Dulaglutide in the treatment of adult type 2 diabetes: a perspective for primary care providers

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): resource use and costs of treatment in clinical practice in France, Germany, and Italy

AIMS

To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs after initiation of injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy by adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the prospective, observational, 24-month TROPHIES study in France, Germany, and Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HCRU data for cost calculations were collected by treating physicians during patient interviews at baseline and follow-up visits approximately 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after GLP-1 RA initiation with once-weekly dulaglutide or once-daily liraglutide. Costs were evaluated from the national healthcare system (third-party payer) perspective and updated to 2018 prices.

RESULTS

In total, 2,005 patients were eligible for the HCRU analysis (1,014 dulaglutide; 991 liraglutide). Baseline patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups and countries. The largest proportions of patients using ≥2 oral glucose-lowering medications (GLMs) at baseline (42.9-43.4%) and month 24 (44.0-45.1%) and using another injectable GLM at month 24 (15.3-23.2%) were in France. Mean numbers of primary and secondary healthcare contacts during each assessment period were highest in France (range = 4.0-10.7) and Germany (range = 2.9-5.7), respectively. The greatest proportions (≥60%) of mean annualized costs per patient comprised medication costs. Mean annualized HCRU costs per patient varied by treatment cohort and country: the highest levels were in the liraglutide cohort in France (€909) and the dulaglutide cohort in Germany (€883).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included exclusion of patients using insulin at GLP-1 RA initiation and collection of HCRU data by physician, not via patient-completed diaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world HCRU and costs associated with the treatment of adults with T2D with two GLP-1 RAs in TROPHIES emphasize the need to avoid generalization with respect to HCRU and costs associated with a particular therapy when estimating the impact of a new treatment in a country-specific setting.

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.

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (TROPHIES): Final, 24-month analysis of time to first significant treatment change, treatment persistence and clinical outcomes

AIMS

To present the final results of the TROPHIES study (The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The prospective, real-world TROPHIES study included patients with type 2 diabetes initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM), dulaglutide or liraglutide, in France, Germany and Italy. The primary endpoint was the time spent on dulaglutide or liraglutide until a significant treatment change over 24 months. Other endpoints measured persistence with treatment, clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and weight) and treatment patterns. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first significant treatment change and persistence with treatment were generated. Propensity-score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline imbalances in the comparison between cohorts.

RESULTS

The 286 of 1014 patients (28.2%) in the dulaglutide cohort and 448 of 991 patients (45.2%) in the liraglutide cohort had a significant treatment change over 24 months. By IPTW analysis, dulaglutide-initiating patients were less likely to have a significant treatment change (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.63) and more likely to be persistent with treatment (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86) over 24 months than liraglutide-initiating patients. Dulaglutide and liraglutide yielded similar HbA1c (-11.80 mmol/mol [1.08%] and -11.91 mmol/mol [1.09%]) and weight (-3.5 kg and -3.3 kg) reductions from baseline to 24 months. Few changes in patterns of treatment with other GLMs were observed in the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide-initiating patients had a longer time spent without any significant treatment change and higher persistence than those initiating liraglutide. Treatment with either glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist yielded similar and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (TROPHIES): Patient disposition, clinical characteristics and treatment persistence at 12 months

AIMS

The primary objective of the TROPHIES observational study is to estimate the duration of treatment on dulaglutide or liraglutide without a significant treatment change by 24 months in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable treatment with these glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). This manuscript presents 12-month interim data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TROPHIES is a prospective, non-comparative, observational study of patients with T2D in Europe, naïve to injectable antihyperglycaemic treatments and initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide. Data on clinical characteristics, GLP-1 RA persistence and treatment patterns of glucose-lowering medication were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and by 12 months.

