Triple-Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity - A Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Retatrutide (LY3437943) is an agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucagon-like peptide 1, and glucagon receptors. Its dose-response relationships with respect to side effects, safety, and efficacy for the treatment of obesity are not known. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving adults who had a body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or higher or who had a BMI of 27 to less than 30 plus at least one weight-related condition. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1:1:1:2:2 ratio to receive subcutaneous retatrutide (1 mg, 4 mg [initial dose, 2 mg], 4 mg [initial dose, 4 mg], 8 mg [initial dose, 2 mg], 8 mg [initial dose, 4 mg], or 12 mg [initial dose, 2 mg]) or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary end points included the percentage change in body weight from baseline to 48 weeks and a weight reduction of 5% or more, 10% or more, or 15% or more. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 338 adults, 51.8% of whom were men. The least-squares mean percentage change in body weight at 24 weeks in the retatrutide groups was -7.2% in the 1-mg group, -12.9% in the combined 4-mg group, -17.3% in the combined 8-mg group, and -17.5% in the 12-mg group, as compared with -1.6% in the placebo group. At 48 weeks, the least-squares mean percentage change in the retatrutide groups was -8.7% in the 1-mg group, -17.1% in the combined 4-mg group, -22.8% in the combined 8-mg group, and -24.2% in the 12-mg group, as compared with -2.1% in the placebo group. At 48 weeks, a weight reduction of 5% or more, 10% or more, and 15% or more had occurred in 92%, 75%, and 60%, respectively, of the participants who received 4 mg of retatrutide; 100%, 91%, and 75% of those who received 8 mg; 100%, 93%, and 83% of those who received 12 mg; and 27%, 9%, and 2% of those who received placebo. The most common adverse events in the retatrutide groups were gastrointestinal; these events were dose-related, were mostly mild to moderate in severity, and were partially mitigated with a lower starting dose (2 mg vs. 4 mg). Dose-dependent increases in heart rate peaked at 24 weeks and declined thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with obesity, retatrutide treatment for 48 weeks resulted in substantial reductions in body weight. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04881760.).

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the FGF21 Analogue Pegozafermin in NASH.

BACKGROUND: Pegozafermin is a long-acting glycopegylated (pegylated with the use of site-specific glycosyltransferases) fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) analogue in development for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and severe hypertriglyceridemia. The efficacy and safety of pegozafermin in patients with biopsy-proven noncirrhotic NASH are not well established. METHODS: In this phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis to receive subcutaneous pegozafermin at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg weekly or 44 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo weekly or every 2 weeks. The two primary end points were an improvement in fibrosis (defined as reduction by ≥1 stage, on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher stages indicating greater severity), with no worsening of NASH, at 24 weeks and NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis at 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Among the 222 patients who underwent randomization, 219 received pegozafermin or placebo. The percentage of patients who met the criteria for fibrosis improvement was 7% in the pooled placebo group, 22% in the 15-mg pegozafermin group (difference vs. placebo, 14 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9 to 38), 26% in the 30-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 19 percentage points; 95% CI, 5 to 32; P = 0.009), and 27% in the 44-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 20 percentage points; 95% CI, 5 to 35; P = 0.008). The percentage of patients who met the criteria for NASH resolution was 2% in the placebo group, 37% in the 15-mg pegozafermin group (difference vs. placebo, 35 percentage points; 95% CI, 10 to 59), 23% in the 30-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 21 percentage points; 95% CI, 9 to 33), and 26% in the 44-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 24 percentage points; 95% CI, 10 to 37). The most common adverse events associated with pegozafermin therapy were nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2b trial, treatment with pegozafermin led to improvements in fibrosis. These results support the advancement of pegozafermin into phase 3 development. (Funded by 89bio; ENLIVEN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04929483.).

