Tirzepatide Improved Health-Related Quality of Life Compared with Insulin Lispro in Basal Insulin-Treated Adults with Type 2 Diabetes and Inadequate Glycaemic Control: A Randomised Controlled Phase 3b Trial (SURPASS-6).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who require intensification of basal insulin therapy need treatment options that can improve their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and translate into better outcomes. These analyses compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with T2D receiving tirzepatide or insulin lispro. METHODS: The randomised, open-label, multinational, phase 3b SURPASS-6 trial (NCT04537923) was conducted at 135 medical research centres and hospitals in 15 countries and compared two recommended treatment intensification strategies in people with T2D and inadequate glycaemic control on basal insulin: addition of once-weekly tirzepatide versus addition of prandial insulin lispro. Randomisation was stratified by country, baseline glycated haemoglobin level and metformin use. PROs were measured using the Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) acute form (secondary outcome), EQ-5D-5L, Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL) questionnaire and Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (IW-SP) questionnaire (tertiary/exploratory outcomes). PROs were compared for the tirzepatide-pooled dose group (5, 10 and 15 mg) and each tirzepatide dose group versus insulin lispro at 52 weeks using the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis set. RESULTS: Between 19 October 2020 and 01 November 2022, 2267 people were assessed and 1428 participants with T2D were randomised. At 52 weeks, participants in the tirzepatide-pooled group had statistically significant improved scores across all SF-36v2 domains and both component summary scores compared with insulin lispro-treated participants (p < 0.05), with the largest differences observed in the general health, vitality and mental health domains. Statistically significant improved APPADL and IW-SP total scores, as well as EQ visual analogue scale and EQ-5D-5L index scores (after adjustment for baseline scores), were observed in tirzepatide-pooled participants compared with insulin lispro-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with T2D and inadequate glycaemic control with basal insulin, tirzepatide treatment was associated with greater improvements in HRQoL than prandial insulin therapy in addition to clinically significant improvements in glycaemic and body weight-related parameters.

Basal insulin, which controls blood sugar at times when not eating but when the body still needs energy, may not provide sufficient glycaemic control for some people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). These people require additional therapy to improve their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and achieve better outcomes. This phase 3 study (SURPASS-6) compared patient-reported outcomes, including HRQoL, between people with T2D on basal insulin receiving additional therapy with tirzepatide or insulin lispro (a fast-acting insulin analogue mealtime injection). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using several validated measures ­ the Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) acute form (a measure of HRQoL), the EQ-5D-5L (a measure of overall health status), the Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL) questionnaire and the Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (IW-SP) questionnaire. The results in the two treatment groups were compared at the end of the treatment period (52 weeks). At 52 weeks, participants in the tirzepatide group had statistically significant improved scores across all HRQoL aspects measured by the SF-36v2 compared with participants in the insulin lispro group, with the largest differences observed in general health, vitality and bodily pain. Statistically significant improved EQ-5D-5L, APPADL and IW-SP scores were also observed in participants in the tirzepatide group compared with the insulin lispro group. In adults with T2D who require therapy in addition to basal insulin, tirzepatide treatment was associated with greater improvements in HRQoL than mealtime insulin therapy, as well as clinically significant improvements in blood sugar and body weight control.

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.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have become frequent treatments of hyperglycemia in type-2 diabetes (T2D). Not all types of clinical study provide information about the cost of these treatments or the effects they might have on use of other medicines and equipment to control T2D or the need for visits to a doctor or nurse and different types of treatment in hospital. This study collected this information during the regular care of adults in France, Germany, or Italy who were prescribed either dulaglutide or liraglutide (both types of GLP-1 RAs) by their family doctor or a specialist in T2D. There were differences in costs and the need for other medicines and medical services between people using either dulaglutide or liraglutide and for people who were using the same GLP-1 RA in each of the three countries. The information from this study could be used to more accurately understand the overall costs and medical care needed when patients use dulaglutide or liraglutide in France, Germany, or Italy.

Tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus injectable semaglutide 0.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg with subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg as second-line treatment for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, after metformin monotherapy, using adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (aITCs). METHODS: The aITCs were performed using the Bucher method to compare the relative efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 0.5 mg via a common comparator (subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg) based on trial results from SURPASS-2 (NCT03987919) and SUSTAIN7 (NCT02648204). RESULTS: All tirzepatide doses showed statistically significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin, body weight and body mass index from baseline to week 40, with a comparable adverse event (AE) profile and no statistically significant differences in the odds of gastrointestinal AEs versus semaglutide 0.5 mg. Furthermore, all tirzepatide doses showed greater odds of patients achieving HbA1c targets of ≤ 6.5 % (≤48 mmol/mol) and < 7.0 % (<53 mmol/mol) and weight loss targets of ≥ 5 % and ≥ 10 %, versus semaglutide 0.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: In these aITCs, glycated haemoglobin and weight reductions were significantly greater for all tirzepatide doses versus semaglutide 0.5 mg with a comparable AE profile. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

Improved Glycaemic and Weight Management Are Associated with Better Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Tirzepatide.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data are available on the relationship between quality of life (QoL) change and significant degrees of reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and/or weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We explored the associations between HbA1c targets and/or weight loss achieved and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with T2D treated with tirzepatide, a first-in-class once weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, using pooled data from SURPASS-1 to -5 Phase 3 clinical trials. METHODS: PROs were assessed using five instruments at baseline and endpoint (Week 40 in SURPASS-1, -2 and -5; Week 52 in SURPASS-3 and -4): Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version; Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP) questionnaire; Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL); Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change; and EQ-5D-5L. All PROs were assessed in participants receiving pooled doses of tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg) and achieving HbA1c targets of < 5.7%, ≥ 5.7-≤ 6.5% and > 6.5% or achieving ≥ 0-< 5%, ≥ 5-< 10%, ≥ 10-< 15% and ≥ 15% weight loss from baseline at endpoint. The APPADL, IW-SP and EQ visual analogue scores were evaluated in participants achieving each combination of HbA1c target and weight loss. RESULTS: Achievement of lower HbA1c targets or higher body weight percentage losses were each associated with greater improvements in QoL than achievement of higher HbA1c targets or lower body weight percentage losses, respectively. Achievement of lower HbA1c targets in combination with greater weight loss was generally associated with the best QoL ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that HbA1c targets and significant percentage body weight reduction thresholds need to be achieved for people with T2D to help substantially increase their overall health-related QoL. Tirzepatide treatment may allow a high proportion of people with T2D to achieve these targets, enabling improved QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: SURPASS-1: NCT03954834; SURPASS-2: NCT03987919; SURPASS-3: NCT03882970; SURPASS-4: NCT03730662; SURPASS-5: NCT04039503.

Limited data exist about the relationship between quality of life (QoL) and changes in clinical measures, for example management of blood sugar levels and weight, in people with type 2 diabetes. We explored the associations between glucose and weight loss targets achieved and QoL outcomes reported by adults treated with tirzepatide, the first glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, using data from SURPASS-1 to -5 Phase 3 clinical trials.Five questionnaires, developed to evaluate patients' health-related QoL, were completed by patients at the beginning and end of the clinical trials, which was after 40 weeks for SURPASS-1, -2 and -5 and after 52 weeks for SURPASS-3 and -4, or when the person left the trial if this was before the official end. These questionnaires were: EQ-5D-5L (SURPASS-1 to -5); Impact of Weight on Self-Perception questionnaire (SURPASS-1 to -5); Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (SURPASS-1 to -5); Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change (SURPASS-2 to -5); and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life­Lite Clinical Trials Version (SURPASS-2 only).Overall, achievement of lower glucose targets or higher percentage of body weight losses were each associated with greater improvements in QoL. Achievement of lower glucose targets in combination with greater weight loss was generally associated with the highest health-related QoL ratings.Tirzepatide treatment may allow a high proportion of people with type 2 diabetes to achieve lower glucose levels and higher weight loss, enabling improved health-related QoL.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Tirzepatide in the SURPASS Clinical Trial Programme.

INTRODUCTION: Tirzepatide, a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, is approved for glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials assessed the efficacy of once weekly tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) versus placebo or active comparators (semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec and insulin glargine) in T2D. We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that measured overall quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction and weight-related attributes across the five SURPASS studies. METHODS: PRO instruments utilised at baseline and primary timepoint (40 weeks for SURPASS-1, -2 and -5; 52 weeks for SURPASS-3 and -4) or early termination visit were EQ-5D-5L (SURPASS-1 to -5); Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (SURPASS-1 to -5); Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (SURPASS-1 to -5); Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (SURPASS-2 to -5); and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (SURPASS-2 only). RESULTS: Across all five studies at week 40/52, tirzepatide improved patients' QoL measured by general health and weight-related PROs over the comparator. Generally, higher doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater increases in PRO scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, tirzepatide produced significant health and weight-related QoL improvements versus comparators in the five SURPASS studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: SURPASS-1: NCT03954834; SURPASS-2: NCT03987919; SURPASS-3: NCT03882970; SURPASS-4: NCT03730662; SURPASS-5: NCT04039503.

