Continued Treatment With Tirzepatide for Maintenance of Weight Reduction in Adults With Obesity: The SURMOUNT-4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of continued treatment with tirzepatide on maintaining initial weight reduction is unknown. Objective: To assess the effect of tirzepatide, with diet and physical activity, on the maintenance of weight reduction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, randomized withdrawal clinical trial conducted at 70 sites in 4 countries with a 36-week, open-label tirzepatide lead-in period followed by a 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period included adults with a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 or greater than or equal to 27 and a weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. Interventions: Participants (n = 783) enrolled in an open-label lead-in period received once-weekly subcutaneous maximum tolerated dose (10 or 15 mg) of tirzepatide for 36 weeks. At week 36, a total of 670 participants were randomized (1:1) to continue receiving tirzepatide (n = 335) or switch to placebo (n = 335) for 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the mean percent change in weight from week 36 (randomization) to week 88. Key secondary end points included the proportion of participants at week 88 who maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in period. Results: Participants (n = 670; mean age, 48 years; 473 [71%] women; mean weight, 107.3 kg) who completed the 36-week lead-in period experienced a mean weight reduction of 20.9%. The mean percent weight change from week 36 to week 88 was -5.5% with tirzepatide vs 14.0% with placebo (difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -21.2% to -17.7%]; P < .001). Overall, 300 participants (89.5%) receiving tirzepatide at 88 weeks maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in period compared with 16.6% receiving placebo (P < .001). The overall mean weight reduction from week 0 to 88 was 25.3% for tirzepatide and 9.9% for placebo. The most common adverse events were mostly mild to moderate gastrointestinal events, which occurred more commonly with tirzepatide vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In participants with obesity or overweight, withdrawing tirzepatide led to substantial regain of lost weight, whereas continued treatment maintained and augmented initial weight reduction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660643.

Consumo de recursos sanitarios y costes asociados al inicio del tratamiento con fármacos inyectables en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 / Use of healthcare resources and costs associated to the start of treatment with injectable drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objetivos: El objetivo principal fue evaluar el uso de recursos y costes de los pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 que inician tratamiento con insulina o análogos del receptor de GLP-1 (AR GLP-1) inyectables en un ámbito poblacional español. Por otro lado, se determinó la adherencia y persistencia al tratamiento en ambos grupos de tratamiento. Pacientes y métodos: Diseño observacional, no-intervencionista, de carácter retrospectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes ≥20 años que iniciaron tratamiento con insulina o AR GLP-1 durante 2010-2012. Se determinó el consumo de recursos sanitarios relacionados con la actividad asistencial (visitas médicas, días de hospitalización, visitas a urgencias, solicitudes diagnósticas o terapéuticas, medicación) para evaluar el coste sanitario en estos 2 grupos de pacientes. Se recogió información clínica como índice de masa corporal (kg/m2) control metabólico (HbA1c), adherencia, persistencia y complicaciones (hipoglucemias y eventos cardiovasculares). El seguimiento se realizó durante 12 meses. Solo se tuvo en cuenta los costes sanitarios directos. Resultados: Se reclutaron 1.301 pacientes, con una edad media de 67,6 años, el 51,6% varones. El 71,9% en tratamiento con insulina y el 28,1% con AR GLP-1. Al año de seguimiento los pacientes tratados con AR GLP-1 tuvieron menos consultas a atención primaria (8 vs 11; p < 0,001), a especializada (1,0 vs 1,8; p < 0,001), hospitalizaciones (0,3 vs 0,7; p = 0,030) y visitas a urgencias (0,8 vs 1,6; p < 0,001). Los pacientes tratados con GLP-1 mostraron una mayor adherencia (88,1% vs 82,7%; p < 0,001), persistencia (62,0% vs 55,9%; p=0,046) y menor proporción de hipoglucemias (13,4% vs 18,7%; p = 0,022) con similar control metabólico (HbA1c: 7,2% vs 7,4%; p = 0,049), índice de masa corporal (29,1 vs 30,9kg/m2) y tasa de eventos cardiovasculares (9,1% vs 11,5%; p = 0,330), respectivamente. El promedio/unitario de los costes sanitarios directos corregidos fue de 1.787€ vs 2.005€; p=0,046. Conclusiones: Los pacientes en tratamiento con AR GLP-1 ocasionaron menores costes sanitarios directos para el Sistema Nacional de Salud que los pacientes en tratamiento con insulinas. Los resultados obtenidos podrían explicarse por una mayor adherencia al tratamiento y menores tasas de hipoglucemias en los pacientes tratados con AR GLP-1. Se necesitan más estudios para poder confirmar estas posibles razones (AU)

Objectives: The main objective was to assess resource use and costs of starting treatment with insulin or injectable GLP-1 receptor analogues (GLP-1 RAs) in a Spanish population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Treatment adherence and persistence were also determined for both treatment groups. Patients and methods: A retrospective, non-interventional, observational study was conducted. Patients aged ≥20 years who started treatment with insulin or GLP-1 RAs in the 2010-2012 period were recruited. Use of healthcare resources was estimated to evaluate healthcare costs in these two groups of patients (medical visits, hospital stay, emergency visits, diagnostic or treatment requests, medication). Clinical information including body mass index (BMI, kg/m2), metabolic control (HbA1c), adherence, persistence, and complications (hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular events (CVE) was collected. The follow-up period was 12 months. Only direct healthcare costs were considered. Results: A total of 1301 patients with a mean age of 67.6 years (51.6% males) were recruited. Of these, 71.9% and 28.1% were on treatment with insulin and GLP-1 RA respectively. After one year of follow-up, patients treated with GLP-1 RAs were found less visits to primary care (8 vs. 11; P<.001) and specialized care (1.0 vs. 1.8; P<.001), hospital stays (0.3 vs. 0.7; P=.030) and less visits to the emergency room (0.8 vs. 1.6; P<.001). Patients treated with GLP-1 showed greater adherence (88.1% vs. 82.7%; P<.001) and persistence (62.0% vs. 55.9%; P=.046), and had less hypoglycemia episodes (13.4% vs. 18.7%; P=.022), with similar metabolic control (HbA1c: 7.2% vs. 7.4%; P=.049), BMI (29.1 vs. 30.9kg/m2), and CVE rate (9.1% vs. 11.5%; P=.330) respectively. The mean corrected direct healthcare cost per patient was €1787 vs. €2005 (P=.046.) Conclusions: Patients treated with GLP-1 RAs caused lower direct healthcare costs for the National Health System than patients treated with insulin. The results may be explained by greater treatment adherence and lower hypoglycemia rates in patients treated with GLP-1 RAs. Additional studies are needed to confirm these possibilities (AU)