Similar efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥65 and <65 years

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.

A feasibility study of the combination of intranasal insulin with dulaglutide for cognition in older adults with metabolic syndrome at high dementia risk - Study rationale and design

INTRODUCTION

We present the rationale and design of a double-blind placebo-controlled feasibility trial combining intranasal insulin (INI) with dulaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, to improve cognition in older adults with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Since both INI and dulaglutide have beneficial effects on the cerebrovascular disease (CVD), we anticipate that improved CVD will underlie the hypothesized cognitive benefits.

METHODS

This 12-months trial will include 80 older adults aged > 60 with MetS and MCI, randomized to 4 groups: INI/dulaglutide injection, intranasal placebo/dulaglutide injection, INI/placebo injection, and intranasal placebo/placebo injection. Feasibility of combining INI with dulaglutide will be tested by examining the ease of use of INI (20IU, twice/day) with dulaglutide (1.5 mg/week), adherence, and safety profile are the efficacy of combination therapy on global cognition and neurobiological markers: cerebral blood flow, cerebral glucose utilization, white matter hyperintensities, Alzheimer's related blood biomarkers and expression of insulin signaling proteins measured in brain-derived exosomes. Efficacy will be assessed for the intent-to-treat sample.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study is anticipated to provide the basis for a multi-center large-scale randomized clinical trial of the cognitive benefits of the combination of INI with dulaglutide in individuals enriched for CVD and at high dementia risk.

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 characteristics, modern antidiabetic treatment patterns, and comorbidities of patients with type 2 diabetes in central and Eastern Europe: retrospective cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations in the CORDIALLY® study

Background

Guidelines from 2016 onwards recommend early use of SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), to reduce CV events and mortality. Many eligible patients are not treated accordingly, although data are lacking for Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

Methods

The CORDIALLY non-interventional study evaluated the real-world characteristics, modern antidiabetic treatment patterns, and the prevalence of CVD and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults with T2D at nonhospital-based practices in CEE. Data were retrospectively collated by medical chart review for patients initiating empagliflozin, another SGLT2i, DPP4i, or GLP-1 RA in autumn 2018. All data were analysed cross-sectionally, except for discontinuations assessed 1 year ± 2 months after initiation.

Results

Patients (N = 4055) were enrolled by diabetologists (56.7%), endocrinologists (40.7%), or cardiologists (2.5%). Empagliflozin (48.5%) was the most prescribed medication among SGLT2i, DPP4i, and GLP-1 RA; > 3 times more patients were prescribed empagliflozin than other SGLT2i (10 times more by cardiologists). Overall, 36.6% of patients had diagnosed CVD. Despite guidelines recommending SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA, 26.8% of patients with CVD received DPP4i. Patients initiating DPP4i were older (mean 66.4 years) than with SGLT2i (62.4 years) or GLP-1 RA (58.3 years). CKD prevalence differed by physician assessment (14.5%) or based on eGFR and UACR (27.9%). Many patients with CKD (≥ 41%) received DPP4i, despite guidelines recommending SGLT2is owing to their renal benefits. 1 year ± 2-months after initiation, 10.0% (7.9–12.3%) of patients had discontinued study medication: 23.7–45.0% due to ‘financial burden of co-payment’, 0–1.9% due to adverse events (no patients discontinued DPP4i due to adverse events). Treatment guidelines were ‘highly relevant’ for a greater proportion of cardiologists (79.4%) and endocrinologists (72.9%) than diabetologists (56.9%), and ≤ 20% of physicians consulted other physicians when choosing and discontinuing treatments.

Conclusions

In CORDIALLY, significant proportions of patients with T2D and CVD/CKD who initiated modern antidiabetic medication in CEE in autumn 2018 were not treated with cardioprotective T2D medications. Use of DPP4i instead of SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA may be related to lack of affordable access, the perceived safety of these medications, lack of adherence to the latest treatment guidelines, and lack of collaboration between physicians. Thus, many patients with T2D and comorbidities may develop preventable complications or die prematurely.

