Dataset Information

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Once-Weekly GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Dulaglutide as Add-On to Metformin or Metformin Plus Insulin Secretagogues in Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Aims and methods

The aim of this monocentric retrospective observational study was to evaluate the 18-month safety and effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) dulaglutide (DU) 1.5 mg/once weekly as an add-on to metformin (MET) or MET plus conventional insulin secretagogues in a study cohort with excess body weight and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Comparative efficacy versus liraglutide (LIRA) 1.2-1.8 mg/once daily in a study sample naïve to GLP-1 RAs, frequency matching for age, gender, T2D duration, degree of glycemic impairment, cardiovascular comorbidities, and medications, was addressed as a secondary aim. Clinical and biochemical data for efficacy outcomes and information on drug discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were collected from digital records.

Results

Initial analysis included 126 overweight and obese T2D patients (48.4% females). Out of these, 13 discontinued DU due to moderate-severe gastrointestinal AEs after a mean follow-up of 6 (4 standard deviations (SD)) months, while 65 completed 18 months of continuous therapy. At 6 months, there was a significant mean HbA1c reduction of -0.85% (1.17 SD) with respect to baseline values (p < 0.001), which remained stable during 18 months follow-up. These results were accompanied by a moderate weight loss sustained over time, with a mean reduction of -2.0% (4.3 SD) at 6 months and -1.3% (4.8 SD) at 18 months (p = 0.091). At univariate analysis, a negative correlation between baseline body mass index (BMI) and risk of drug discontinuation due to gastrointestinal AEs was observed. The protective effect of obesity against drug discontinuation was confirmed by logistic regression analysis. Neither gender, nor age, nor T2D duration, nor concomitant conventional insulin secretagogue use, nor switching to DU from other GLP-1 RAs influenced its long-term effectiveness. However, higher baseline HbA1c values emerged as predictors of clinically relevant efficacy outcomes, either in terms of HbA1c reduction ≥ 0.5% or body weight loss ≥ 5%. The efficacy outcomes were corroborated by head-to-head comparison with LIRA, a GLP-1 RA with durable beneficial effects on glycemic control and body weight in real-world experiences. With the advantage of once-weekly administration, at 18-month follow-up, a significantly larger fraction of patients on DU therapy reached glycemic targets (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) when compared to those on LIRA: from 14.8% at baseline (both groups) to 64.8% with DU and 42.6% with LIRA (p = 0.033).

Conclusions

Although limited by a retrospective design and lack of constant up-titration for LIRA to the highest dose, these findings indicate that the beneficial responses to DU on a background of MET or MET plus insulin secretagogues are durable, especially in the presence of obesity and greater HbA1c impairment.

