Effect of Baseline Characteristics on the Efficacy of Dulaglutide Added to Basal Insulin in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Subgroup Analysis of AWARD-CHN3
Guoyu Tong,Song Lu,Hongyu Kuang,Yan Li,Yuying Deng,Ying Lou,Weimin Wang,Dalong Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15416
2024-01-01
Abstract:Current type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment guidelines recommend the combination of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with basal insulin, due to their complementary effects on glycaemic control and body weight.1 Dulaglutide is a long-acting human GLP-1RA that is given once weekly.2 In the phase 3 AWARD-CHN3 study, dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly added to basal insulin significantly improved glycaemic control, reduced body weight and reduced the insulin dose required compared with basal insulin plus placebo, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia, in a Chinese population with T2DM (N = 291).3 We conducted subgroup analyses of data from the AWARD-CHN3 study to determine the effect of potentially influential baseline characteristics on the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly added to basal insulin in Chinese patients with T2DM. Detailed methods and the primary results of this study have been published previously.3 Briefly, AWARD-CHN3 was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, undertaken to determine the effect of dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly added to basal insulin for 28 weeks on glycaemic control, body weight and safety in Chinese patients with T2DM with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentrations ≥7.0% and ≤11.0% on basal insulin glargine and metformin and/or acarbose. Eligible patients who required uptitration of insulin glargine based on the treat-to-target algorithm (Table S1) following a 2-week lead-in period were randomized (1:1) to receive dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo, added to insulin glargine with metformin and/or acarbose, for 28 weeks. The present analyses were undertaken to determine the influence of patient baseline characteristics on the efficacy (endpoints listed for the primary analysis) of dulaglutide. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practices Guidelines. The protocol was approved by local institutional review boards. All patients provided written, informed consent prior to participation. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04591626). Least-squares means and associated standard errors, with p values for comparisons between/among the subgroup categories, were computed from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model unless otherwise stated. Analyses of treatment effects were conducted using a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. Throughout, to convert HbA1c to mmol/mol, use the following equation: 10.93 × HbA1c − 23.50. The baseline demographics for patients who received dulaglutide (n = 144) are shown in Table 1. There were significant differences in reduction of HbA1c from baseline to Week 28 in subgroups defined by age, baseline HbA1c, and insulin dose (Figure 1A). Similar reductions were observed across the other subgroups. HbA1c <7% at Week 28 was achieved by a similar proportion of patients across all subgroups, except for patients with diabetes duration ≥10 years, who achieved a higher rate of HbA1c <7% compared with patients with diabetes duration <10 years (Figure 1B). The proportions of patients who achieved the composite endpoint of HbA1c <7.0% with <0.1 kg weight gain and without documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia during Weeks 12–28 were similar across the subgroups, except for subgroups defined by baseline HbA1c level (Figure S1). Patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5% had significantly greater reductions in body weight from baseline to Week 28 compared to patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% (Figure 1C). Similarly, patients with a baseline fasting serum glucose (FSG) concentration ≥7.0 to <11.1 mmol/L achieved significantly more weight loss than patients with a baseline FSG concentration ≥11.1 mmol/L. Weight loss was comparable across the other subgroups analysed. Female patients achieved significantly greater reductions in FSG from baseline to Week 28 than male patients (Figure 1D). Similarly, reductions in FSG were higher in patients with a lower baseline body weight (<70 kg) compared to those with a higher baseline body weight (≥70 kg). Patients with a lower baseline insulin dose (<20 U) also had greater reductions in FSG compared with patients with a higher baseline insulin dose (≥20 U). Reductions in FSG were also significantly influenced by baseline FSG, with the greatest reductions achieved by patients with baseline FSG ≥11.1 mmol/L. This was a significantly greater reduction than that achieved by patients with a baseline FSG <7.0 mmol/L or those with baseline FSG ≥7.0 to <11.1 mmol/L. Changes in mean daily insulin glargine dose from baseline to Week 28 of dulaglutide treatment are shown in Figure S2A (U) and Figure S2B (U/kg). Patients with a lower baseline body weight or a lower baseline body mass index (BMI) required a lower dose of insulin compared with patients with a higher baseline body weight or higher