Trial registration NCT03807440.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12933-022-01631-4.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide by subgroups of patient characteristics in the PIONEER phase 3 programme

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators by patient characteristic subgroups in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide 7 mg, oral semaglutide 14 mg, flexibly dosed oral semaglutide (flex) and comparators were assessed across baseline subgroups (age, race, ethnicity, diabetes duration, body mass index and HbA1c) from the PIONEER programme. Treatment differences were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements for continuous variables and a logistic regression model for the binary endpoint. Pooled safety data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Changes from baseline in HbA1c and body weight, and the odds of achieving HbA1c <7.0%, were greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (n = 1934) and higher or similar with oral semaglutide 7 mg (n = 823) versus comparators (n = 2077) across most subgroups. Changes in HbA1c with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex were greater for patients with higher baseline HbA1c (HbA1c >9.0%: -1.7% to -2.6%; HbA1c <8.0%: -0.7% to -1.2%). In some trials, Asian patients experienced greater HbA1c reductions with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (-1.5% to -1.8%) than other racial groups (-0.6% to -1.6%). The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) with oral semaglutide was similar to that with comparators and was consistent across subgroups. More gastrointestinal AEs were observed with oral semaglutide, versus comparators, across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide demonstrated consistently greater HbA1c and body weight reductions across a range of patient characteristics, with greater HbA1c reductions seen at higher baseline HbA1c levels.

Durability of glucose-lowering effect of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A real-world data study

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic, progressive disease requiring lifelong treatment, and durable medication is essential for maintaining stable glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of dulaglutide in participants who have continued the drug for more than one year.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on 605 participants, who used dulaglutide for over one year between 2016 and 2020. Changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, and bodyweight from baseline to last prescription day were assessed. Adherence was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC), and a PDC value ≥ 0.80 was considered adherent.

RESULTS

The mean age was 54.0 ± 11.1 years, and 46.1% were female. The mean baseline HbA1c, bodyweight, and duration of diabetes were 8.8% (72.7 mmol/mol), 75.6 kg, and 12.2 years, respectively. During the mean follow-up of 33.1 months, HbA1c and bodyweight decreased by 1.28% (14 mmol/mol, P &lt; 0.001) and by 3.19 kg (P &lt; 0.001), respectively. The participants were highly adherent with PDC ≥ 0.80 in 92.4% of the participants.

CONCLUSION

In T2DM patients, long-term dulaglutide treatment was effective in maintaining HbA1c and weight reduction. Dulaglutide could be a favorable option of long-term treatment in real-world clinical practice.

Optimal Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Management and Active Ageing

Type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM) represents a chronic condition with increasing prevalence worldwide among the older population. The T2DM condition increases the risk of micro and macrovascular complications as well as the risk of geriatric syndromes such as falls, fractures and cognitive impairment. The management of T2DM in the older population represents a challenge for the clinician, and a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment should always be prioritized, in order to tailor the glycated hemoglobin target according to functional and cognitive status comorbidities, life expectancy and type of therapy. According to the most recent guidelines, older adults with T2DM should be categorized into three groups: healthy patients with good functional status, patients with complications and reduced functionality and patients at the end of life; for each group the target for glycemic control is different, also according to the type of treatment drug. The therapeutic approach should always begin with lifestyle changes; after that, several lines of therapy are available, with different mechanisms of action and potential effects other than glucose level reduction. Particular interest is growing in sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, due to their effect on the cardiovascular system. In this review, we evaluate the therapeutic options available for the treatment of older diabetic patients, to ensure a correct treatment approach.

Switching from insulin to dulaglutide therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A real-world data study

AIM

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who require injectable therapy have been conventionally treated with insulin. A glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist was recently recommended as first-line injectable treatment, but few studies have investigated the effects of switching from insulin to dulaglutide. This study investigated the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting responses to dulaglutide as an alternative to insulin in patients with T2DM in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients with T2DM who were switched from insulin to dulaglutide therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Changes in HbA1c concentrations were assessed after 6 months of consistent treatment with dulaglutide. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate parameters affecting the response to dulaglutide treatment.

RESULTS

After treatment with dulaglutide for 6 months, patients experienced changes in HbA1c of -0.95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.30% to -0.59%, P < 0.001) and in body weight of -1.75 kg (95% CI: -2.42 to -1.08 kg, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that higher baseline HbA1c was significantly associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Switching from insulin to dulaglutide can lead to significant improvement in HbA1c levels and body weight ​reduction in T2DM patients over 6 months. Higher baseline HbA1c is associated with a better clinical response to dulaglutide.

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.

