Change in HbA1c Across the Baseline HbA1c Range in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Receiving Once-Weekly Dulaglutide Versus Other Incretin Agents

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Final patient-reported outcomes at 24 months

AIM

To report health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM) with two commonly prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) from the prospective, observational TROPHIES study (The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TROPHIES was a two-cohort, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany and Italy. Adults with a T2D diagnosis, naïve to injectable treatment for T2D and prescribed dulaglutide or liraglutide as their first injectable GLM, were eligible for inclusion. Study objectives included describing the following PROs associated with the treatment of T2D with GLP-1RAs: health-related quality of life; impact of weight on self-perception; life and work productivity; and patient satisfaction with treatment and injection device. Additional analyses formally compared PRO measures between the treatment cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, improvements from baseline in PRO scores were observed among people who started dulaglutide or liraglutide. A more pronounced trend of improvement was observed in the dulaglutide cohort for changes from baseline in treatment satisfaction and impact of weight on self-perception, supported by statistically significant differences between treatment cohorts in additional comparative analyses at 12, 18 and 24 months. More positive patient perceptions of the injection device were observed with dulaglutide than with liraglutide.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in PROs observed in TROPHIES, which were more evident with dulaglutide than liraglutide, reflect a relevant clinical benefit. From the patients' perspective, satisfaction, and confidence in continuing treatment with GLP-1RAs is likely to contribute to long-term treatment persistence.

Treatment effect heterogeneity following type 2 diabetes treatment with GLP1-receptor agonists and SGLT2-inhibitors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes requires the identification of clinical and biological features that are reproducibly associated with differences in clinical outcomes with specific anti-hyperglycaemic therapies. Robust evidence of such treatment effect heterogeneity could support more individualized clinical decisions on optimal type 2 diabetes therapy.

METHODS

We performed a pre-registered systematic review of meta-analysis studies, randomized control trials, and observational studies evaluating clinical and biological features associated with heterogenous treatment effects for SGLT2-inhibitor and GLP1-receptor agonist therapies, considering glycaemic, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes. After screening 5,686 studies, we included 101 studies of SGLT2-inhibitors and 75 studies of GLP1-receptor agonists in the final systematic review.

RESULTS

Here we show that the majority of included papers have methodological limitations precluding robust assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity. For SGLT2-inhibitors, multiple observational studies suggest lower renal function as a predictor of lesser glycaemic response, while markers of reduced insulin secretion predict lesser glycaemic response with GLP1-receptor agonists. For both therapies, multiple post-hoc analyses of randomized control trials (including trial meta-analysis) identify minimal clinically relevant treatment effect heterogeneity for cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence on treatment effect heterogeneity for SGLT2-inhibitor and GLP1-receptor agonist therapies is limited, likely reflecting the methodological limitations of published studies. Robust and appropriately powered studies are required to understand type 2 diabetes treatment effect heterogeneity and evaluate the potential for precision medicine to inform future clinical care.

Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review of treatment effect heterogeneity for GLP1-receptor agonists and SGLT2-inhibitors

Background

A precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes requires identification of clinical and biological features that are reproducibly associated with differences in clinical outcomes with specific anti-hyperglycaemic therapies. Robust evidence of such treatment effect heterogeneity could support more individualized clinical decisions on optimal type 2 diabetes therapy.

Methods

We performed a pre-registered systematic review of meta-analysis studies, randomized control trials, and observational studies evaluating clinical and biological features associated with heterogenous treatment effects for SGLT2-inhibitor and GLP1-receptor agonist therapies, considering glycaemic, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes.

Results

After screening 5,686 studies, we included 101 studies of SGLT2-inhibitors and 75 studies of GLP1-receptor agonists in the final systematic review. The majority of papers had methodological limitations precluding robust assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity. For glycaemic outcomes, most cohorts were observational, with multiple analyses identifying lower renal function as a predictor of lesser glycaemic response with SGLT2-inhibitors and markers of reduced insulin secretion as predictors of lesser response with GLP1-receptor agonists. For cardiovascular and renal outcomes, the majority of included studies were post-hoc analyses of randomized control trials (including meta-analysis studies) which identified limited clinically relevant treatment effect heterogeneity.

