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

Glycemic and Cost Outcomes among Hispanic/Latino People with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA Initiating Dulaglutide versus Basal Insulin: a Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Optimal glycemic management after diabetes onset remains a challenge in Hispanic/Latino adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), often resulting in poor health outcomes and higher rates of diabetes-related complications. The aim of this study was to examine and compare demographic and clinical characteristics, glycemic outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among injection-naïve Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D initiating dulaglutide or basal insulin.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts on the basis of pharmacy claims and were propensity-score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Measures of glycemic management included 12 month follow-up glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and change in HbA1c from baseline. Follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related HCRU and costs, including costs per 1% change in HbA1c, were compared between cohorts.

RESULTS

The final propensity-score matched sample included 2872 patients: 1436 patients in each cohort. Mean (SD) reduction in HbA1c from baseline to 12 month follow-up was greater in the dulaglutide cohort compared with the basal insulin cohort [-1.40% (1.88) versus -0.92% (2.07); p < 0.001]. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower proportions of patients with ≥ 1 all-cause and diabetes-related outpatient visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient stays compared with the basal insulin cohort (p < 0.05). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction than the basal insulin cohort ($13,768 versus $19,128; p < 0.001). Diabetes-related costs per 1% reduction were numerically lower for the dulaglutide cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant ($9737 versus $11,403; p = 0.081).

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide demonstrated better glycemic outcomes and lower all-cause costs per 1% HbA1c reduction among Hispanic/Latino adults compared with those initiating basal insulin. Our real-world findings in the Hispanic/Latino population were consistent with results obtained from the overall population and confirm the glycemic benefits of dulaglutide observed in clinical settings.

Glycemic and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Dulaglutide Versus Basal Insulin in a Real-World Setting in the United States: The DISPEL-Advance Study

INTRODUCTION

Treatments like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists carry low hypoglycemia risk and are recommended for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), while some routine treatments, like insulin, increase hypoglycemia risk. The DISPEL-Advance (Dulaglutide vs Basal InSulin in Injection Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness in ReaL World) study compared glycemic outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in elderly patients with T2D who initiated treatment with dulaglutide versus those initiating treatment with basal insulin.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective cohort study used data from the Optum Research Database. Medicare Advantage patients (≥ 65 years) with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts based on pharmacy claims and propensity score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Change in HbA1c, 12-months follow-up HbA1c, and follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded well-balanced cohorts with 1891 patients each (mean age: dulaglutide, 72.09 years; basal insulin, 72.56 years). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly greater mean HbA1c reduction from baseline to follow-up than basal insulin cohort (- 0.95% vs - 0.69%; p < 0.001). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower mean all-cause and diabetes-related medical costs (all-cause: $8306 vs $12,176; diabetes-related: $4681 vs $7582 respectively; p < 0.001) and lower mean all-cause total costs ($18,646 vs $20,972, respectively; p = 0.007) than basal insulin cohort. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause and diabetes-related total costs per 1% change in HbA1c than basal insulin cohort (all-cause: $19,729 vs $30,334; diabetes-related: $12,842 vs $17,288, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with T2D initiating dulaglutide had greater HbA1c reduction, lower mean all-cause medical and total costs, lower diabetes-related medical costs, and lower total all-cause and diabetes-related costs per 1% change in HbA1c than patients initiating basal insulin. Future studies assessing medications that do not increase hypoglycemia risk could help inform therapeutic strategies in elderly patients.

Healthcare costs and hospitalizations in US patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: A retrospective database study (OFFSET)

AIM

To investigate the budget implications of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) versus other glucose-lowering treatment (here termed 'standard of care' [SoC]) during 2012-2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

GLP-1 RA-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the IBM MarketScan database with at least one glucose-lowering medication claim within 6 months after their first cardiovascular disease (CVD) hospitalization were included (index date was the date of first claim for a GLP-1 RA for the GLP-1 RA group, and the date of the first claim, independent of medication type, for the SoC group). Monthly healthcare costs and hospitalization risk over 12 months postindex date were compared for those who initiated a GLP-1 RA posthospitalization versus those with a claim for any other glucose-lowering medication.