Pancreatic Safety of Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Subgroup Analysis by Potential Influencing Factors

INTRODUCTION

In the randomized, open-label, parallel-arm, active-controlled phase III AWARD-CHN2 trial, once-weekly dulaglutide plus concomitant oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs) improved HbA1c over 26 weeks compared with once-daily insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This post-hoc subgroup analysis of AWARD-CHN2 investigated the pancreatic safety of dulaglutide in Chinese patients with T2DM, stratified by potential influencing factors.

METHODS

Changes in pancreatic enzyme (pancreatic amylase, total amylase, and lipase) levels over 26 weeks were assessed and stratified by patient age (< 60, ≥ 60 years), sex (female, male), duration of diabetes (< 10, ≥ 10 years), baseline weight (< 70, ≥ 70 kg), BMI (< 25, ≥ 25 kg/m²), HbA1c (< 8.5, ≥ 8.5%), triglycerides (< 2.3, ≥ 2.3 mmol/L), and concomitant OAMs (metformin, sulfonylurea, metformin plus sulfonylurea).

RESULTS

A total of 203 Chinese patients with T2DM were included in this post-hoc analysis. Pancreatic enzyme levels increased within the normal range from baseline to Week 26, and no pancreatitis events were confirmed by independent adjudication. Least-squares mean increase in pancreatic amylase (U/L) from baseline to Week 26 was comparable across all subgroups with no statistically (all P-values > 0.05) or clinically significant between-group differences for age (< 60 years: 5.34; ≥ 60 years: 6.71), sex (female: 5.85; male: 5.66), duration of diabetes (< 10 years: 6.15; ≥ 10 years: 4.85), weight (< 70 kg: 6.19; ≥ 70 kg: 5.39), BMI (< 25 kg/m²: 5.92; ≥ 25 kg/m²: 5.61), HbA1c (< 8.5%: 6.82; ≥ 8.5%: 4.08), triglycerides (< 2.3 mmol/L: 4.94; ≥ 2.3 mmol/L: 8.04), and concomitant OAMs (metformin: 5.68; sulfonylurea: 5.44; metformin plus sulfonylurea: 5.87). Similar results were observed for total amylase and lipase.

CONCLUSION

In Chinese patients with T2DM receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg in AWARD-CHN2, elevations of pancreatic enzymes over 26 weeks were within the normal range and were neither associated with pancreatitis nor baseline factors, which suggests the clinical use of dulaglutide in Chinese patients with T2DM is not associated with pancreatic safety issues.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01648582.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide in Older Patients: A post hoc Analysis of the REWIND trial

CONTEXT

Dulaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Its efficacy and safety in older vs younger patients have not been explicitly analyzed.

OBJECTIVE

This work aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dulaglutide vs placebo in REWIND by age subgroups (≥ 65 and < 65 years).

METHODS

A post hoc subgroup analysis of REWIND was conducted at 371 sites in 24 countries. Participants included type 2 diabetes patients aged 50 years or older with established cardiovascular (CV) disease or multiple CV risk factors, and a wide range of glycemic control. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo as an add-on to country-specific standard of care. Main outcomes measures included MACE (first occurrence of the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from CV or unknown causes).

RESULTS

There were 5256 randomly assigned patients who were 65 years or older (mean = 71.0), and 4645 were younger than 65 years (mean = 60.7). Baseline characteristics were similar in randomized treatment groups. Dulaglutide treatment showed a similar reduction in the incidence (11% vs 13%) of MACE in older vs younger patients. The rate of permanent study drug discontinuation, incidence of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure, severe hypoglycemia, severe renal or urinary events, and serious gastrointestinal events were similar between randomized treatment groups within each age subgroup. The incidence rate of serious cardiac conduction disorders was numerically higher in the dulaglutide group compared to placebo within each age subgroup but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide had similar efficacy and safety in REWIND in patients65 years and older and those younger than 65 years.

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.

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

PURPOSE

Due to the chronic and progressive nature of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), it is important to understand the long-term outcomes associated with antihyperglycemic medications. There are currently few long-term studies evaluating the real-world effectiveness of dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. The primary objective of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate glycemic control over a 24-month follow-up period among dulaglutide initiators with continuous treatment. The study used US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between May 2014 and May 2019.

METHODS

Patients were included if they were ≥18 years old with T2DM and had ≥1 pharmacy claim for dulaglutide during the index period between November 2014 and May 2017 (with index date = set as the earliest dulaglutide fill during index period), continuous enrollment in the 6 months' preindex and 24 months' postindex, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide or ≥60 days' supply in every quarter during the 24-month follow-up period, and ≥1 glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) result at both baseline and 24 months.

