Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Yoo JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6612352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of dulaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but results may not be generalizable in routine practice. This pragmatic literature review aimed to summarize real-world evidence (RWE) for dulaglutide. METHODS:The MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from January 2014 to July 2019 for studies providing RWE for dulaglutide in adults with T2DM regarding at least one outcome of interest (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]; weight; adherence; persistence; discontinuation; costs; healthcare resource utilization; health-related quality of life; patient satisfaction; and preference). Relevant congress abstracts were identified from EMBASE. RESULTS:A total of 29 studies (11 articles; 18 abstracts) were included. RWE for dulaglutide was not identified for all outcomes of interest. Dulaglutide reduced HbA1c from baseline to 3-24 months by 0.5-2.2% across studies (n?=?20), and 23.4-55.7% of patients achieved HbA1c?<?7.0%. Weight was reduced by 2.1-6.4 kg across studies of 3-12 months (n?=?15). Based on outcomes from ten studies, 27.2-61.0% of dulaglutide patients were adherent. Mean persistence was 146-152 days and?>?250 days in 6- and 12-month studies, respectively. Most studies reported discontinuation rates of 26.2-37.0%. Adherence and persistence were consistently reported to be greater in dulaglutide-treated patients in RW settings compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Dulaglutide was associated with lower costs per 1% reduction in HbA1c compared with exenatide, liraglutide, or basal insulin (n?=?3 studies). CONCLUSION:Evidence from RWE studies suggests that dulaglutide may be associated with clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c, with a favorable adherence, persistence, and discontinuation profile in patients with T2DM in routine clinical practice. These findings provide additional insights regarding the potential value of dulaglutide in real-world settings that may assist healthcare decision makers in the delivery of patient-centered care.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough 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.MethodsTROPHIES 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.ResultsData 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.ConclusionThe information from this varied panel of PRO instruments collected at baseline complements clinical outcomes data.

Project description:IntroductionThis study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of omidenepag isopropyl (OMDI) in a retrospective, real-world, multicenter setting.MethodsA retrospective medical chart review of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension receiving OMDI from November 2018 to November 2019 with at least 12 weeks of follow-up was conducted in 11 eye clinics in Japan. The participants were categorized into three therapy groups, designated the naïve monotherapy, switching monotherapy, and concomitant therapy groups. The main outcome measures were the change in intraocular pressure (IOP) at week 4 and week 12 after the initiation of OMDI treatment, and frequency of adverse drug reactions.ResultsData were collected from 827 patients. The baseline IOP in the naïve group was 16.6 ± 4.2 mmHg. The mean IOP reduction at week 4 and week 12 was - 2.9 ± 3.2 mmHg (P < 0.0001) and - 2.5 ± 2.9 mmHg (P < 0.0001), respectively. Eyes with baseline IOP less than 16 mmHg also showed a significant reduction of IOP of - 1.4 ± 2.0 mmHg at week 12. OMDI significantly reduced IOP not only in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma but also in eyes with primary angle-closure glaucoma and secondary glaucoma. In the switching monotherapy group, IOP did not change significantly after switching from most classes of medications to OMDI, but further IOP reduction was observed in the case of switching from beta-blockers to OMDI. The frequency of adverse drug reactions was 14.1% in all participants, and the most common adverse reaction was ocular hyperemia (7.6%). No serious and severe side effects were observed in this study.ConclusionOMDI showed an IOP-lowering effect in eyes with various types of glaucoma and using various therapeutic regimens in real-world clinical practice. In addition, OMDI did not show any serious and severe side effects, suggesting the potential of OMDI as a first-line medicine for the treatment of glaucoma.Trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN): 000040040.