RESULTS

Postindex date, mean observed total costs were lower for patients receiving a GLP-1 RA compared with SoC ($3853 vs. $4288). In adjusted analysis, both groups had similar total healthcare costs (P = .56). This was driven by significantly lower inpatient and outpatient costs and higher drug costs in the GLP-1 RA group compared with SoC (P < .001). Risks of all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.85) and CVD-related hospitalization (0.76) were significantly lower in the GLP-1 RA group compared with SoC (P < .001). Similar results were observed in a subgroup with atherosclerotic CVD.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, in US patients with T2D and a CVD-related hospitalization, the added medical cost of treatment with GLP-1 RAs is offset by lower inpatient and outpatient care costs, resulting in budget neutrality against SoC.

Comparing Real-World Effectiveness of Dulaglutide and Insulin as the First Injectable for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: An Australian Single-Site Retrospective Chart Review

AIM

To compare the real-world effectiveness of once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg with insulin in injectable-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A non-interventional, non-randomised, observational, single-site retrospective chart review enrolled 150 patients, 75 receiving dulaglutide or insulin. Data were collected from electronic medical records of patients with T2DM who were initiated on insulin between October 2010 and May 2017, and patients initiated on dulaglutide between May 2018 and October 2019. A doubly robust approach was used to adjust for potential selection bias with augmented inverse probability weights used to estimate the average treatment effect.

RESULTS

HbA1c favoured dulaglutide with an average change of - 1.6% vs - 0.8% for insulin, with an average treatment effect difference of 0.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-1.2%) at 3 months. At 6 months, 58.7% of the dulaglutide group reached a target HbA1c of ≤ 7% compared with 20.0% of the insulin group: average treatment effect difference of 21.3% (95% CI 2.7-43.1). The dulaglutide group lost 2.4 kg compared to the insulin group which gained 2.0 kg: average difference of 4.4 kg (95% CI 2.6-7.3) at 6 months. The incidence of hypoglycaemic events was 12 (16.0%) occurrences in the dulaglutide group compared to 33 (44.0%) in the insulin group.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly dulaglutide demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction, weight loss and reduced hypoglycaemia compared to insulin, in a real-world practice setting.

Glycaemic efficacy of an expanded dose range of dulaglutide according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) subgroup: Post hoc analysis of AWARD-11

The AWARD-11 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. This post hoc analysis examined the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% at weeks 36 and 52 with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across clinically relevant baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%). Mean reductions in HbA1c were observed across all baseline HbA1c subgroups at 36 weeks (range of HbA1c change: 1.5 mg: -1.0% to -2.2%; 3.0 mg: -1.2% to -2.5%; and 4.5 mg: -1.2% to -3.2%). More patients randomized to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg (vs. 1.5 mg) achieved HbA1c <7% at 36 weeks regardless of baseline HbA1c; the difference in proportions was greater at higher baseline HbA1c (P-interaction = 0.096). Similar patterns in glycaemic improvement and proportions achieving HbA1c <7% were observed at 52 weeks. Hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar among the HbA1c subgroups. Glycaemic control was improved with dulaglutide dose escalation from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%).

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.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide in Korean Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Study in a Tertiary Referral Center

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide therapy as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and basal insulin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real-world clinical practice. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 112 patients who received dulaglutide in a tertiary referral center. The primary efficacy endpoint was a change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between baseline and 6 months. The secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% or ≤6.5% and the change of body weight at 6 months. At baseline, the mean HbA1c was 8.7 % (8.8% in the OAD combination and 8.5% in the basal insulin combination group). The mean adjusted HbA1c at 6 months decreased by -1.13% in all patients (p<0.001), and by -1.36 and -0.74% in the OAD combination and basal insulin combination group, respectively. A significant reduction of -2.9 kg in body weight was observed in all patients at 6 months (p<0.001). Approximately 34.8% and 23.2% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% and ≤6.5%, respectively. Higher baseline HbA1c and no previous insulin therapy were associated with positive responses to dulaglutide on multivariate analysis. Mild gastrointestinal issues (23.2%) were the most frequently observed adverse events. Dulaglutide is an effective and durable treatment option as OAD and basal insulin combination therapy in Korean patients with T2DM.

Real-World Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide From a US Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Population

PURPOSE

Patients managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often require combination therapy to meet their blood glucose control targets. With limited real-world evidence focused on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapies, the objective of this study was to describe the association between semaglutide once weekly (OW) initiation and changes in hemoglobin A_1c (A_1c) levels.