FINDINGS

At baseline, 872 patients (47.5% female) had a mean (SD) age of 54.5 (8.2) years and an HbA_1c value of 8.68% (1.8%) (71.36 [19.7] mmol/mol). More than two thirds were being treated for dyslipidemia, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. A significant HbA_1c reduction was observed from baseline to 24 months (-1.3% [-14.2 mmol/mol]; P < 0.0001) for dulaglutide initiators with continuous treatment. A significant reduction in HbA_1c level was also observed for all prespecified subgroups (age, index dulaglutide dose [0.75 mg or 1.5 mg], insulin use, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor use, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use; all, P < 0.0001). Forty-three percent of patients achieved an HbA_1c value < 7% (53 mmol/mol), and 73% achieved an HbA_1c value < 8% (64 mmol/mol) at 24 months. Most (520 [59.6%]) patients were initiated on dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Of these patients, 70% increased to dulaglutide 1.5 mg during follow-up. The mean time to first dose change was 242 (196) days for 0.75 mg-1.5 mg and 225 (160) days for 1.5 mg-0.75 mg. Antihyperglycemic medication use preindex/postindex included: insulin, 28%/35%; dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 37%/20%; and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, 29%/44%.

IMPLICATIONS

In this real-world study among dulaglutide initiators with continuous treatment, a clinically significant reduction in HbA_1c value was seen at the 3-month assessment and persisted for up to 24 months. These data support the use of dulaglutide as an effective long-term treatment for T2DM in clinical practice.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in Elderly Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of AWARD-CHN Studies

INTRODUCTION

This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis included patients with T2D enrolled in two phase 3 clinical trials AWARD-CHN1 (NCT01644500) and AWARD-CHN2 (NCT01648582) of dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg. Patients were categorized into two groups (≥ 60 and < 60 years). Efficacy outcomes (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], fasting blood glucose [FBG], and weight; percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target [< 7.0%]) and safety outcomes (incidence of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events [GI TEAEs]) at 26 weeks were evaluated for each age group in both trials.

RESULTS

A total of 766 patients (≥ 60 years, n = 222; < 60 years, n = 544) were included in the study. A similar reduction of HbA1c was observed in both age groups: AWARD-CHN1, 1.5 mg (least squares mean [LSM] 95% confidence interval [CI] ≥ 60 years: - 1.45% [- 1.69, - 1.21%] and < 60 years: - 1.43% [- 1.59, - 1.28%]) and 0.75 mg (≥ 60 years: - 1.29% [- 1.53, - 1.05%] and < 60 years: - 1.18% [- 1.33, - 1.03%]); AWARD-CHN2, 1.5 mg (≥ 60 years: - 1.60% [- 1.83, - 1.36%] and < 60 years: - 1.64% [- 1.80, - 1.49%]) and 0.75 mg (≥ 60 years: - 1.31% [- 1.55, - 1.08%] and < 60 years: - 1.33% [- 1.48, - 1.17%]). Dulaglutide showed a reduction in HbA1c as early as 4 weeks after initiation of treatment, which was maintained over 26 weeks in both age groups. The percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target < 7.0% at 26 weeks was also similar in both age groups. Incidence of hypoglycemia and GI TEAEs was low in each age group.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with once-weekly dulaglutide improved glycemic control in patients with T2D aged ≥ 60 years and < 60 years and was well tolerated in older patients, suggesting it can be considered a safe and effective treatment option for use in older patients with T2D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

AWARD-CHN1 (NCT01644500) and AWARD-CHN2 (NCT01648582).

Effectiveness of Dulaglutide in the Real World and in Special Populations of Type 2 Diabetic Patients

CONTEXT

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-RA) dulaglutide reduced HbA1c and body weight, but generalizability of such findings to real-world T2D patients is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated effectiveness of dulaglutide in routine clinical practice, especially in subgroups of patient that are underrepresented in RCTs.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter study.

SETTING

Diabetes outpatient clinics.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

All consecutive patients who initiated dulaglutide between 2015 and 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in HbA1c and body weight were assessed up to 30 months after baseline. Effectiveness was analyzed in patient subgroups according to: prior use of GLP-1RA, persistence on treatment and dose, age, sex, disease duration, renal function, obesity, cardiovascular disease, or concomitant use of insulin or sulphonylurea.