Tirzepatide is the first glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes. The SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) compared with placebo or active comparators (including semaglutide 1 mg and basal insulins) in people with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated other outcomes reported by patients that measured overall quality of life, treatment satisfaction and weight-related attributes across the five SURPASS studies.Five validated questionnaires were completed by patients at the beginning and end of the clinical trials, which was after 40 weeks for SURPASS-1, -2 and -5 and after 52 weeks for SURPASS-3 and -4, or when the person left the trial if this was before the official end. These questionnaires were EQ-5D-5L (SURPASS-1 to -5); Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (SURPASS-1 to -5); Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (SURPASS-1 to -5); Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (SURPASS-2 to -5); and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (SURPASS-2 only).Across all five studies, treatment with tirzepatide resulted in greater improvements in people's quality of life at the end of the study compared with placebo or treatment with the comparators. Generally, higher doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater increases in questionnaire scores than lower doses of tirzepatide.Overall, tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg treatment resulted in significant health- and weight-related quality of life improvements versus comparators in the five SURPASS studies.

Estimating meaningful change for The Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP) questionnaire among people with type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: The Impact of Weight on Self-perception Questionnaire (IW-SP) is a three-item patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) instrument assessing the impact of body weight on self-perception. To date no published threshold for meaningful change exists. The objective of this study was to estimate the minimal important change (MIC) for the IW-SP among people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Responder analyses were conducted using anchor- and distribution-based approaches with existing clinical trial data (SURPASS-2). As SURPASS-2 did not include a priori anchors, a set of alternative exploratory anchors were identified based on the MICs and items from two conceptually related measures used in the trial as well as percent change in body weight. Exploratory anchors with change estimates that were sufficiently related to change in IW-SP (r ≥ 0.30) and were not redundant with other anchors were retained for the MIC analyses. The analyses were conducted in two stages (estimation = 2/3 of sample) to derive initial IW-SP MIC estimates, and a subsequent confirmation stage (remaining 1/3 of sample). RESULTS: While the most conceptually related anchors and items performed best in responsiveness analyses, all anchors resulted in a similar estimate of minimal meaningful change for the IW-SP total score: a 1-point change in raw units (1-5-point scale), corresponding to a 25-point change for transformed scores (0-100 scale). Distribution-based analyses supported these MIC estimates. Results were similar across both stages for all analyses. CONCLUSION: The MIC for the IW-SP for patients with T2D is a 25-point change on the transformed score.

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.

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis. RESULTS: The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Design and Baseline Characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: The TROPHIES observational study enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating their first injectable treatment with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) dulaglutide or liraglutide. This manuscript focuses on the study design, baseline characteristics of the enrolled population, and factors associated with GLP-1 RA choice. METHODS: TROPHIES is a prospective, observational, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany, and Italy. Inclusion criteria include adult patients with T2DM, naïve to injectable antihyperglycemic treatments, initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide per routine clinical practice. The primary outcome is the duration of treatment on dulaglutide or liraglutide without a significant treatment change. RESULTS: The analysis included 2181 patients (dulaglutide, 1130; liraglutide, 1051) (cutoff date May 15, 2019). The population was 56% male with mean [standard deviation (SD)] patient characteristics at baseline as follows: age, 59.2 (11.0) years; body mass index (BMI), 33.9 (6.6) kg/m2; T2DM duration, 8.5 (6.9) years; and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 8.2 (1.3)%. Between-cohort demographic and clinical characteristics were balanced. The mean (SD) HbA1c and BMI values for French, German, and Italian patients were, respectively, 8.6 (1.4)%, 8.2 (1.4)%, 8.0 (0.8)%; 33.3 (6.1) kg/m2, 36.0 (7.2) kg/m2, and 32.6 (5.9) kg/m2. CONCLUSION: This study analysis at baseline provides an opportunity to evaluate between-country differences in baseline HbA1c, weight, macrovascular complications, and factors driving GLP-1 RA selection for patients with T2DM in daily practice.