RESULTS

By 12 months, 1014 dulaglutide and 991 liraglutide patients were eligible across France, Germany and Italy. Both cohorts presented a high probability [95% confidence interval (CI)] of GLP-1 RA persistence [dulaglutide, 0.88 (0.86 to 0.90); liraglutide, 0.83 (0.80 to 0.85)] and reduction in mean glycated haemoglobin percentage (95% CI) from baseline [dulaglutide, -1.18 (-1.27 to -1.08); liraglutide, -1.15 (-1.26 to -1.05)] with 48.2% of dulaglutide and 41.2% of liraglutide patients reaching their individualized glycated haemoglobin percentage target set by the physician at baseline. Mean weight (95% CI) change from baseline was -3.2 kg (-3.6 to -2.8) for dulaglutide and -3.4 kg (-3.9 to -3.0) for liraglutide. Slight changes in concomitant medications were observed compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real-world setting, dulaglutide and liraglutide cohorts achieved good persistence with similarly improved glycaemic control that was accompanied by weight loss at 12 months, consistent with previous clinical trial results.

Once-Weekly Dulaglutide for the Treatment of Youths with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing among youths. Once-weekly treatment with dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, may have efficacy with regard to glycemic control in youths with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 26-week trial, we randomly assigned participants (10 to <18 years of age; body-mass index [BMI], >85th percentile) being treated with lifestyle modifications alone or with metformin, with or without basal insulin, in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo, dulaglutide at a dose of 0.75 mg, or dulaglutide at a dose of 1.5 mg. Participants were then included in a 26-week open-label extension study in which those who had received placebo began receiving dulaglutide at a weekly dose of 0.75 mg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level at 26 weeks. Secondary end points included a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% and changes from baseline in the fasting glucose concentration and BMI. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 154 participants underwent randomization. At 26 weeks, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had increased in the placebo group (0.6 percentage points) and had decreased in the dulaglutide groups (-0.6 percentage points in the 0.75-mg group and -0.9 percentage points in the 1.5-mg group, P<0.001 for both comparisons vs. placebo). At 26 weeks, a higher percentage of participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% (51% vs. 14%, P<0.001). The fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (17.1 mg per deciliter) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (-18.9 mg per deciliter, P<0.001), and there were no between-group differences in the change in BMI. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher with dulaglutide therapy than with placebo. The safety profile of dulaglutide was consistent with that reported in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with dulaglutide at a once-weekly dose of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg was superior to placebo in improving glycemic control through 26 weeks among youths with type 2 diabetes who were being treated with or without metformin or basal insulin, without an effect on BMI. (Funded by Eli Lilly; AWARD-PEDS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02963766.).

2022 update to the position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe: a disease state approach to the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in primary care

Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities are growing more prevalent, and the complexity of optimising glycaemic control is increasing, especially on the frontlines of patient care. In many countries, most patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in a primary care setting. However, primary healthcare professionals face the challenge of the growing plethora of available treatment options for managing hyperglycaemia, leading to difficultly in making treatment decisions and contributing to treatment and therapeutic inertia. This position statement offers a simple and patient-centred clinical decision-making model with practical treatment recommendations that can be widely implemented by primary care clinicians worldwide through shared-decision conversations with their patients. It highlights the importance of managing cardiovascular disease and elevated cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes and aims to provide innovative risk stratification and treatment strategies that connect patients with the most effective care.

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.

Real-World Effectiveness of Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Literature Review

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.

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.

Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy

Aims: Several glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are available as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes. These medications vary in their injection devices, and these differences could impact quality-of-life and patient preference. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with injection devices for two weekly GLP-1 therapies. Materials and methods: Participants with type 2 diabetes in Italy (Milan, Rome) valued three health state vignettes in time trade-off interviews. The health states had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process: (1) oral treatment regimen, (2) oral plus weekly dulaglutide injection, and (3) oral plus weekly semaglutide injection. Results: A total of 216 participants completed interviews (57.9% male; mean age = 60.5). Almost all patients (99.5%) preferred the oral health state over either injection health state. Comparing between the two injections, 88.4% preferred the dulaglutide health state, while 11.6% preferred the semaglutide state. Mean (SD) utilities were 0.907 (0.076) for oral, 0.894 (0.085) for dulaglutide, and 0.887 (0.087) for semaglutide. The mean (SD) utility difference between the injection device health states was 0.007 (0.019). Limitations: Although the health states were designed to match the injection device instructions for use as closely as possible, vignette-based methods are inherently limited because results are based on perceptions of the health states rather than actual patient experience with the devices. Conclusions: Results provide insight into patient preferences associated with injection devices for weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. The majority of patients preferred the dulaglutide device over the semaglutide device, and for some patients, this difference had an impact on utility valuations. Patient preferences for injection devices could be an important factor to consider when selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Clinical and economic outcomes among injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with basal insulin in a US real-world setting: the DISPEL Study