SUBMITTER: Mirabelli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7957905 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:In East Asian patients, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized primarily by β-cell dysfunction, with lower insulin secretion than in Caucasian individuals. Therefore, bolus insulin and premixed insulin containing a bolus insulin component are important therapeutic tools in Japan, in addition to basal insulin. This subgroup analysis is stratified by insulin regimen and uses data from a phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind and subsequent open-label study in Japan to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide combined with various insulin therapies. METHODS:This multicenter study enrolled Japanese patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control [glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% to ≤ 10.5%] on insulin therapy [basal (B), premixed (PM), or basal bolus (BB)] in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents. Randomized participants received once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39) during a 16-week double-blind treatment period, and dulaglutide during a 36-week open-label extension. In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures were changes from baseline in HbA1c, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, and body weight. Safety measures were incidence of adverse events and hypoglycemia during the first 16 weeks. RESULTS:At week 16, least squares mean differences (95% CI) regarding changes from baseline in HbA1c for each insulin regimen versus placebo were: B: - 1.62% (- 1.96, - 1.28), PM: - 1.78% (- 2.25, - 1.30), and BB: - 1.15% (- 1.54, - 0.77); p < 0.001 dulaglutide vs. placebo for each subgroup. No significant differences in body weight changes were observed between dulaglutide and placebo for any insulin regimen. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most commonly observed adverse events in dulaglutide-treated patients. Hypoglycemia incidence rates were: B: dulaglutide 38.5% vs. placebo 23.5%; PM: dulaglutide 38.5% vs. placebo 44.4%; BB: dulaglutide 50.0% vs. placebo 30.8%. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, dulaglutide was generally well tolerated and improved glycemic control significantly versus placebo, regardless of insulin regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02750410.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a highly prevalent disease worldwide and in Colombia, representing one of the main causes of death and placing a considerable burden on healthcare systems. 13 classes of drugs are approved for the treatment of T2DM, with Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists being a first-line treatment option for patients with or at high risk of certain cardiovascular diseases and chronic kidney disease. The objective of this study is to conduct a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide in Colombian adults with T2DM, from a third-party payer perspective.MethodsNumbers needed to treat were calculated for different single and composite endpoints of the SUSTAIN 7 trial, annual costs for once weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg were extracted from the public SISMED database. With these inputs a cost of control model was developed, to obtain the annual cost of bringing one T2DM patient to relevant clinical outcomes by using semaglutide or dulaglutide.ResultsSemaglutide was considered cost-effective compared to dulaglutide across all pre-specified endpoints, even in the different scenarios evaluated in the sensitivity analyses, and in a particularly pronounced manner for weight loss outcomes. Semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg once-weekly was cost-effective compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg across all outcomes in the short-term, making it an appropriate first-line choice in the treatment of T2DM when deciding between these two GLP-1 receptor agonists.ConclusionsThis is the first short-term cost-effectiveness study of semaglutide and dulaglutide in T2DM Colombian patients. Our modeled results suggest that once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals with T2DM in Colombia who are not achieving glycaemia control with metformin, and it would be expected to improve HbA1C, promote greater weight loss and reduce costs from a third-payer perspective compared with treatment with dulaglutide.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough global studies have investigated the combination of dulaglutide with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), differences in lean body mass and dulaglutide dosing can complicate the extrapolation of global study results to Japanese patients. This phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, and subsequent open-label study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg in combination with insulin therapy in patients with T2DM.MethodsPatients enrolled in this multicenter study were Japanese with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c 7.5-10.5%) with insulin therapy (basal insulin, premixed insulin, or basal/mealtime insulin) in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to dulaglutide or placebo. The first 16 weeks was the double-blind period with stable insulin dosing, and patients taking placebo were switched to dulaglutide for an additional 36-week open-label period in which all patients took dulaglutide (52 weeks total).ResultsPatients (N = 159) were randomized to dulaglutide (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39). The least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c at week 16 were dulaglutide - 1.45% and placebo 0.06%. The LS mean and 95% confidence interval for the difference were - 1.50% (- 1.73%, - 1.28%) and dulaglutide was superior to placebo. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in changes from baseline in body weight and insulin dose. The most frequently observed treatment-emergent adverse events in dulaglutide were nasopharyngitis, constipation, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and decreased appetite. The incidence rates of hypoglycemic events by week 16 were dulaglutide 42.5% and placebo 30.8% (P = 0.258).ConclusionOnce-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was superior to once-weekly placebo in glycemic control improvement and well tolerated in patients with T2DM in combination with insulin therapy with or without OADs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02750410.FundingEli Lilly and Company.

Project description:IntroductionTo date, there have been few head-to-head comparisons between semaglutide once-weekly (OW) and short-acting meal-time insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin and requiring treatment intensification. This indirect comparison evaluated the effects of these regimens on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, hypoglycaemia, and other clinically relevant outcomes.MethodsA post-hoc, unanchored, individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of data from single treatment arms in the SUSTAIN 5 and DUAL 7 trials. Semaglutide 0.5 mg OW and 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin were compared with an optimised (treat-to-target) basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin aspart over 26 weeks, using regression adjustment to account for baseline differences between the trials.ResultsOver 26 weeks, semaglutide 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin reduced mean HbA1c by significantly more than the basal-bolus regimen (treatment difference: - 0.36%; p = 0.003), while semaglutide 0.5 mg OW plus basal insulin was comparable with basal-bolus insulin (treatment difference: 0.08%, p = 0.53). Both doses of semaglutide were associated with significant weight loss relative to insulin intensification (treatment differences: 6.8-9.4 kg; p < 0.001). At both doses, semaglutide intensification required less basal insulin per day than bolus intensification, and more participants on semaglutide met HbA1c targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain (odds ratio [OR] for < 7.0%, 21.9; OR for ≤ 6.5%, 16.2; both p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn T2D uncontrolled by basal insulin, intensification with semaglutide 1.0 mg OW was associated with better glycaemic control, weight loss, and reduced hypoglycaemia versus a basal-bolus regimen, while limiting the treatment burden associated with frequent injections. Clinicians could consider treatment intensification with semaglutide when T2D is uncontrolled by basal insulin, especially when weight management is a priority. Effective glycaemic control coupled with weight management can alleviate the burden of diabetes-associated complications.