Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lancet. 2021 Nov 13;398(10313):1811-1824. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02188-7. Epub 2021 Oct 18.
We aimed to assess efficacy and safety, with a special focus on cardiovascular safety, of the novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications.
This open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study was done in 187 sites in 14 countries on five continents. Eligible participants, aged 18 years or older, had type 2 diabetes treated with any combination of metformin, sulfonylurea, or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA) of 7·5-10·5% (58-91 mmol/mol), body-mass index of 25 kg/m or greater, and established cardiovascular disease or a high risk of cardiovascular events. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:3) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injection of either once-per-week tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or glargine (100 U/mL), titrated to reach fasting blood glucose of less than 100 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (0·3% non-inferiority boundary) of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus glargine in HbA change from baseline to 52 weeks. All participants were treated for at least 52 weeks, with treatment continued for a maximum of 104 weeks or until study completion to collect and adjudicate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Safety measures were assessed over the full study period. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03730662.
Patients were recruited between Nov 20, 2018, and Dec 30, 2019. 3045 participants were screened, with 2002 participants randomly assigned to tirzepatide or glargine. 1995 received at least one dose of tirzepatide 5 mg (n=329, 17%), 10 mg (n=328, 16%), or 15 mg (n=338, 17%), or glargine (n=1000, 50%), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. At 52 weeks, mean HbA changes with tirzepatide were -2·43% (SD 0·05) with 10 mg and -2·58% (0·05) with 15 mg, versus -1·44% (0·03) with glargine. The estimated treatment difference versus glargine was -0·99% (multiplicity adjusted 97·5% CI -1·13 to -0·86) for tirzepatide 10 mg and -1·14% (-1·28 to -1·00) for 15 mg, and the non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met for both doses. Nausea (12-23%), diarrhoea (13-22%), decreased appetite (9-11%), and vomiting (5-9%) were more frequent with tirzepatide than glargine (nausea 2%, diarrhoea 4%, decreased appetite <1%, and vomiting 2%, respectively); most cases were mild to moderate and occurred during the dose-escalation phase. The percentage of participants with hypoglycaemia (glucose <54 mg/dL or severe) was lower with tirzepatide (6-9%) versus glargine (19%), particularly in participants not on sulfonylureas (tirzepatide 1-3% vs glargine 16%). Adjudicated MACE-4 events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalisation for unstable angina) occurred in 109 participants and were not increased on tirzepatide compared with glargine (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·51-1·08). 60 deaths (n=25 [3%] tirzepatide; n=35 [4%] glargine) occurred during the study.
In people with type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, tirzepatide, compared with glargine, demonstrated greater and clinically meaningful HbA reduction with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia at week 52. Tirzepatide treatment was not associated with excess cardiovascular risk.
Eli Lilly and Company.
我们旨在评估新型双重 GIP 和 GLP-1 受体激动剂替西帕肽与甘精胰岛素相比在口服降糖药物治疗控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病合并高心血管风险成人中的疗效和安全性,尤其关注心血管安全性。
这是一项在五大洲 14 个国家的 187 个地点进行的、开放标签、平行组、3 期研究。合格的参与者年龄在 18 岁或以上,接受二甲双胍、磺酰脲类药物或钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白 2 抑制剂联合治疗,基线糖化血红蛋白(HbA)为 7.5-10.5%(58-91mmol/mol),体重指数为 25kg/m2 或以上,且患有已确诊的心血管疾病或心血管事件发生风险较高。参与者通过交互式网络响应系统以 1:1:1:3 的比例随机分配接受每周一次皮下注射替西帕肽(5mg、10mg 或 15mg)或甘精胰岛素(100U/mL),滴定至空腹血糖<100mg/dL。主要终点是替西帕肽 10mg 或 15mg,或两者联合与甘精胰岛素相比,在 52 周时 HbA 变化的非劣效性(0.3%非劣效性边界)。所有参与者至少接受 52 周治疗,最长治疗时间为 104 周或直至研究完成以收集和判定主要不良心血管事件(MACE)。在整个研究期间评估安全性措施。该研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册,编号为 NCT03730662。
患者于 2018 年 11 月 20 日至 2019 年 12 月 30 日期间被筛选,共筛选了 3045 名患者,其中 2002 名患者被随机分配至替西帕肽或甘精胰岛素组。1995 名患者接受了至少一剂替西帕肽 5mg(n=329,17%)、10mg(n=328,16%)或 15mg(n=338,17%),或甘精胰岛素(n=1000,50%),并被纳入改良意向治疗人群。在 52 周时,替西帕肽 10mg 和 15mg 的平均 HbA 变化分别为-2.43%(SD 0.05)和-2.58%(0.05),而甘精胰岛素为-1.44%(0.03)。替西帕肽 10mg 的估计治疗差异与甘精胰岛素相比为-0.99%(多重调整 97.5%CI-1.13 至-0.86),15mg 为-1.14%(-1.28 至-1.00),且两种剂量均达到了 0.3%的非劣效性边界。与甘精胰岛素相比,替西帕肽更常见的不良反应(12-23%)有恶心、腹泻(13-22%)、食欲下降(9-11%)和呕吐(5-9%)(恶心 2%、腹泻 4%、食欲下降<1%、呕吐 2%);大多数病例为轻至中度,发生在剂量递增阶段。与甘精胰岛素(低血糖(血糖<54mg/dL 或严重)发生率 19%)相比,替西帕肽(低血糖发生率 6-9%)的发生率较低,特别是在未使用磺酰脲类药物的患者中(替西帕肽 1-3%vs 甘精胰岛素 16%)。替西帕肽与甘精胰岛素相比,判定的 MACE-4 事件(心血管死亡、心肌梗死、中风、不稳定型心绞痛住院)在 109 名参与者中发生,风险比为 0.74(95%CI 0.51-1.08)。研究期间共有 60 名参与者(替西帕肽 25 名[3%];甘精胰岛素 35 名[4%])死亡。
在患有 2 型糖尿病和心血管风险升高的人群中,与甘精胰岛素相比,替西帕肽在第 52 周时显示出更大且具有临床意义的 HbA 降低,且低血糖发生率较低。替西帕肽治疗与心血管风险增加无关。
礼来公司。