AIMS

To report 1-year clinical and economic outcomes from the retrospective DISPEL (Dulaglutide vs Basal InSulin in Injection Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness in ReaL World) Study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational claims study included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ≥1 claim for dulaglutide or basal insulin between November 2014 and April 2017 (index date=earliest fill date). Propensity score matching was used to address treatment selection bias. Change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was compared between the matched cohorts using analysis of covariance; diabetes-related costs were analyzed using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts (903 pairs total; 523 pairs with complete cost data) were balanced in baseline characteristics with mean HbA1c 8.6%, mean age 54 years. At 1 year postindex, dulaglutide patients had significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than basal insulin (-1.12% vs -0.51%, p<0.01), lower medical costs ($3753 vs $7604, p<0.01), higher pharmacy costs ($9809 vs $6175, p<0.01), and similar total costs ($13 562 vs $13 779, p=0.76). Medical and total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction were lower for dulaglutide than basal insulin (medical: $3128 vs $12 673, p<0.01; total: $11 302 vs $22 965, p<0.01), while pharmacy costs per 1% HbA1c reduction were lower without reaching statistical significance ($8174 vs $10 292, p=0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study, patients with T2D initiating dulaglutide demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction compared with those initiating basal insulin. Although total diabetes-related costs were similar, the total diabetes-related costs per HbA1c reduction were lower for dulaglutide, highlighting the importance of evaluating effectiveness along with the economic impact of medications.

Once Weekly Dulaglutide Therapy in Type 2 Diabetic Subjects, Real-world Evidence from a Tertiary Care Diabetes Center in India

AIMS

To evaluate the real-world efficacy, durability, and side-effect profile of once weekly GLP1RA: dulaglutide in Indian type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study. Data for efficacy (HbA1c and weight), adherence/discontinuation and patient reported side-effects, of 117 patients who were prescribed dulaglutide were analyzed.

RESULTS

Final analysis was done on complete data of 74 patients (6 months follow-up), this indicated that dulaglutide is effective (mean-reduction at 6 months of: HbA1c; 0.87% and weight; 3.8 kg). Subjects with a poorer glycemic control (greater HbA1c) or greater weight at initiation had a better fall in HbA1c and weight reduction at the end of the study. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal (15% nausea and 6% loose motions). Also, 25% (n = 19) of our study subjects discontinued dulaglutide because of gastrointestinal side-effects.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world experience is well aligned to systematic data of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy of dulaglutide in the treatment of T2DM (our study vs. RCTs; HbA1c reduction: 0.87% vs. 0.78% to 1.64%, weight reduction: 3.8 vs. 0.3 to 3 kg). The most common side-effects and reason for discontinuation were gastrointestinal side-effects. Finally, by virtue of their observed benefit, we expect a superior cardiovascular risk-reduction with dulaglutide use in our population.