Efficacy and safety of oral orforglipron in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, dose-response, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Orforglipron, an oral, non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is in development for type 2 diabetes and obesity. We assessed the efficacy and safety of orforglipron versus placebo or dulaglutide in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 2, double-blind, randomised, multicentre study, participants were recruited from 45 centres (private clinics, hospitals, and research centers) in the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Adult participants aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with diet and exercise, with or without metformin, and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5%, and stable BMI of 23 kg/m2 or more, were randomly assigned (5:5:5:5:5:3:3:3:3) via an interactive web-response system to placebo, dulaglutide 1·5 mg once per week, or orforglipron 3 mg, 12 mg, 24 mg, 36 mg (group 1), 36 mg (group 2), 45 mg (group 1), or 45 mg (group 2) once per day with no food or water restrictions. Two different dose escalation regimens were evaluated for each of the 36 mg and 45 mg cohorts. Participants were masked to the study drug, dulaglutide, and placebo. The primary efficacy outcome The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in HbA1c from baseline with orforglipron versus placebo at week 26. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and excluded data after the permanent discontinuation of study drug or initiation of rescue medication. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05048719) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2021, and Sept 30, 2022, 569 participants were screened and 383 were enrolled and randomly assigned to a group. 352 (92%) completed the study and 303 (79%) completed 26 weeks of treatment. At baseline, the mean age was 58·9 years, HbA1c was 8·1%, BMI was 35·2 kg/m2, 226 (59%) were men, and 157 (41%) were women. At week 26, mean change in HbA1c with orforglipron was up to -2·10% (-1·67% placebo adjusted), versus -0·43% with placebo and -1·10% with dulaglutide. HbA1c reduction was statistically superior with orforglipron versus placebo (estimated treatment difference -0·8% to -1·7%). Change in mean bodyweight at week 26 was up to -10·1 kg (95% CI -11·5 to -8·7; 7·9 kg placebo adjusted [-9·9 to -5·9]) with orforglipron versus -2·2 kg (-3·6 to -0·7) for placebo and -3·9 kg (-5·3 to -2·4) for dulaglutide. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events ranged from 61·8% to 88·9% in orforglipron-treated participants, compared with 61·8% with placebo and 56·0% with dulaglutide. The majority were gastrointestinal events (44·1% to 70·4% with orforglipron, 18·2% with placebo, and 34·0% with dulaglutide) of mild to moderate severity. Three participants receiving orforglipron and one participant receiving dulaglutide had clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia and no participants had severe hypoglycaemia. One death occurred in the placebo group and was not related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: In this phase 2 trial the novel, oral, non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonist orforglipron at doses of 12 mg or greater showed significant reductions in HbA1c and bodyweight compared with placebo or dulaglutide. The adverse event profile was similar to other GLP-1 receptor agonists in similar stage of development. Orforglipron might provide an alternative to injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists and oral semaglutide, with the prospect of less burdensome administration to achieve treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Efficacy and safety of co-administered once-weekly cagrilintide 2·4 mg with once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide with the long-acting amylin analogue cagrilintide has weight-loss benefits; the impact on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is unknown. This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of co-administered semaglutide with cagrilintide (CagriSema) in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This 32-week, multicentre, double-blind, phase 2 trial was conducted across 17 sites in the USA. Adults with type 2 diabetes and a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher on metformin with or without an SGLT2 inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous CagriSema, semaglutide, or cagrilintide (all escalated to 2·4 mg). Randomisation was done centrally using an interactive web response system and was stratified according to use of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (yes vs no). The trial participants, investigators, and trial sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c; secondary endpoints were bodyweight, fasting plasma glucose, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters, and safety. Efficacy analyses were performed in all participants who had undergone randomisation, and safety analyses in all participants who had undergone randomisation and received at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04982575) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 2 and Oct 18, 2021, 92 participants were randomly assigned to CagriSema (n=31), semaglutide (n=31), or cagrilintide (n=30). 59 (64%) participants were male; the mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 9). The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -2·2 percentage points [SE 0·15]; semaglutide: -1·8 percentage points [0·16]; cagrilintide: -0·9 percentage points [0·15]) was greater with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (estimated treatment difference -1·3 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to -0·8]; p<0·0001), but not versus semaglutide (-0·4 percentage points [-0·8 to 0·0]; p=0·075). The mean change in bodyweight from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -15·6% [SE 1·26]; semaglutide: -5·1% [1·26]; cagrilintide: -8·1% [1·23]) was greater with CagriSema versus both semaglutide (p<0·0001) and cagrilintide (p<0·0001). The mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -3·3 mmol/L [SE 0·3]; semaglutide: -2·5 mmol/L [0·4]; cagrilintide: -1·7 mmol/L [0·3]) was greater with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (p=0·0010) but not versus semaglutide (p=0·10). Time in range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) was 45·9%, 32·6%, and 56·9% at baseline and 88·9%, 76·2%, and 71·7% at week 32 with CagriSema, semaglutide, and cagrilintide, respectively. Adverse events were reported by 21 (68%) participants in the CagriSema group, 22 (71%) in the semaglutide group, and 24 (80%) in the cagrilintide group. Mild or moderate gastrointestinal adverse events were most common; no level 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia was reported. No fatal adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes, treatment with CagriSema resulted in clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control (including CGM parameters). The mean change in HbA1c with CagriSema was greater versus cagrilintide, but not versus semaglutide. Treatment with CagriSema resulted in significantly greater weight loss versus semaglutide and cagrilintide and was well tolerated. These data support further investigation of CagriSema in this population in longer and larger phase 3 studies. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity in people with type 2 diabetes (SURMOUNT-2): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Weight reduction is essential for improving health outcomes in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus placebo, for weight management in people living with obesity and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in seven countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 or higher and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7-10% (53-86 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a computer-generated random sequence via a validated interactive web-response system, to receive either once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (10 mg or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were the percent change in bodyweight from baseline and bodyweight reduction of 5% or higher. The treatment-regimen estimand assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or initiation of antihyperglycaemic rescue therapy. Efficacy and safety endpoints were analysed with data from all randomly assigned participants (intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04657003. FINDINGS: Between March 29, 2021, and April 10, 2023, of 1514 adults assessed for eligibility, 938 (mean age 54·2 years [SD 10·6], 476 [51%] were female, 710 [76%] were White, and 561 [60%] were Hispanic or Latino) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of tirzepatide 10 mg (n=312), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=311), or placebo (n=315). Baseline mean bodyweight was 100·7 kg (SD 21·1), BMI 36·1 kg/m2 (SD 6·6), and HbA1c 8·02% (SD 0·89; 64·1 mmol/mol [SD 9·7]). Least-squares mean change in bodyweight at week 72 with tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg was -12·8% (SE 0·6) and -14·7% (0·5), respectively, and -3·2% (0·5) with placebo, resulting in estimated treatment differences versus placebo of -9·6% percentage points (95% CI -11·1 to -8·1) with tirzepatide 10 mg and -11·6% percentage points (-13·0 to -10·1) with tirzepatide 15 mg (all p<0·0001). More participants treated with tirzepatide versus placebo met bodyweight reduction thresholds of 5% or higher (79-83% vs 32%). The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal-related, including nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting and were mostly mild to moderate in severity, with few events leading to treatment discontinuation (<5%). Serious adverse events were reported by 68 (7%) participants overall and two deaths occurred in the tirzepatide 10 mg group, but deaths were not considered to be related to the study treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: In this 72-week trial in adults living with obesity and type 2 diabetes, once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg provided substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in bodyweight, with a safety profile that was similar to other incretin-based therapies for weight management. 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.).