METHODS

This retrospective, descriptive cohort study used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment (HIRE) to examine commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who had T2DM while taking semaglutide OW from December 1, 2017, to April 30, 2019. The first semaglutide OW prescription fill was defined as the study index date. Changes in mean A_1c levels and A_1c target attainment were evaluated among an intention-to-treat (ITT) population (overall group). Furthermore, a persistent population (PP) analysis on the same outcomes was performed that was limited to ITT patients who were observed to continue to use semaglutide OW at the time of the postindex A_1c measurement. In addition, these outcomes were explored in patients stratified based on prior use of GLP-1RA therapy (experienced vs naive) and baseline A_1c values >9% (75 mmol/mol).

FINDINGS

A total of 1888 patients were identified in the overall ITT group. The mean change in the overall ITT group between preindex and postindex A_1c values was -0.9% percentage points (-9.8 mmol/mol) (mean preindex A_1c, 8.2% [66.1 mmol/mol]) and -1.1 percentage points (-12.0 mmol/mol) (mean preindex A_1c, 8.2% [66.1 mmol/mol]) in the PP subgroup (all P < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with a baseline A_1c value >9% (75 mmol/mol), percentage point changes in A_1c were -2.2 (-24.0 mmol/mol) and -2.4 (-26.2 mmol/mol) (all P < 0.001). When accounting for prior GLP-1RA use, the GLP-1RA-naive stratum had double the mean reduction in A_1c compared with the GLP-1RA-experienced stratum (-1.2 [-13.1 mmol/mol] vs -0.6 [-6.6 mmol/mol] percentage points).

IMPLICATIONS

Semaglutide OW is associated with clinically and statistically significant A_1C reduction and increases in reaching A₁ targets using real-world data, even in GLP-1RA-experienced patients, despite more frequent use of insulin or sodium glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors in this group. Target A_1c attainment significantly increased overall and within all subgroups and strata, with approximately half of all patients attaining an A_1c value <7% (53 mmol/mol) and three-quarters attaining an A_1c value <8% (64 mmol/mol).

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide compared with glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

One of the effective and consistent ways to achieve glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is once-daily basal insulin. But it is also associated with adverse outcomes such as hypoglycaemia. Dulaglutide, a novel long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist, may be a more suitable therapy. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide compared with insulin glargine for the treatment of T2DM.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials comparing dulaglutide with insulin glargine in adults with T2DM were included. Revman5.2 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We included 5 studies with 3383 randomized participants. Compared with insulin glargine, dulaglutide 1.5 mg led to greater mean HbA1c reduction (MD = -0.33%, 95% CI = -0.52, -0.15) whereas dulaglutide 0.75 mg did not (MD = -0.21%, 95% CI = -0.43, 0.01). Body weight loss was seen with dulaglutide whereas weight gain was seen with insulin glargine. The risk of hypoglycaemia was lower in dulaglutide 0.75 mg and 1.5 mg groups than in insulin glargine group,whereas dulaglutide had a statistically higher gastrointestinal adverse events incidence than insulin glargine.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin glargine, dulaglutide may serve as an effective alternative to provide improvement in glycaemic control with weight loss and less hypoglycaemia in patients with T2DM. It may be a more suitable therapy instead of basal insulin.

Cardiovascular outcomes and healthcare costs of liraglutide versus basal insulin for type 2 diabetes patients at high cardiovascular risk

We aimed to compare the (1) clinical outcomes including composite cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, and (2) healthcare costs of using liraglutide and basal insulin as an initial treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and high cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk. This is a retrospective cohort study using Taiwan’s Health and Welfare Database. A total of 1057 patients treated with liraglutide were identified and matched with 4600 patients treated with basal insulin. The liraglutide group had a lower risk of a composite CVD outcome (hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.85; p < 0.01), all-cause mortality (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28–0.59; p < 0.0001), and nonfatal stroke (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.34–0.87; p = 0.01). Compared to the basal insulin group, the liraglutide group had lower median per-patient-per-month (PPPM) inpatient, emergency room (ER), and total medical costs, but higher median PPPM outpatient, total pharmacy, and total costs (all p < 0.0001). In conclusion, compared to basal insulin, liraglutide was found to be associated with reduced risk of a composite CVD outcome, nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality among high CVD risk patients with T2DM. In addition, liraglutide users had lower inpatient, ER, and total medical costs, but they had higher outpatient and total pharmacy costs.

Adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with semaglutide and exenatide BCise: 6-month follow-up from US real-world data

AIM

To compare 6-month adherence, persistence and treatment patterns among patients initiating once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dulaglutide versus semaglutide, and dulaglutide versus exenatide BCise, using claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years, with type 2 diabetes, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide, semaglutide or exenatide BCise during the index period February 2018 to December 2018 (index date = earliest GLP-1RA fill date), no claim for GLP-1RAs in the 6-month pre-index period, and continuous enrolment 6 months pre- and post-index were included. Dulaglutide users were propensity-matched 1:1 to semaglutide users (3852 pairs) or exenatide BCise users (1879 pairs). The proportions of adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) patients were compared using chi-squared tests. Persistence, measured as days to discontinuation, was analysed using a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Matched cohorts (dulaglutide:semaglutide and dulagutide:exenatide BCise) were balanced in baseline characteristics and the mean age was 54 and 55 years, respectively, with approximately 51% and 49% women, respectively. At 6 months, significantly more dulaglutide users were adherent than semaglutide (59.7% vs. 42.7%; P <0.0001) or exenatide BCise users (58.1% vs. 40.3%; P <0.0001). Cox regression showed that dulaglutide users were less likely to discontinue therapy than semaglutide (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66, 0.76) or exenatide BCise users (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53, 0.65; P <0.0001, both).

CONCLUSION

At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of patients initiating dulaglutide were adherent to and persistent with their treatment, compared to matched patients initiating either semaglutide or exenatide BCise.

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.

Diabetes-Related Effectiveness and Cost of Liraglutide or Insulin in German Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 5-Year Retrospective Claims Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To date, limited long-term data (> 2 years) exist comparing real-world diabetes-related effectiveness and costs for liraglutide versus insulin treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective claims data analysis covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017 and included continuously insured patients with T2DM who initiated insulin or liraglutide and had 3.5 or 5 years' follow-up data, identified using the German AOK PLUS dataset. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 825 and 436 patients in the liraglutide and insulin groups at 3.5 and 5 years' follow-up, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between compared cohorts. The respective change from baseline to follow-up in mean glycated haemoglobin for liraglutide and insulin patients was - 0.88% and - 0.81% (p > 0.100) after 3.5 years and - 1.15%/ - 1.02% (p > 0.100) after 5 years. Mean respective changes in body mass index (kg/m2) were - 1.21/+ 1.14 (p < 0.001) after 3.5 years and - 1.29/+ 1.13 after 5 years (p < 0.001). Liraglutide- versus insulin-treated patients were less likely to have an early T2DM-related hospitalisation (3.5-year hazard ratio [HR]: 0.414 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.263-0.651]; 5-year HR: 0.448 [95% CI 0.286-0.701]). At 5 years' follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in total direct costs between treatment groups (cost ratio: 1.069 [95% CI 0.98-1.13]; p > 0.100).

CONCLUSION

The clinical effectiveness of liraglutide is maintained long term (up to 5 years). Liraglutide treatment is not associated with higher total direct healthcare costs.

Clinical efficacy and predictors of response to dulaglutide in type-2 diabetes

Aim of this retrospective multicenter observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) dulaglutide in a type-2 diabetic real-world population and to determine the factors predicting the response in terms of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and other relevant clinical outcomes. Data for efficacy outcomes, adverse events and drug discontinuation were collected from records of patients with type-2 diabetes treated with once-a-week 1.5 mg of dulaglutide for 12 months in routine clinical practice. Initial analysis included 782 patients and 626 had complete follow-up at 6- and 12-months. There was a significant reduction of HbA1c at 6 months (-1 ± 0.8 %, p < 0.0001), which remained stable at 12-months follow-up (-1 ± 0.9 %, p < 0.0001). The percentage of subjects with HbA1c≤7.0 % increased significantly from 7.2 % at baseline to 52.7 % at 6 months to 55.8 % at 12 months. Predictors of the achievement of HbA1c≤7.0 % were low baseline HbA1c and short duration of diabetes. The reduction of HbA1c was associated with reductions of BMI, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose and blood pressures. Neither sex nor age had significant effects on any clinical or laboratory outcome. The effects of dulaglutide on HbA1c, BMI and SBP tended to be greater in patients who shifted from dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (-0.8 ± 0.8 %) than other GLP-1 RA, even if an improvement of HbA1c reduction (-0.5 %) was also seen in those shifting from other GLP-1 RA. This study confirms that addition of dulaglutide 1.5 mg once a week in real word settings has beneficial effects on both clinical and laboratory outcomes in patients with uncontrolled type-2 diabetes. Dulaglutide has a greater effect on HbA1c in patients with higher baseline values and helps achieve a target HbA1c≤7.0 %, more consistently in patients with lower baseline HbA1c and shorter diabetes duration.