal) una vez/ día, a las MOAs previas. La eficacia primaria se midió por HbA1c a las 24 semanas. Se midió eficacia secundaria por: proporción de pacientes que alcanzaron HbA1c= 6.5% y= 7.0%, cambio en peso corporal, valores de automonitoreo glucémico e índices de hipoglucemia. LM25 demostró mayor reducción de la HbA1c (- 2.4% ± 0.16 vs. -2.0% ± 0.16, P = 0.002), mayor proporción de pacientes alcanzaron HbA1c= 7.0% (P = 0.012) y niveles de glucemia menores después del desayuno (P = 0.028) y de la cena (P = 0.011), y a las 3 a.m. (P = 0.005) comparada con GL. La glucemia en ayunas (GA) y la proporción de pacientes que alcanzaron una HbA1c= 6.5% fueron similares. En ambos grupos hubo aumento del peso corporal, mayor en la valoración final con LM25 (6.35 kg vs. 4.23 kg, P < 0.001). No hubieron diferencias en índices de hipoglucemia entre grupos, ni eventos adversos serios en ninguno. Con LM25 fue mejor el control de glucosa, riesgo de hipoglucemia similar y mayor aumento de peso que GL.(AU)

Information on starting insulin regimens in specific populations with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is limited. This analysis compared efficacy and safety of two starter insulin regimens: insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and basal insulin glargine (GL) in patients from Argentina. This post-hoc analysis evaluated 193 insulin-na´ve patients who participated in the DURABLE trial 24-week initiation phase. Patients 30-79 years with T2D inadequately controlled (HbA1c > 7.0%) with = 2 oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs), were randomized to add LM25 (25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension) twice daily or GL (basal insulin glargine) once daily to pre-study OAMs. Primary efficacy was measured by HbA1c at 24-week endpoint. Secondary measures included: proportion of patients achieving HbA1c= 6.5% and= 7.0%, body weight change, self-monitored blood glucose (BG) values, and hypoglycemia rates. LM25 demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction (- 2.4% ± 0.16 vs. -2.0% ± 0.16, P = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c= 7.0% (P = 0.012), and lower BG levels after the morning (P = 0.028) and evening (P = 0.011) meals, and at 3:00AM (P = 0.005) compared with GL. Fasting BG and proportion of patients achieving HbA1c= 6.5% were similar between groups. Both groups increased body weight, although the gain was higher at endpoint with LM25 (6.35 kg vs. 4.23 kg, P < 0.001). No differences in hypoglycemia rates were observed between groups, and no serious adverse events were reported for either group. In this subgroup from Argentina, LM25 demonstrated greater improvement in glucose control with similar risk of hypoglycemia and more weight gain than GL.(AU)

Régimen con insulina lispro mix 25 versus insulina glargina para la diabetes tipo 2 / Starting an insulin regimen with insulin lispro mix 25 versus glargine insulin for type 2 diabetes

La información sobre el inicio de regímenes de insulina en poblaciones específicas con diabetes tipo 2 (DT2) es limitada. Se comparó eficacia y seguridad de dos regímenes de inicio: insulina lispro mix 25 (LM25) e insulina glargina basal (GL). Se evaluaron 193 pacientes no tratados previamente con insulina, en la fase de iniciación de 24 semanas del ensayo DURABLE; edades: 30-79 años, DT2 controlada inadecuadamente (HbA1c > 7.0%) con = 2 medicaciones orales antidiabéticas (MOAs), aleatorizados para LM25 (25% de insulina lispro, 75% de insulina lispro protamina en suspensión) dos veces/día, o GL (insulina glargina basal) una vez/ día, a las MOAs previas. La eficacia primaria se midió por HbA1c a las 24 semanas. Se midió eficacia secundaria por: proporción de pacientes que alcanzaron HbA1c= 6.5% y= 7.0%, cambio en peso corporal, valores de automonitoreo glucémico e índices de hipoglucemia. LM25 demostró mayor reducción de la HbA1c (- 2.4% ± 0.16 vs. -2.0% ± 0.16, P = 0.002), mayor proporción de pacientes alcanzaron HbA1c= 7.0% (P = 0.012) y niveles de glucemia menores después del desayuno (P = 0.028) y de la cena (P = 0.011), y a las 3 a.m. (P = 0.005) comparada con GL. La glucemia en ayunas (GA) y la proporción de pacientes que alcanzaron una HbA1c= 6.5% fueron similares. En ambos grupos hubo aumento del peso corporal, mayor en la valoración final con LM25 (6.35 kg vs. 4.23 kg, P < 0.001). No hubieron diferencias en índices de hipoglucemia entre grupos, ni eventos adversos serios en ninguno. Con LM25 fue mejor el control de glucosa, riesgo de hipoglucemia similar y mayor aumento de peso que GL.

Information on starting insulin regimens in specific populations with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is limited. This analysis compared efficacy and safety of two starter insulin regimens: insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and basal insulin glargine (GL) in patients from Argentina. This post-hoc analysis evaluated 193 insulin-naïve patients who participated in the DURABLE trial 24-week initiation phase. Patients 30-79 years with T2D inadequately controlled (HbA1c > 7.0%) with = 2 oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs), were randomized to add LM25 (25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension) twice daily or GL (basal insulin glargine) once daily to pre-study OAMs. Primary efficacy was measured by HbA1c at 24-week endpoint. Secondary measures included: proportion of patients achieving HbA1c= 6.5% and= 7.0%, body weight change, self-monitored blood glucose (BG) values, and hypoglycemia rates. LM25 demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction (- 2.4% ± 0.16 vs. -2.0% ± 0.16, P = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c= 7.0% (P = 0.012), and lower BG levels after the morning (P = 0.028) and evening (P = 0.011) meals, and at 3:00AM (P = 0.005) compared with GL. Fasting BG and proportion of patients achieving HbA1c= 6.5% were similar between groups. Both groups increased body weight, although the gain was higher at endpoint with LM25 (6.35 kg vs. 4.23 kg, P < 0.001). No differences in hypoglycemia rates were observed between groups, and no serious adverse events were reported for either group. In this subgroup from Argentina, LM25 demonstrated greater improvement in glucose control with similar risk of hypoglycemia and more weight gain than GL.