Clinical pharmacology of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are an important asset in the armamentarium for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM). Incretin failure is a critical etiopathogenetic feature of type 2 DM, which, if reversed, results in improved glycaemic control. GLP-1 RAs are injectable peptides that resemble the structure and function of endogenous incretin GLP-1, but as they are not deactivated by the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), their half-life is prolonged compared with native GLP-1. Based on their ability to activate GLP-1 receptor, GLP-1 RAs are classified as short-acting (exenatide twice-daily and lixisenatide once-daily), and long-acting (liraglutide once-daily and the once-weekly formulations of exenatide extended-release, dulaglutide, and albiglutide). Semaglutide, another long-acting, once-weekly GLP-1 RA, was recently approved by the FDA and EMA. Although all of these agents potently reduce haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), there are unique features and fundamental differences among them related to fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia reduction, weight loss potency, cardiovascular protection efficacy, and adverse events profile. It is imperative that current evidence be integrated and applied in the context of an individualised patient-centred approach. This should include not only glucose management but also targeting as many as possible of the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for type 2 DM development and progression.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose in patient subpopulations by gender, duration of diabetes and baseline HbA1c

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes by subgroups of gender, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the dulaglutide clinical development programme (AWARD-1 to -6 and -8 clinical trials).

METHODS

Change in HbA1c was analysed by gender, duration of diabetes (<5, ≥5 years and <10, ≥10 years), and baseline HbA1c (<8.5%, ≥8.5%) in pooled and individual studies. Changes from baseline in weight, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were evaluated for individual trials.

RESULTS

In the pooled analysis of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg at 6 months, the reductions in HbA1c from baseline were similar across gender (men: least squares [LS] mean -1.26% [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.36, -1.16]; women: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.24]) and among duration of diabetes subgroups (<5 years: LS mean -1.32% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥5 and <10 years: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥10 years: -1.24% [95% CI -1.35, -1.14]). Patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% had greater HbA1c reductions than patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5%, (≥8.5%: LS mean -1.86% [95% CI -1.97, -1.75]; <8.5%: LS mean -1.02% [95% CI -1.12, -0.93]). Reductions in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were consistent with HbA1c changes. Similar results were observed with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. In general, body weight changes were similar among duration of diabetes and in baseline HbA1c subgroups, respectively; women had a numerically greater weight loss or less weight gain than men with both dulaglutide doses. There was no clinically meaningful difference in hypoglycaemia trends by gender or duration of diabetes. Hypoglycaemia incidence and rate were generally lower in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% than in those with <8.5%, except for the AWARD-4 study (combination with mealtime insulin).

CONCLUSIONS

Across the AWARD studies, dulaglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control irrespective of gender, duration of diabetes, or baseline HbA1c, with greater HbA1c and FBG reductions in patients with a higher baseline HbA1c. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Glucose dysregulation and response to common anti-diabetic agents in the FATZO/Pco mouse

The FATZO/Pco mouse is the result of a cross of the C57BL/6J and AKR/J strains. The crossing of these two strains and the selective inbreeding for obesity, insulin resistance and hyperglycemia has resulted in an inbred strain exhibiting obesity in the presumed presence of an intact leptin pathway. Routinely used rodent models for obesity and diabetes research have a monogenic defect in leptin signaling that initiates obesity. Given that obesity and its sequelae in humans are polygenic in nature and not associated with leptin signaling defects, the FATZO mouse may represent a more translatable rodent model for study of obesity and its associated metabolic disturbances. The FATZO mouse develops obesity spontaneously when fed a normal chow diet. Glucose intolerance with increased insulin levels are apparent in FATZO mice as young as 6 weeks of age. These progress to hyperglycemia/pre-diabetes and frank diabetes with decreasing insulin levels as they age. The disease in these mice is multi-faceted, similar to the metabolic syndrome apparent in obese individuals, and thus provides a long pre-diabetic state for determining the preventive value of new interventions. We have assessed the utility of this new model for the pre-clinical screening of agents to stop or slow progression of the metabolic syndrome to severe diabetes. Our assessment included: 1) characterization of the spontaneous development of disease, 2) comparison of metabolic disturbances of FATZO mice to control mice and 3) validation of the model with regard to the effectiveness of current and emerging anti-diabetic agents; rosiglitazone, metformin and semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

Male FATZO mice spontaneously develop significant metabolic disease when compared to normal controls while maintaining hyperglycemia in the presence of high leptin levels and hyperinsulinemia. The disease condition responds to commonly used antidiabetic agents.