Conclusions

Current evidence on treatment effect heterogeneity for SGLT2-inhibitor and GLP1-receptor agonist therapies is limited, likely reflecting the methodological limitations of published studies. Robust and appropriately powered studies are required to understand type 2 diabetes treatment effect heterogeneity and evaluate the potential for precision medicine to inform future clinical care.

Plain language summary

This review identifies research that helps understand which clinical and biological factors that are associated with different outcomes for specific type 2 diabetes treatments. This information could help clinical providers and patients make better informed personalized decisions about type 2 diabetes treatments. We focused on two common type 2 diabetes treatments: SGLT2-inhibitors and GLP1-receptor agonists, and three outcomes: blood glucose control, heart disease, and kidney disease. We identified some potential factors that are likely to lessen blood glucose control including lower kidney function for SGLT2-inhibitors and lower insulin secretion for GLP1-receptor agonists. We did not identify clear factors that alter heart and renal disease outcomes for either treatment. Most of the studies had limitations, meaning more research is needed to fully understand the factors that influence treatment outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Real-world evidence for long-term safety and effectiveness of ipragliflozin in treatment-naïve versus non-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: subgroup analysis of a 3-year post-marketing surveillance study (STELLA-LONG TERM)

Background

STELLA-LONG TERM was a 3-year post-marketing surveillance study that evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of ipragliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This subgroup analysis examined the safety and effectiveness of ipragliflozin in treatment-naïve and non-naïve patients.

Materials and methods

Patients were stratified into two subgroups: treatment-naïve (patients who had not received any antidiabetic drugs before starting ipragliflozin monotherapy) and non-naïve (all other patients). Patients who had added or switched antidiabetic drugs during follow-up were excluded from the analysis from that point. The incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and changes from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and laboratory parameters were assessed.

Results

Of the 11,051 patients in the safety analysis set, 1980 patients (17.92%) were treatment-naïve and 9071 (82.08%) were non-naïve. In the safety analysis set, treatment-naïve patients reported significantly lower incidences of ADRs (10.81% vs 20.87%; p < 0.001) and serious ADRs (0.86% vs 2.09%; p < 0.001) compared with non-naïve patients, as well as significantly lower incidences of polyuria/pollakiuria, volume depletion-related events, skin complications and renal disorders. In the effectiveness analysis, sustained and significant reductions from baseline to 36 months were observed in HbA1c, FPG and body weight in both treatment-naïve and non-naïve patients (all p < 0.001 vs baseline).

Conclusions

Over 3 years, ipragliflozin was better tolerated in treatment-naive than in non-naive Japanese patients with T2DM and had similar efficacy in these populations. Therefore, ipragliflozin is a useful first-line treatment option for patients with T2DM.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02479399.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-021-00501-w.

Impact of patient characteristics on efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide: SUSTAIN 7 post hoc analyses

OBJECTIVE

In SUSTAIN 7, once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated superior glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) and body weight (BW) reductions versus once-weekly dulaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of clinically relevant subject characteristics on treatment effects of semaglutide versus dulaglutide.

DESIGN

Analyses by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years), sex (male, female), diabetes duration (≤5, >5-10, >10 years), HbA_1c (≤7.5, >7.5-8.5, >8.5% (≤58, >58-69, >69 mmol/mol)) and body mass index (BMI) (<30, 30-<35, ≥35 kg/m²).

SETTING

194 sites; 16 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Subjects with T2D (n=1199) exposed to treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Semaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (low-dose comparison); semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg (high-dose comparison), all subcutaneously once weekly.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in HbA_1c (primary endpoint) and BW (confirmatory secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 40; proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c targets (<7%, ≤6.5% (<53, ≤48 mmol/mol)) and weight-loss responses (≥5%, ≥10%) at week 40; and safety.