Safety and Efficacy of Efruxifermin in Combination With a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist in Patients With NASH/MASH and Type 2 Diabetes in a Randomized Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In phase 2 studies, efruxifermin, an Fc-FGF21 analog, significantly reduced steatohepatitis and fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, now called metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), for which there is no approved treatment. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity are prevalent among patients with MASH and increasingly treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of efruxifermin in patients with MASH, fibrosis, and T2D taking a GLP-1RA. METHODS: Cohort D was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study in adults with T2D and MASH with fibrosis (F1-F3) on stable GLP-1RA therapy randomized (2:1) to receive efruxifermin 50 mg or placebo, once weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of efruxifermin added to a stable dose of GLP-1RA. Secondary endpoints included changes in hepatic fat fraction (HFF), markers of liver injury and fibrosis, and metabolic parameters. RESULTS: Adults (N = 31) with T2D and MASH fibrosis (F1-F3) on a stable GLP-1RA (semaglutide, 48.4%; dulaglutide, 45.2%; liraglutide, 6.5%) received efruxifermin 50 mg (n = 21) or placebo (n = 10) for 12 weeks. The addition of efruxifermin to a GLP-1RA appeared safe and well-tolerated. The most frequent efruxifermin-related adverse events were mild to moderate gastrointestinal events. One patient receiving efruxifermin discontinued due to nausea, and another withdrew consent. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. After 12 weeks, efruxifermin reduced HFF by 65% (P < .0001 vs placebo) compared with a 10% reduction for placebo (GLP-1RA alone). Efruxifermin also improved noninvasive markers of liver injury, fibrosis, glucose, and lipid metabolism while maintaining GLP-1RA-mediated weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: The tolerability profile of efruxifermin added to GLP-1RA appeared comparable to that of either drug alone, while also significantly reducing HFF and noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with MASH and T2D. Liver health in patients already on a GLP-1RA may be further improved by addition of efruxifermin. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT05039450.