RESULTS

From a background population of 83,116 patients, 2084 initiated dulaglutide (15.3% switching from another GLP-1RA), 1307 of whom had at least 1 follow-up visit. Overall, dulaglutide reduced HbA1c by 1.0% and body weight by 2.9 kg at the end of observation. These effects were more pronounced in GLP-1RA-naïve patients and in those with shorter disease duration. Improvement in HbA1c was highly significant and consistent across all subgroups, including those aged ≥ 75 years, nonobese, or with chronic kidney disease. Body weight declined in all subgroups and significantly more with the 1.5-mg versus 0.75-mg dose.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world T2D patients, effectiveness of dulaglutide on HbA1c and body weight reduction was highly consistent and significant even in subgroups of patients poorly represented in RCTs.

Metformin monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.

Differential indication for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with established atherosclerotic heart disease or at risk for congestive heart failure

SGLT-2 inhibitors and most GLP-1 receptor agonists demonstrated cardiovascular superiority and reduction of cardiovascular and overall mortality. These results stand as a turning point in the management of diabetes, shifting the focus from controlling glucose levels to mastering the extra-glycemic effects of these new drugs. This narrative review will discuss recent CVOT with focus on SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to distinguish relevant patients' characteristics as potential predictors for therapeutic efficacy. It will also examine their efficacy and safety, the differences in their cardiovascular and renal benefits, aiming to convey clinical suggestions for everyday practice.

Long-Acting Injectable GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Perspectives from Clinical Practice

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have consistently shown glycemic and extra-glycemic benefits of long-acting injectable glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs, liraglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once-weekly, dulaglutide, and semaglutide) in terms of reduction in the rates of cardiovascular events and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. Recently, the analyses of large datasets collecting routinely-accumulated data from clinical practice (ie, real-world studies, RWS) have provided new opportunities to complement the information obtained from RCTs. In this narrative review, we addressed clinically relevant questions that might be answered by well-conducted RWS: are subjects treated with GLP-1RAs in the "real-world" similar to those included in RCTs? Is the performance of GLP-1RA observed in the RWS (effectiveness) similar to that described in RCTs (efficacy)? Is the effectiveness similar in population of patients generally under-represented in RCTs? Are the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RAs confirmed in RWS? We also describe a few comparisons currently un-explored by specific RCTs, such as direct comparison between different administration strategies (eg, fixed- versus flexible-combination with basal-insulin) or between GLP-1RAs versus dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor (DDP4i) or versus sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) on hard cardio-renal outcomes. Altogether, RWS provide highly informative information on treatment with GLP-1RAs. On the one side, RWS showed different clinical characteristics between subjects enrolled in RCTs versus those attending real-world clinics and receiving a GLP-1RA. On the other hand, RWS showed that GLP-1RA effectiveness is overall consistent in subgroups of patients less represented in RCTs. In addition, RWS allowed the identification of modifiable factors (eg, titration or adherence) that might guide physicians towards better GLP-1RAs use. Finally, multiple RWS reported better cardio-renal outcomes with GLP-1RAs than with DPP-4i, while initial findings from RWS described a weaker cardiovascular protection compared to SGLT-2i. Therefore, there is the need for further RWS and RCTs comparing these different classes of glucose lowering medications.

Consensus Recommendations on GLP-1 RA Use in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: South Asian Task Force

The advent of incretin mimetics such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) has enriched the armamentarium for diabetes management owing to their glycaemic as well as extra-glycaemic benefits. The approval status and availability of this class of drugs vary widely across the globe. Being a relatively newer class of drug with numerous benefits, several national and international guidelines are working towards addressing clinical questions pertaining to the optimal use of GLP-1 RAs for the management of diabetes. Although the newer class of drugs are associated with significant benefits such as patient-centric approach, these drugs demand the providers to be vigilant and knowledgeable about the medication. The South Asian population is at higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) because of their genetic predisposition and lifestyle changes. Hence, prevention and management of T2DM and its associated complications in this population are of paramount importance. The current report aims to present an overview of current knowledge on GLP-1 RAs based on pragmatic review of the available clinical evidence. In addition, this report is a consensus of expert endocrinologists representing South Asian countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and the Maldives on essential recommendations related to the use of GLP-1 RAs in a real-world scenario.

