Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of obesity: An indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg with semaglutide 2.4 mg using an indirect treatment comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SURMOUNT-1 and STEP 1 trial data, mean percentage change in body weight from baseline and odds ratio (OR) of achieving 5% or greater weight loss were compared between tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg at week 72 and semaglutide 2.4 mg at week 68 using matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy estimand. Sensitivity analyses were completed using different methods, including the Bucher method, also using different estimands and/or time points. RESULTS: Greater reductions in percentage change in body weight were observed with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2.4 mg (tirzepatide 10 mg mean difference: -4.67% [95% CI -5.91%, -3.43%]; tirzepatide 15 mg mean difference: -5.92% [95% CI -7.16%, -4.68%]; both P < .001). Similarly, more participants achieved 5% or greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 mg (OR 2.61 [95% CI 1.48, 4.57]; P < .001) and 15 mg (OR 2.75 [95% CI 1.57, 4.81]; P < .001) compared with semaglutide 2.4 mg. All sensitivity analyses were consistent, except for an OR of achieving 5% or greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 mg using the Bucher method to analyse the treatment regimen estimand (P = .074). CONCLUSIONS: Currently there are no direct comparisons of tirzepatide and semaglutide for weight management. Using the matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison method to compare the efficacy of tirzepatide and semaglutide for chronic weight management, this analysis showed greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2.4 mg.

Relative Impact of Pain and Disease Activity on Improvements in Fatigue: Results From 2 Baricitinib Phase 3 Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the relative impact of pain and disease activity on improvements in fatigue in 2 phase 3 baricitinib clinical trials. METHODS: RA-BEAM (NCT01710358) and RA-BEACON (NCT01721044) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with moderate to severe RA. RA-BEAM assessed baricitinib + methotrexate (MTX) and adalimumab + MTX in patients with prior inadequate response/intolerance (IR) to MTX (MTX-IR). RA-BEACON assessed patients with IR to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD-IR). Measures included the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) for RA, and pain visual analog scale (VAS). Analyses were implemented separately for each study. RESULTS: Significant improvements were seen in disease activity and pain, which were greater with baricitinib versus adalimumab. A statistically significant improvement was seen in fatigue with both active treatments versus placebo. Moderate correlations were observed between improvements in disease activity and fatigue and between improvements in pain and fatigue in both MTX-IR and bDMARD-IR patients. Reductions in pain (≥50%) and remission or low disease activity (CDAI ≤10) had significant associations with fatigue improvement at week 24. In mediation analysis, improvements in fatigue attributable to CDAI and pain VAS in MTX-IR patients were 31% and 52%, respectively, for baricitinib, and 30% and 47%, respectively, for adalimumab. In bDMARD-IR patients, improvement in fatigue was attributed 48% to CDAI and 48% to pain VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In both MTX-IR and bDMARD-IR patients, a large proportion of improvements in fatigue across treatment arms were accounted for by improvements in pain and disease activity.