Cardiovascular efficacy and safety of antidiabetic agents: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: An important characteristic of glucose-lowering therapies (GLTs) is their ability to prevent cardiovascular complications. We aimed to investigate the cardiorenal efficacy and general safety of GLTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicentre, randomized, clinical trials that included over 100 participants comparing antidiabetic agents with a placebo or a different antidiabetic agent and reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), or primarily reporting heart failure, were searched in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Data were extracted independently for random-effects network meta-analyses to calculate the hazard ratio estimates. RESULTS: Forty-three trials that compared nine types of GLTs were included in the present analysis. The risk of three-point MACE was reduced in the presence of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and thiazolidinedione therapy compared with the placebo, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, or insulin therapy. GLP-1 RAs were favourable for cardiovascular and renal outcomes. SGLT-2is reduced renal outcomes by ~40%, which was superior to other GLTs. Thiazolidinedione therapy increased the risks of hospitalization for heart failure and had no benefits on mortality. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were higher with GLP-1 RAs and thiazolidinediones than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 RAs, SGLT-2is and thiazolidinediones reduced three-point MACE compared with other GLTs. Each drug class had unique advantages and disadvantages.

Tolerability, safety and pharmacodynamics of oral, small-molecule glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist danuglipron for type 2 diabetes: A 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 2 study comparing different dose-escalation schemes.

AIM: To evaluate the tolerability, safety and pharmacodynamics of different dose-escalation schemes of the oral small-molecule glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist danuglipron. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study randomly assigned adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with metformin to placebo or danuglipron (low [5-mg] or high [10-mg] starting dose, with 1- or 2-week dose-escalation steps, to target doses of 80, 120 or 200 mg twice daily [BID]) and adults with obesity without diabetes to placebo or danuglipron 200 mg BID. RESULTS: Participants with T2D (n = 123, mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 8.19%) or obesity without diabetes (n = 28, mean body mass index 37.3 kg/m2 ) were randomly assigned and treated. Discontinuation from study medication occurred in 27.3% to 72.7% of participants across danuglipron groups versus 16.7% to 18.8% for placebo, most often due to adverse events. Nausea (20.0%-47.6% of participants across danuglipron groups vs. 12.5% for placebo) and vomiting (18.2%-40.9% danuglipron vs. 12.5% placebo, respectively) were most commonly reported in participants with T2D. Gastrointestinal adverse events were generally related to danuglipron target dose and were not substantially affected by starting dose. In participants with T2D, least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c (-1.04% to -1.57% across danuglipron groups vs. -0.32% for placebo), fasting plasma glucose (-23.34 mg/dL to -53.94 mg/dL danuglipron vs. -13.09 mg/dL placebo) and body weight (-1.93 to -5.38 kg danuglipron vs. -0.42 kg placebo) at Week 12 were generally statistically significant for danuglipron compared with placebo (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Danuglipron resulted in statistically significant reductions in HbA1c, FPG and body weight over 12 weeks, in the setting of higher discontinuation rates and incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events with higher target doses. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04617275.

iGlarLixi versus basal plus Rapid-Acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliSimplify Real-World study.

AIM: For people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin (BI), guidelines recommend several treatment advancement options. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of once-daily iGlarLixi versus a multiple-injection BI + rapid acting insulin (RAI) regimen in adults with T2D advancing from BI therapy in real-world clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) database were analysed retrospectively using propensity score matching to compare therapy advancement with iGlarLixi or BI + RAI in US adults ≥18 years with T2D on BI who had ≥1 valid glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. The primary objective was non-inferiority of iGlarLixi to BI + RAI in HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months (margin 0.3%). RESULTS: Propensity score matching generated cohorts with balanced baseline characteristics (N = 814 in each group). HbA1c reduction from baseline to 6 months with iGlarLixi was non-inferior to BI + RAI [mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)%; one-sided p = .0032]. At 6 months, weight gain was significantly lower with iGlarLixi than with BI + RAI [-0.8 (-1.3, -0.2) kg; two-sided p = .0069]. Achievement of HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia and weight gain were similar between groups [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.15 (0.81, 1.63); p = .4280]. Hypoglycaemia was low in both groups, probably because of underreporting. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice, glycaemic outcomes 6 months after treatment advancement from BI are similar for people with T2D using iGlarLixi versus BI + RAI, with iGlarLixi leading to less weight gain.