Clinical Efficacy and Parameters Affecting the Response to Dulaglutide Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective, Real-World Data Study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and clinical factors affecting the glycemic response to dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 234 patients at the Asan Medical Center, Republic of Korea, who had T2D and initiated dulaglutide from June 2016 to December 2017. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration between baseline and 6 months after the initiation of therapy. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the clinical parameters contributing to a superior glycemic response to dulaglutide.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 53, and 50% were male. Their mean baseline HbA1c, body mass index and duration of diabetes were 8.8%, 27.6 kg/m² and 10.2 years, respectively. The change in HbA1c between baseline and 6 months was - 0.92% (95% CI: - 1.1% to - 0.74%, p < 0.001). The reduction in body weight over the same period was -2.1 kg (95% CI: - 2.9 to - 1.3 kg, p < 0.001). Using multivariate regression analysis, baseline HbA1c was found to be a significant predictor of superior glycemic response to dulaglutide.

CONCLUSION

The use of dulaglutide was associated with a significant reduction in HbA1c and body weight over a 6-month period in a real-world clinical setting. T2D patients with higher baseline HbA1c concentrations were more likely to demonstrate good clinical responses to dulaglutide.

Molecular and Materials Engineering for Delivery of Peptide Drugs to Treat Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is exploding globally. Despite numerous treatment options, nearly half of type 2 diabetics are unsuccessful at properly managing the disease, primarily due to a lack of patient compliance, driven by adverse side effects as well as complicated and frequent dosing schedules. Improving the delivery of type 2 diabetes drugs has the potential to increase patient compliance and thus, greatly enhance health outcomes and quality of life. This review focuses on molecular and materials engineering strategies that have been implemented to improve the delivery of peptide drugs to treat type 2 diabetes. Peptide drugs benefit from high potency and specificity but suffer from instability and short half-lives that limit their utility as therapeutics and pose a significant delivery challenge. Several approaches have been developed to improve the availability and efficacy of antidiabetic peptides and proteins in vivo. These methods are reviewed herein and include devices, which sustain the release of peptides in long term, and molecular engineering strategies, which prolong circulation time and slow the release of therapeutic peptides. By optimizing the delivery of these peptides and proteins using these approaches, long-term glucose control can be achieved in type 2 diabetes patients.

A Randomized Study to Compare the Effects of Once-Weekly Dulaglutide Injection and Once-Daily Glimepiride on Glucose Fluctuation of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A 26-Week Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of once-weekly dulaglutide injection and once-daily glimepiride on glucose fluctuation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS).

METHODS

A total of 23 patients with T2DM were randomly assigned into two groups for 26 weeks: the dulaglutide group (n = 13) and the glimepiride group (n = 10). 72-hour CGMS was applied to all patients: before and after the treatment. General clinical data were collected and measured, such as fasting blood glucose (FBG), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α (8-iso-PGF2α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6).

RESULTS

HbA1c of the dulaglutide group was reduced from 8.38 ± 0.93% to 6.68 ± 0.73% after the treatment (P < 0.05); similarly, it was reduced from 7.91 ± 0.98% to 6.67 ± 0.74% (P < 0.05) in the glimepiride group. The levels of serum 8-iso-PGF2α, TNF-α, and IL-6 all decreased significantly in both groups after treatment, and there was no significant difference found between the two groups (P > 0.05). The Mean Blood Glucose (MBG) of the two groups declined significantly after therapy (P < 0.05). However, the Standard Deviation of Blood Glucose (SDBG) decreased significantly only in the dulaglutide group (from 2.57 ± 0.74 mmol/L to 1.98 ± 0.74 mmol/L, P < 0.05). There were no significant changes of Mean Amplitude of Glycemic Excursion (MAGE) and Absolute Means of Daily Difference (MODD) after treatment in both groups. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in MBG, SDBG, MAGE, and MODD (P > 0.05). The percentage time (PT) (>10 mmol/L and 3.9-10 mmol/L) of the two groups was significantly changed after the treatment (P < 0.05). However, this was not seen in the PT < 3.9 mmol/L after the treatment (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly dulaglutide injection has the same effectiveness as daily glimepiride on lowering blood glucose and decreasing oxidation stress and inflammation and is more effective in controlling glucose fluctuation as compared with glimepiride. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01644500.