baseline BMI. Insulin dose was also influenced by glycaemic control at baseline; patients with a lower baseline HbA1c required a lower dose of insulin compared to those with higher baseline HbA1c. Similarly, patients with a lower baseline FSG required a smaller change in insulin dose compared to patients with a higher baseline FSG. When body weight was considered, (i.e., insulin dose was calculated as U/kg), changes in insulin dose were no longer significant in subgroups defined by baseline body weight or baseline BMI. However, significant changes in weight-based insulin dosing were observed in subgroups defined by baseline HbA1c and baseline FSG. The results of this subgroup analysis provide the first data to illustrate the efficacy of dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly added to basal insulin in Chinese patients with T2DM across multiple clinically relevant baseline characteristics. Improvements in glycaemic control (as measured by the change in HbA1c, FSG and requirement for insulin) and body weight were observed across a broad range of baseline characteristics. Patients with higher baseline HbA1c achieved greater reductions in HbA1c, and the largest improvements in FSG occurred in patients with FSG ≥11.1 mmol/L at baseline, indicating that patients with worse glycaemic control have the greatest scope for improvement. The significantly greater reductions in HbA1c observed in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% versus <8.5% (p < 0.001) are consistent with data reported in patients with T2DM across seven international phase 3 dulaglutide clinical trials,4 trials in Japanese patients,5 and trials in patients from China or South Korea.6 Although patients aged <60 years achieved greater reductions in HbA1c than those aged ≥60 years (p = 0.009), no impact of age on HbA1c reduction with dulaglutide was reported in patients included in a previous study conducted in East Asia.6 Greater reductions in body weight from baseline to Week 28 were observed in patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5% versus ≥8.5%, which is consistent with previous findings in East Asian and Japanese patients,5, 6 and in patients with baseline FSG ≥7.0 to <11.1 mmol/L versus ≥11.1 mmol/L. However, changes in body weight with dulaglutide were similar irrespective of age, sex, body weight, BMI, duration of diabetes, use of concomitant oral antihyperglycaemic drugs, insulin dose and estimated glomerular filtration rate. These analyses have some limitations. For example, the AWARD-CHN3 study was powered to demonstrate the superiority of dulaglutide added to basal insulin for reduction in HbA1c from baseline to Week 28 (primary endpoint) in the overall study population and was not powered for subgroup analyses. With this in mind, and due to the relatively small sample sizes within the subgroups and the analyses being based on the results of a single study, these results should be interpreted with caution. The potential clinical significance of these findings will require further investigation. Guoyu Tong, Song Lu, Hongyu Kuang, Yan Li, Yuying Du, Ying Lou, Weimin Wang and Dalong Zhu were all responsible for the study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafted the article and performed critical revision for important intellectual content. All authors reviewed and gave final approval of the version to be published and agree to take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The authors wish to acknowledge the investigators and patients who participated in this study. The authors thank Xia Zhang and Haoxin Zhuang, from Eli Lilly and Company, for their valuable review of this article. The authors thank Fangling Zhang, from Eli Lilly and Company, for project management, medical writing, and editorial assistance. The authors also thank Rude Health Consulting Ltd for their contributions to editing the draft version, funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The AWARD-CHN3 study and the current analyses were funded by Eli Lilly and Company. This study and the journal's rapid service fee were funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Yuying Deng and Ying Lou are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Guoyu Tong, Song Lu, Hongyu Kuang, Yan Li, Weimin Wang and Dalong Zhu have no competing interests. The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/dom.15416. Lilly provides access to all individual participant data collected during the trial, after anonymization, with the exception of pharmacokinetic or genetic data. Data are available to request 6 months after the indication studied has been approved in the United States and European Union, and after primary publication acceptance, whichever is later. No expiration date of data requests is currently set once data are made available. Access is provided after a proposal has been approved by an independent review committee identified for this purpose and after receipt of a signed data sharing agreement. Data and documents, including the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, clinical study report, blank or annotated case report forms, will be provided in a secure data sharing environment. For details on submitting a request, see the instructions provided at www.vivli.org. Data S1. Supporting information. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.