A 96-week, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing bexagliflozin to glimepiride as an adjunct to metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults.

AIM: To compare the effects of bexagliflozin tablets 20 mg, with those of optimally titrated glimepiride when used to treat adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by metformin. METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 426) taking metformin, and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level between 53 and 91 mmol/mol [7.0% and 10.5%], were randomized to receive bexagliflozin tablets 20 mg or titrated glimepiride. The primary endpoint was the intergroup difference in the change from baseline to Week 60 in percent HbA1c. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in body mass and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and proportion of subjects experiencing severe or documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The intergroup difference in percent HbA1c (bexagliflozin minus glimepiride) from baseline to Week 60 was -0.55 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.30, 1.20)-[-0.05% (-0.21, 0.11)], establishing noninferiority of bexagliflozin to glimepiride by the prespecified margin of 3.83 mmol/mol [0.35%]. Prespecified tests gave, in order, a difference in body mass of -4.31 kg (95% CI -5.10, -3.52; P < 0.0001), a difference in SBP of -6.53 mm Hg (95% CI -10.56, -2.51; P = 0.0008), and an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% CI 0.05, 0.28; P < 0.0001) for severe or documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia. At the follow-up visit the mean difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between arms was 6.05 mL min-1 per 1.73 m2 (95% CI, 3.24, 8.87; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Bexagliflozin was noninferior to glimepiride in lowering HbA1c, was superior to glimepiride for decreases in body mass and SBP, and was associated with significantly fewer hypoglycaemic events than glimepiride. A favourable effect on eGFR was observed.

A microbiome-targeting fibre-enriched nutritional formula is well tolerated and improves quality of life and haemoglobin A1c in type 2 diabetes: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: To investigate a prebiotic fibre-enriched nutritional formula on health-related quality of life and metabolic control in type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with an unblinded dietary advice only comparator arm. Participants were randomized 2:1:1 to a prebiotic fibre-enriched nutritional formula (Active), a placebo fibre-absent nutritional formula (Placebo), or non-blinded dietary advice alone (Diet). Primary endpoint was change in core Type 2 Diabetes Distress Assessment System (cT2-DDAS) at week 12. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: In total, 192 participants were randomized. Mean age was 54.3 years, HbA1c 7.8%, and body mass index 35.9 kg/m2 . At week 12, cT2-DDAS reduced significantly in Active versus Placebo (-0.4, p = .03), and HbA1c was reduced significantly in Active vs Placebo (-0.64%, p = .01). Gut microbiome sequencing revealed that the relative abundance of two species of butyrate-producing bacteria (Roseburia faecis and Anaerostipes hadrus) increased significantly in Active vs. Placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A microbiome-targeting nutritional formula significantly improved cT2-DDAS and HbA1c, suggesting the potential for prebiotic fibre as a complement to lifestyle and/or pharmaceutical interventions for managing type 2 diabetes.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Aldafermin, an Engineered FGF19 Analog, in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Aldafermin, an engineered analog of fibroblast growth factor 19, inhibits bile acid synthesis and regulates metabolic homeostasis. We report results from a 24-week, phase 2 study, with serial liver biopsies, of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: We performed a double-blind study of 78 patients with NASH at 9 centers in the United States. Key inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven NASH with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score ≥4, stage 2 or 3 fibrosis by NASH Clinical Research Network classification, and absolute liver fat content ≥8%, measured by magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction. Patients were randomly assigned (1:2) to groups given subcutaneous placebo (n = 25) or aldafermin 1 mg (n = 53) daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was change in absolute liver fat content from baseline at week 24. Secondary outcomes included serum markers and histologic measures of fibrosis improvement and NASH resolution. RESULTS: At week 24, the aldafermin group had a significant reduction in absolute liver fat content (reduction of 7.7%) compared with placebo (reduction of 2.7%; difference, reduction of 5.0%; 95% confidence interval, reduction of 8.0%-1.9%; P = .002). Aldafermin produced significantly greater decreases in levels of 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, bile acids, alanine and aspartate aminotransferases, and neoepitope-specific N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen (Pro-C3) than placebo. Fibrosis improvement (≥1 stage) with no worsening of NASH was achieved in 38% of patients receiving aldafermin vs 18% of patients receiving placebo (P = .10). NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was observed in 24% of patients given aldafermin vs 9% of patients given placebo (P = .20). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in no patients in the aldafermin group and 4% of patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 trial of patients with NASH, aldafermin reduced liver fat and produced a trend toward fibrosis improvement. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02443116.

