Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide Versus Insulin Glargine in Chinese T2DM Patients: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Trial (AWARD-CHN2)

Yan Li, Ling Li, Yong De Peng, Guang Yao Song, Shan Dong Ye, Li Ying Du, Jia Ning Hou, Qiu He Ji, Yan Li, Ling Li, Yong De Peng, Guang Yao Song, Shan Dong Ye, Li Ying Du, Jia Ning Hou, Qiu He Ji

Abstract

Introduction: To evaluate efficacy and safety data of dulaglutide in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control with 1-2 oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs).

Methods: This is a subgroup analysis of a phase 3, open-label, randomized, parallel-arm, 52-week study in Chinese patients aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control with OAMs (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥ 7.0% and ≤ 11.0%). The primary endpoint was assessment of the noninferiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg as measured by change in HbA1c, compared with insulin glargine (glargine), using a 0.4% noninferiority margin at week 26.

Results: A total of 607 patients from China were randomized 1:1:1 to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 or 0.75 mg or once-daily glargine. At week 26, the least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in HbA1c was greater with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (- 1.67%) and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (- 1.31%) compared with glargine (- 1.11%). The LSM (95% confidence interval) for the difference of dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg vs glargine was - 0.56% (- 0.75 to - 0.37) and - 0.20% (- 0.39 to - 0.01), respectively. Both doses of dulaglutide were noninferior and superior to glargine at 26 weeks and 52 weeks (two-sided P value < 0.05). The mean body weight decreased (P < 0.001) and total hypoglycemia rates were lower (P < 0.05) in the dulaglutide groups compared with the glargine group. Gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) were the most frequently reported AEs in dulaglutide groups.

Conclusion: Both doses of dulaglutide are efficacious and tolerable in Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control on OAMs.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01648582.

Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.

Keywords: China; Dulaglutide; Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; Glycated hemoglobin; Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design. DU dulaglutide, GLP-1 glucagon-like peptide-1, LV30 post-study therapy safety follow-up visit, Met metformin, RA receptor agonist, SU sulfonylurea
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patient disposition. †Cumulative total of all patients who discontinued the study up to week 52. N total population, n number of patients in each category
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Efficacy and safety outcome measures. a LSM (SE) change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to 26 weeks and to 52 weeks. †LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 1.5 mg with glargine. ‡LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 0.75 mg with glargine. *Dulaglutide noninferior to glargine (two-sided P value < 0.001). #Dulaglutide superior to glargine (two-sided P value < 0.05). CI confidence interval, DU dulaglutide, HbA1c glycated hemoglobin, LSM least squares mean, SE standard error. b LSM (SE) change in HbA1c (%) from baseline over time. c Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c targets at week 26 and at week 52. *P < 0.001 dulaglutide vs glargine. #P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. d LSM (SE) change in fasting serum glucose (mmol/L) from baseline to week 26 and to week 52. †LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 1.5 mg with glargine. ‡LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 0.75 mg with glargine. *P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. FSG fasting serum glucose. 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles (mmol/L) by time of day at the end of e week 26 and f week 52. *P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. #P < 0.05 glargine vs dulaglutide. hr hour, PP postprandial, SMBG self-monitored blood glucose. g LSM (SE) change in body weight (kg) from baseline to 52 weeks. *P < 0.001 dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs glargine. #P < 0.001 dulaglutide 0.75 mg vs glargine. h Summary of occurrence of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Efficacy and safety outcome measures. a LSM (SE) change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to 26 weeks and to 52 weeks. †LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 1.5 mg with glargine. ‡LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 0.75 mg with glargine. *Dulaglutide noninferior to glargine (two-sided P value < 0.001). #Dulaglutide superior to glargine (two-sided P value < 0.05). CI confidence interval, DU dulaglutide, HbA1c glycated hemoglobin, LSM least squares mean, SE standard error. b LSM (SE) change in HbA1c (%) from baseline over time. c Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c targets at week 26 and at week 52. *P < 0.001 dulaglutide vs glargine. #P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. d LSM (SE) change in fasting serum glucose (mmol/L) from baseline to week 26 and to week 52. †LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 1.5 mg with glargine. ‡LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 0.75 mg with glargine. *P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. FSG fasting serum glucose. 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles (mmol/L) by time of day at the end of e week 26 and f week 52. *P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. #P < 0.05 glargine vs dulaglutide. hr hour, PP postprandial, SMBG self-monitored blood glucose. g LSM (SE) change in body weight (kg) from baseline to 52 weeks. *P < 0.001 dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs glargine. #P < 0.001 dulaglutide 0.75 mg vs glargine. h Summary of occurrence of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Efficacy and safety outcome measures. a LSM (SE) change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to 26 weeks and to 52 weeks. †LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 1.5 mg with glargine. ‡LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 0.75 mg with glargine. *Dulaglutide noninferior to glargine (two-sided P value < 0.001). #Dulaglutide superior to glargine (two-sided P value < 0.05). CI confidence interval, DU dulaglutide, HbA1c glycated hemoglobin, LSM least squares mean, SE standard error. b LSM (SE) change in HbA1c (%) from baseline over time. c Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c targets at week 26 and at week 52. *P < 0.001 dulaglutide vs glargine. #P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. d LSM (SE) change in fasting serum glucose (mmol/L) from baseline to week 26 and to week 52. †LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 1.5 mg with glargine. ‡LSM difference (95% CI) of dulaglutide 0.75 mg with glargine. *P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. FSG fasting serum glucose. 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles (mmol/L) by time of day at the end of e week 26 and f week 52. *P < 0.05 dulaglutide vs glargine. #P < 0.05 glargine vs dulaglutide. hr hour, PP postprandial, SMBG self-monitored blood glucose. g LSM (SE) change in body weight (kg) from baseline to 52 weeks. *P < 0.001 dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs glargine. #P < 0.001 dulaglutide 0.75 mg vs glargine. h Summary of occurrence of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events