RESULTS

HbA_1c and BW reductions (estimated treatment difference ranges: -0.22 to -0.70%-point; -1.76 to -3.84 kg) and proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c targets and weight-loss responses were statistically significantly greater for the majority of comparisons of semaglutide versus dulaglutide within each subgroup category and, excepting glycaemic control within the low-dose comparison in HbA_1c subgroups, this was irrespective of subgroup or dose comparison. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common with both treatments, were reported by more women than men and, with semaglutide, decreased with increasing BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistently greater improvements in HbA_1c and BW with semaglutide versus dulaglutide, regardless of age, sex, diabetes duration, glycaemic control and BMI, support the efficacy of semaglutide across the continuum of care in a heterogeneous population with T2D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02648204.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Although patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures provide important information beyond clinical data, studies that assess the PROs of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients initiating injectable glucose-lowering medications in routine clinical practice are limited. We describe the perspectives of patients based on a diversified panel of generic and disease-specific PRO measures at the time of enrollment (baseline) in the TROPHIES study.

METHODS

TROPHIES is a 24-month prospective observational study performed in France, Germany, and Italy in patients with T2DM who initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering medication with once-weekly dulaglutide or once-daily liraglutide. To better understand the perspectives of these patients regarding their overall health, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life and work, the patients' responses to the following questionnaires were collected at baseline before they initiated treatment with dulaglutide or liraglutide: EQ-5D-5L (scale: 0-1), EQ-VAS (visual analog scale: 0-100), Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions Questionnaire (IW-SP; scale: 0-100), Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Status (DTSQs; scale: 0-36), and Diabetes Productivity Measure (DPM; scale: 0-100). Analyses were descriptive in nature, with higher scores reflecting better outcomes.

RESULTS

Data from patients at the time of enrollment were analyzed. At baseline, patients initiating dulaglutide (N = 1130) or liraglutide (N = 1051) rated their quality of life in terms of mean EQ-5D-5L index as 0.84 and 0.83, and in terms of mean EQ-VAS as 67.5 and 67.5, respectively. The mean baseline scores in patients initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide were 59.8 and 61.3 for IW-SP, 24.6 and 25.8 for DTSQs, 78.6 and 79.5 for DPM Life Productivity, and 87.5 and 86.8 for DPM Work Productivity, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The information from this varied panel of PRO instruments collected at baseline complements clinical outcomes data.

Clinical outcomes after cardiac rehabilitation in elderly patients with and without diabetes mellitus: The EU-CaRE multicenter cohort study

Background

The prevalence of patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing rapidly. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of current cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs across seven European countries between elderly cardiac patients with and without DM.

Methods

1633 acute and chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) patients and patients after valve intervention with an age 65 or above who participated in comprehensive CR (3 weeks to 3 months, depending on centre) were included. Peak oxygen uptake (VO₂ peak), body mass index, resting systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were assessed before start of CR, at termination of CR (variable time point), and 12 months after start of CR, with no intervention after CR. Baseline values and changes from baseline to 12-month follow-up were compared between patients with and without DM using mixed models, and mortality and hospitalisation rates using logistic regression.

Results

430 (26.3%) patients had DM. Patients with DM had more body fat, lower educational level, more comorbidities, cardiovascular risk factors, and more advanced CAD. Both groups increased their VO₂ peak over the study period but with a significantly lower improvement from baseline to follow-up in patients with DM. In the DM group, change in HbA1c was associated with weight change but not with change in absolute VO₂ peak. 12-month cardiac mortality was higher in patients with DM.

Conclusions

While immediate improvements in VO₂ peak after CR in elderly patients with and without DM were similar, 12-month maintenance of this improvement was inferior in patients with DM, possibly related to disease progression. Glycemic control was less favourable in diabetic patients needing insulin in the short- and long-term. Since glycemic control was only related to weight loss but not to increase in exercise capacity, this highlights the importance of weight loss in obese DM patients during CR.

Trial registration NTR5306 at trialregister.nl; trial registered 07/16/2015; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5166