Long-term effects of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus glimepiride on a background of metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a 104-week extension to a 52-week randomized, phase 3 study and liver fat MRI substudy.

AIM: To report the results of a 104-week extension to a 52-week study in which dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin (DAPA+SAXA) improved glycaemic control, liver fat and metabolic variables compared with glimepiride (GLIM) in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving background metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This extension to a 52-week global, multicentre, parallel-group, active-controlled, double-blind study (NCT02419612) continued randomized participants (1:1) on DAPA+SAXA (10/5 mg) plus placebo, or GLIM (1-6 mg) plus placebo, once daily. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years, had T2D (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 58.5-91.3 mmol/mol [7.5%-10.5%]), and a body mass index of 20.0 to 45.0 kg/m2 , and were receiving metformin (MET; ≥1500 mg/d). Key outcomes were: requirement for treatment intensification, based on HbA1c ≥53 mmol/mol (7%); achieving therapeutic glycaemic response; and changes in adipose tissue and liver fat on magnetic resonance imaging in a substudy. RESULTS: Overall, 382 participants entered and 338 completed the 104-week extension period (MRI substudy, n = 82). The need for treatment intensification during the 156-week period was lower for DAPA+SAXA+MET (37.0%) than GLIM+MET (55.6%; hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.68; P < 0.001). At week 156, 21.4% of DAPA+SAXA+MET versus 11.7% of GLIM+MET participants achieved therapeutic glycaemic response (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol; odds ratio 2.1, 95% CI 1.23-3.42; P = 0.006). DAPA+SAXA+MET led to greater adjusted mean reductions from baseline in liver fat and visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue volumes versus GLIM+MET at week 122 (least-squares mean difference from GLIM+MET -4.89%, -0.41 L and -0.44 L, respectively; nominal P values ≤ 0.008). Safety was consistent with that of the monocomponents. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, glycaemic control, metabolic benefits and efficacy were better maintained with DAPA+SAXA+MET than with GLIM+MET in T2D.

Glycaemic efficacy of an expanded dose range of dulaglutide according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) subgroup: Post hoc analysis of AWARD-11.

The AWARD-11 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. This post hoc analysis examined the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% at weeks 36 and 52 with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across clinically relevant baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%). Mean reductions in HbA1c were observed across all baseline HbA1c subgroups at 36 weeks (range of HbA1c change: 1.5 mg: -1.0% to -2.2%; 3.0 mg: -1.2% to -2.5%; and 4.5 mg: -1.2% to -3.2%). More patients randomized to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg (vs. 1.5 mg) achieved HbA1c <7% at 36 weeks regardless of baseline HbA1c; the difference in proportions was greater at higher baseline HbA1c (P-interaction = 0.096). Similar patterns in glycaemic improvement and proportions achieving HbA1c <7% were observed at 52 weeks. Hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar among the HbA1c subgroups. Glycaemic control was improved with dulaglutide dose escalation from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%).

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.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg in patients aged younger than 65 and 65 years or older: Post hoc analysis of the AWARD-11 trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg when used as an add-on to metformin in subgroups defined by age (<65 and ≥65 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1842 patients included in this post hoc analysis, 438 were aged 65 years or older and 1404 were younger than 65 years. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population, while on treatment without rescue medication, was used for all efficacy analyses; the ITT population without rescue medication was used for hypoglycaemia analyses; all other safety analyses used the ITT population. RESULTS: Patients aged 65 years or older and those younger than 65 years had a mean age of 69.5 and 53.2 years, respectively. In each age subgroup, the reduction from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportion of patients achieving a composite endpoint of HbA1c of less than 7% (<53 mmol/mol) with no weight gain and no documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia, were larger for dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, but the treatment-by-age interactions were not significant. The safety profile for the additional dulaglutide doses was consistent with that of dulaglutide 1.5 mg and was similar between the age subgroups. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide doses of 3.0 or 4.5 mg provided clinically relevant, dose-related improvements in HbA1c and BW with no significant treatment-by-age interactions, and with a similar safety profile across age subgroups.