References

    1. Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, et al. IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–281. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.02.023.
    1. Hu C, Jia W. Diabetes in China: epidemiology and genetic risk factors and their clinical utility in personalized medication. Diabetes. 2018;67:3–11. doi: 10.2337/dbi17-0013.
    1. Chen R, Ji L, Chen L, et al. Glycemic control rate of T2DM outpatients in China: a multi-center survey. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1440–1446. doi: 10.12659/MSM.892246.
    1. Ji LN, Lu JM, Guo XH, et al. Glycemic control among patients in China with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving oral drugs or injectables. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:602. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-602.
    1. American Diabetes Association 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes–2018. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl 1):S61–S70. doi: 10.2337/dc19-S006.
    1. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes in China (2017 Edition). Chin J Diabetes Mellitus 2018;10(1):4–67.
    1. Cerf ME. Beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2013;4:37. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2013.00037.
    1. Tortosa F, Dotta F. Incretin hormones and beta-cell mass expansion: what we know and what is missing? Arch Physiol Biochem. 2013;119:161–169. doi: 10.3109/13813455.2013.795175.
    1. Nauck MA. A critical analysis of the clinical use of incretin-based therapies: the benefits by far outweigh the potential risks. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:2126–2132. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2504.
    1. Edwards KL, Minze MG. Dulaglutide: an evidence-based review of its potential in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Core Evid. 2015;10:11–21. doi: 10.2147/CE.S55944.
    1. Hansen KB, Vilsbøll T, Knop FK. Incretin mimetics: a novel therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes—a review. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2010;3:155–163. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S7004.
    1. Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Diabetes Care. 2018;41:2669–2701. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0033.
    1. American Diabetes Association 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes–2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl1):S90–S102. doi: 10.2337/dc19-S009.
    1. Smith LL, Mosley JF, II, Parke C, Brown J, Barris LS, Phan LD. Dulaglutide (Trulicity): the third once-weekly GLP-1 agonist. P T. 2016;41:357–360.
    1. Trulicity (dulaglutide) [prescribing information]. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly and Company; 2014. .
    1. Electronic medicines compendium (eMC). Trulicity (dulaglutide)—summary of product characteristics (SPC) 2004. . Accessed Feb 26, 2019.
    1. Wysham C, Blevins T, Arakaki R, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide added onto pioglitazone and metformin versus exenatide in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-1) Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2159–2167. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2760.
    1. Giorgino F, Benroubi M, Sun JH, Zimmermann AG, Pechtner V. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin and glimepiride (AWARD-2) Diabetes Care. 2015;38:2241–2249. doi: 10.2337/dc14-1625.
    1. Umpierrez G, Tofé Povedano S, Pérez Manghi F, Shurzinske L, Pechtner V. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3) Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2168–2176. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2759.
    1. Blonde L, Jendle J, Gross J, et al. Once-weekly dulaglutide versus bedtime insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet. 2015;385:2057–2066. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60936-9.
    1. Nauck M, Weinstock RS, Umpierrez GE, Guerci B, Skrivanek Z, Milicevic Z. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 52 weeks in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-5) Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2149–2158. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2761.