Dulaglutide and liraglutide are medications that can help people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to control their blood sugar levels. These medications may also reduce body weight and reduce the risk of major cardiovascular disease. Given these treatment effects, it is essential to know how they are used in everyday clinical practice. Therefore, a study is being performed in three countries (France, Germany, and Italy) in people with T2DM who had a first-ever injectable therapy for T2DM with dulaglutide or liraglutide. Here, we present the study design, the patient characteristics at the start of treatment, and the factors driving the choice of one or the other medication. We analyzed data from 2181 people with T2DM. On average, it was shown that they were middle-aged and obese. On average, these people were diagnosed with T2DM 8.5 years before the start of dulaglutide or liraglutide and had high blood sugar levels when these medications were started. The patient characteristics were slightly different between the three countries. Country-specific factors driving the choice of either medication were also identified.

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.

Patient characteristics of insulin lispro 200 units/mL users in real world setting in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin lispro 200 U/mL (IL200) is a treatment choice for people with diabetes who have daily mealtime insulin (MTI) requirements of >20 U/day. We report clinical characteristics of real world IL200 users in Germany to understand clinical settings and the type of patients who would benefit from IL200 treatment. METHODS: This retrospective database analysis used the patient-level data from "IMS Disease Analyzer" in Germany from February 2015 to June 2016. Clinical and demographic information were collected and analyzed for IL200 users alongside that of those who were using more than 20 U a day of 100 U/mL analog MTI. RESULTS: Of the 17,261 patients using insulin, 811 were identified in IL200 group. The IL200 group had 60% men, mean ± SD age of 63.6 ± 11.9 years, and BMI of 36.2 ± 6.7 kg/m2. Of these, 63.5% (n = 515) were seen by diabetologists, while 36.5% (n = 296) were seen by general practitioners (GPs). In the IL200 group, 77.7% used basal insulin concomitantly, >90% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 52% had ≥4 comorbidities; the most common being hypertension (75.2%), neuropathy (66.0%), and nephropathy (59.6%). Diabetologist-treated IL200 users were more likely to have multiple comorbidities as compared with those treated by GPs (15.0% vs. 12.9% for >5 comorbidities). CONCLUSIONS: IL200 is prescribed to people with diabetes who need more than 20 U/day of mealtime insulin and tend to be more obese, older, and with multiple comorbidities. Future research should explore how concentrated MTI can impact adherence and long-term glycemia.

Dulaglutide is an effective treatment for lowering HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of body mass index.

AIM: To assess the relationship between baseline body mass index (BMI) and glycaemic control in dulaglutide-treated patients, a post hoc analysis was conducted on HbA1c and baseline BMI data from eight AWARD studies, with a total of 5770 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Changes from baseline in HbA1c data from patients treated with 1.5 mg or 0.75 mg dulaglutide, active comparator or placebo, were analyzed in each study (AWARD-1 to -6, -8 and - 9) at approximately 6 months (26, 24 and 28 weeks, respectively). Within each study, data were analyzed by the following baseline BMI categories: <30, ≥30 to <35, and ≥ 35 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, 1.5 mg or 0.75 mg dulaglutide treatment achieved statistically significant HbA1c reductions from baseline in all BMI categories (least-squares mean change from -0.62 to -1.75%) across the AWARD studies. No statistically significant treatment-by-BMI category interactions were found for reductions in HbA1c. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of eight AWARD studies indicates that baseline BMI does not affect the relative treatment efficacy of dulaglutide as measured by HbA1c change from baseline in any study. Dulaglutide is an effective treatment option for adult patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of their baseline BMI category.

GLP-1 RA Treatment Patterns Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a relatively new class of injectable drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This retrospective database study evaluated real-world treatment patterns of T2D patients initiating GLP-1 RAs in Belgium (BE), France (FR), Germany (DE), The Netherlands (NL) and Sweden (SE). METHODS: Adult T2D patients initiating exenatide twice daily (exBID), exenatide once weekly (exQW), liraglutide (LIRA) or lixisenatide (LIXI) during 2013 were identified using the QuintilesIMS (QuintilesIMS, Durham, NC, and Danbury, CT, USA) longitudinal retail pharmacy databases (LRx; BE/FR/DE/NL) and national health register data (SE). Therapy initiation date was termed 'index date.' Eligible patients had ≥180-day pre- and variable follow-up (minimum ≥360 days post-index). Baseline patient and treatment characteristics were assessed. Treatment modification and persistence were evaluated over the 1-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves evaluated stopping of the index therapy (first of discontinuation or switch) over the available follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 4339 exBID, 1499 exQW, 20,955 LIRA and 1751 LIXI patients were included in the analysis (45.1-61.9% female; mean age range 57.1-62.9 years). Mean follow-up ranged from 17.7 to 30.7 months. Across countries/databases, the proportion experiencing a treatment modification at 1-year ranged from 84.1 to 93.8% for exBID, 53.3-73.4% for exQW and 59.5-80.5% for LIRA patients. The proportion of LIXI patients with treatment modification was 55.0% in Belgium (N = 20) and 96.9% in Germany (LIXI taken off the German market in April 2014). In KM analyses, LIRA patients had the lowest proportion stopping therapy, while exBID patients had the highest proportion stopping therapy, across databases, with the exception of LIXI patents. CONCLUSION: Treatment patterns varied among GLP-1 RA patients, and persistence was generally highest among LIRA and lowest among exBID across countries. Longer term data would be useful, given the recent approval of several GLP-1 RA therapies. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Patient-reported outcomes among patients using exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice in six European countries: the CHOICE prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted. RESULTS: There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (≥ 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (≤ 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.

Using Exenatide Twice Daily or Insulin in Clinical Practice: Results from CHOICE.

INTRODUCTION: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy; NCT00635492) assessed, as its primary objective, the time to a 'significant treatment change' (defined within this paper) after patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated their first injectable, glucose-lowering therapy [exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin] in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Patients were invited to participate in CHOICE only after their treating physician had made the clinical decision to initiate first injectable therapy with either exenatide BID or insulin. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 2,515 patients were recruited; 1,114 patients in the exenatide BID cohort and 1,274 patients in the insulin cohort were eligible for the 24-month analysis. During the study, 42.2% and 36.0% of patients from each cohort, respectively, had a significant treatment change. By 24 months, improved mean glycated hemoglobin (p < 0.001 for both cohorts) and reduced severity of several cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts; additionally, mean weight was reduced in the exenatide BID cohort (p < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (p < 0.001). Hypoglycemia was reported by 18.4% of the exenatide BID cohort and 36.8% of the insulin cohort; 25.9% of the exenatide BID cohort and 10.0% of the insulin cohort had met the secondary endpoint of glycated hemoglobin <7.0%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: CHOICE provided data on exenatide BID and insulin usage patterns and 24-month outcomes in clinical practice. On average, improved glycemic control and reduced severity of cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts, and those in the exenatide BID cohort also had mean weight loss.

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

PURPOSE: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices. RESULTS: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

Treatment outcomes after initiation of exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice: 12-month results from CHOICE in six European countries.

OBJECTIVE: The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients' clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had ≥1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan-Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change -3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively. CONCLUSION: About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort.

Young Mania Rating Scale: how to interpret the numbers? Determination of a severity threshold and of the minimal clinically significant difference in the EMBLEM cohort.

The aim of this analysis was to identify Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) meaningful benchmarks for clinicians (severity threshold, minimal clinically significant difference [MCSD]) using the Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar (CGI-BP) mania scale, to provide a clinical perspective to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) results. We used the cohort of patients with acute manic/mixed state of bipolar disorders (N = 3459) included in the European Mania in Bipolar Longitudinal Evaluation of Medication (EMBLEM) study. A receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed on randomly selected patients to determine the YMRS optimal severity threshold with CGI-BP mania score ≥ "Markedly ill" defining severity. The MCSD (clinically meaningful change in score relative to one point difference in CGI-BP mania for outcome measures) of YMRS, was assessed with a linear regression on baseline data. At baseline, YMRS mean score was 26.4 (±9.9), CGI-BP mania mean score was 4.8 (±1.0) and 61.7% of patients had a score ≥ 5. The optimal YMRS severity threshold of 25 (positive predictive value [PPV] = 83.0%; negative predictive value [NPV] = 66.0%) was determined. In this cohort, a YMRS score of 20 (typical cutoff for RCTs inclusion criteria) corresponds to a PPV of 74.6% and to a NPV of 77.6%, meaning that the majority of patients included would be classified as severely ill. The YMRS minimal clinically significant difference was 6.6 points.