Dulaglutide as an Add-on to Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes; Clinical Efficacy and Parameters Affecting the Response in Real-World Practice

PURPOSE

For patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who remain above their glycemic target on insulin therapy, a combination of insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist has been recommended. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting the response to this combination in a real-world setting. This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting the glycemic response to dulaglutide as an add-on to insulin therapy for T2DM in a real-world clinical setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in 120 patients with T2DM who had initiated dulaglutide as an add-on to insulin therapy between January 2017 and December 2018. After 6 months of treatment, the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was evaluated. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the parameters affecting the therapeutic response to dulaglutide.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 55.1 years and 57.5% were male. The mean baseline HbA1c, body mass index, and duration of diabetes were 9.1%, 27.5 kg/m², and 17.2 years, respectively. The change in HbA1c between baseline and 6 months was -0.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.28 to -0.66%, P<0.001), the change in body weight was -2.05 kg (95% CI: -2.93 to -1.17 kg, P<0.001), and the change in total daily insulin dose was -11.67 IU (95% CI: -14.55 to -8.78 IU, P<0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, higher baseline HbA1c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms, but these were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide treatment in combination with insulin resulted in a significant improvement in HbA1c and body weight over a 6-month period in a real-world clinical setting. Higher baseline HbA1c was associated with a good clinical response.

Semaglutide as a therapeutic option for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: Pooled analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials

The efficacy and safety of semaglutide vs comparators in non-elderly (<65 years) and elderly (≥65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials were evaluated. Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) vs placebo, sitagliptin, exenatide or insulin. The primary objective was change in HbA1c and secondary objectives were changes in body weight and safety. Mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 1.2%-1.5% and 1.5%-1.9% vs 0%-0.9% (non-elderly, n = 3045) and by 1.3%-1.5% and 1.2%-1.8% vs 0.2%-1.0% (elderly, n = 854) with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs comparators. Similar reductions from baseline in mean body weight with semaglutide occurred in both age groups. Similar proportions of patients experienced adverse events; premature treatment discontinuations were higher in elderly vs non-elderly patients. No increased risk of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia was seen with semaglutide vs comparators between age groups. Semaglutide had a comparable efficacy and safety profile in non-elderly and elderly patients across the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials, making it an effective treatment option for elderly patients with T2D.

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.

What have we learnt from "real world" data, observational studies and meta-analyses

The incretin therapies glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors are now well-established as second and third-line therapies and in combination with insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, there is accumulating evidence of their efficacy and safety from both large multicentre randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies. Cardiovascular outcome trials have confirmed that several of these agents are also non-inferior to placebo with the GLP-1 RA liraglutide and semaglutide recently found to be superior in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. Observational studies and post-marketing surveillance provide real world evidence of safety and effectiveness of these agents and have provided reassurance that signals for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer seen in clinical trials are not of major concern in large patient populations. Well-designed real world studies complement RCTs and systematic reviews but appropriate data and methodologies, which are constantly improving, are necessary to answer appropriate clinical questions relating to the use of incretin therapies.

Efficacy and safety analyses across 4 subgroups combining low and high age and body mass index groups in Japanese phase 3 studies of dulaglutide 0.75 mg after 26 weeks of treatment

In 855 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving once weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg in 3 phase 3 studies, the effects on efficacy and safety at week 26 (last observation carried forward) were investigated in a post hoc descriptive analysis of subgroups of age (<65 years [young], ≥65 years [elderly]) and body mass index (BMI [<25 kg/m², ≥25 kg/m²]). The 4 subgroups were as follows: 1) the young/low-BMI subgroup (Y/L) (n = 255); 2) the young/high-BMI subgroup (Y/H) (n = 386), 3) the elderly/low-BMI subgroup (E/L) (n = 137), and 4) the elderly/high-BMI subgroup (E/H) (n = 77). The mean changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, were -1.69% and -0.29 kg in the Y/L subgroup; -1.48% and -0.09 kg in the Y/H subgroup; -1.68% and -0.20 kg in the E/L subgroup; and -1.72% and -0.26 kg in the E/H subgroup. The incidences of nausea and hypoglycemia, respectively, were 6.7% and 11.0% in the Y/L subgroup; 7.0% and 8.0% in the Y/H subgroup; 10.2% and 18.2% in the E/L subgroup; and 3.9% and 22.1% in the E/H subgroup. Dulaglutide improved HbA1c regardless of age or BMI; a higher incidence of hypoglycemia was observed in elderly patients compared to younger patients.