    1. Weinstock RS, Guerci B, Umpierrez G, Nauck MA, Skrivanek Z, Milicevic Z. Safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 2 years in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-5): a randomized, phase III study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17:849–858. doi: 10.1111/dom.12479.
    1. Dungan KM, Povedano ST, Forst T, et al. Once-weekly dulaglutide versus once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-6): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2014;384:1349–1357. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60976-4.
    1. Dungan KM, Weitgasser R, Perez Manghi F, et al. A 24-week study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide added on to glimepiride in type 2 diabetes (AWARD-8) Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18:475–482. doi: 10.1111/dom.12634.
    1. Chen YH, Huang CN, Cho YM, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in East-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, active comparator, phase III trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:2121–2130. doi: 10.1111/dom.13340.
    1. Wang W, Nevárez L, Filippova E, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in mainly Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on metformin and/or a sulfonylurea: a 52-week open-label, randomized phase III trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21:234–243. doi: 10.1111/dom.13506.
    1. Araki E, Inagaki N, Tanizawa Y, Oura T, Takeuchi M, Imaoka T. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide in combination with sulphonylurea and/or biguanide compared with once-daily insulin glargine in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17:994–1002. doi: 10.1111/dom.12540.
    1. Bettge K, Kahle M, Abd El Aziz MS, Meier JJ, Nauck MA. Occurrence of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea reported as adverse events in clinical trials studying glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic analysis of published clinical trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19:336–347. doi: 10.1111/dom.12824.
    1. Ji L, Zhang P, Zhu D, et al. Observational registry of basal insulin treatment (ORBIT) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: real-life use of basal insulin in China. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19:822–830. doi: 10.1111/dom.12886.
    1. Holst JJ. The physiology of glucagon-like peptide 1. Physiol Rev. 2007;87:1409–1439. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00034.2006.
    1. Bojanowska E. Physiology and pathophysiology of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1): the role of GLP-1 in the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus, obesity, and stress. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11:RA271–RA278.
    1. Tran KL, Park YI, Pandya S, et al. Overview of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2017;10:178–188.
    1. Htike ZZ, Zaccardi F, Papamargaritis D, Webb DR, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19:524–536. doi: 10.1111/dom.12849.
    1. Consoli A, Formoso G, Baldassarre MPA, Febo F. A comparative safety review between GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for diabetes treatment. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17:293–302. doi: 10.1080/14740338.2018.1428305.
    1. Robinson LE, Holt TA, Rees K, Randeva HS, O’Hare JP. Effects of exenatide and liraglutide on heart rate, blood pressure and body weight: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e001986. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001986.
    1. Garber AJ. Long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(Suppl 2):S279–S284. doi: 10.2337/dc11-s231.
    1. Jendle J, Grunberger G, Blevins T, Giorgino F, Hietpas RT, Botros FT. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive review of the dulaglutide clinical data focusing on the AWARD phase 3 clinical trial program. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32:776–790. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2810.
    1. Milicevic Z, Anglin G, Harper K, et al. Low incidence of anti-drug antibodies in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18:533–536. doi: 10.1111/dom.12640.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe