Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized trial, adults with obesity treated with weekly tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, had major weight loss over 72 weeks.

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 (HbA1c) of 7·5–10·5% (58–91 mmol/mol), body-mass index of 25 kg/m2 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 HbA1c 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 HbA1c 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 HbA1c reduction with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia at week 52. Tirzepatide treatment was not associated with excess cardiovascular risk. Eli Lilly and Company.

Abstract Context Novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) tirzepatide demonstrated substantially greater glucose control and weight loss (WL) compared with selective GLP-1RA dulaglutide. Objective Explore mechanisms of glucose control by tirzepatide. Design Post hoc analyses of fasting biomarkers and multiple linear regression analysis. Setting Forty-seven sites in 4 countries. Patients or other Participants Three hundred and sixteen subjects with type 2 diabetes. Interventions Tirzepatide (1, 5, 10, 15 mg), dulaglutide (1.5 mg), placebo. Main Outcome Measures Analyze biomarkers of beta-cell function and insulin resistance (IR) and evaluate WL contributions to IR improvements at 26 weeks. Results Homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) 2-B significantly increased with dulaglutide and tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg compared with placebo (P ≤ .02). Proinsulin/insulin and proinsulin/C-peptide ratios significantly decreased with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with placebo and dulaglutide (P ≤ .007). Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly decreased fasting insulin (P ≤ .033) and tirzepatide 10 mg significantly decreased HOMA2-IR (P = .004) compared with placebo and dulaglutide. Markers of improved insulin sensitivity (IS) adiponectin, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-2 significantly increased by 1 or more doses of tirzepatide (P < .05). To determine whether improvements in IR were directly attributable to WL, multiple linear regression analysis with potential confounding variables age, sex, metformin, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin A1c was conducted. WL significantly (P ≤ .028) explained only 13% and 21% of improvement in HOMA2-IR with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg, respectively. Conclusions Tirzepatide improved markers of IS and beta-cell function to a greater extent than dulaglutide. IS effects of tirzepatide were only partly attributable to WL, suggesting dual receptor agonism confers distinct mechanisms of glycemic control.

Current treatment options for youth-onset type 2 diabetes are limited and have demonstrated lower glycaemic efficacy than those for adult-onset type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo in youth-onset type 2 diabetes. We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre (39 sites), multinational (eight countries) trial over 30 weeks, followed by an open-label extension for 22 weeks in which all participants received tirzepatide. Participants aged 10 to <18 years with youth-onset type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and/or basal insulin were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, or placebo administered by subcutaneous injection with a single-dose pen. Randomisation was stratified by age group (≤14 years or >14 years) and antihyperglycaemic medication use (metformin, basal insulin, or both). All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment during the 30-week double-blind period. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 30. Data from all participants who received at least one dose of study drug were used to analyse efficacy and safety. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05260021). Between April 12, 2022, and Dec 27, 2023, 146 participants were screened, of whom 99 (60 [61%] female, 39 [39%] male; mean age 14·7 years [SD 1·8]; mean baseline HbA1c 8·04% [1·23]) were randomly assigned to tirzepatide 5 mg (n=32), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=33), or placebo (n=34). At week 30, tirzepatide was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c, with a mean reduction of 2·23% in the pooled tirzepatide group versus an increase of 0·05% in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference −2·28%; 95% CI −2·87 to −1·69; p<0·0001). Glycaemic efficacy was sustained up to 52 weeks with tirzepatide treatment. Tirzepatide also resulted in significant reductions in BMI of 7·4% and 11·2% for the 5 mg and 10 mg groups, respectively, compared with 0·4% in the placebo group at 30 weeks. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide treatment were gastrointestinal, all mild to moderate in severity, and decreased over time. Two (6%) patients in the tirzepatide 5 mg group discontinued study drug due to an adverse event. The safety profile of tirzepatide was consistent with that reported in adults. No deaths were reported during the study period. Tirzepatide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control and BMI compared with placebo. These effects were sustained over 1 year. Eli Lilly and Company.

Glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains a challenge, with 20-30% of adults achieving an A1c target of <7%. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 RA (GIP/GLP-1 RA) have emerged as a promising therapy in T1D. Previous studies have shown that patients with T1D can significantly improve glycemic control while experiencing a reduction in insulin dose and body weight when long-acting GLP-1RAs or GIP/GLP-1RAs are added to insulin therapy. However, randomized controlled trials (RCT) are still insufficient. This is a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, superiority-controlled design that evaluates the safety and efficacy of adding tirzepatide to insulin therapy in participants with T1D under automated insulin delivery (AID) control. We will enroll 42 participants aged 18-65 years with confirmed T1D diagnosis ≥12 months, currently on AID insulin therapy for at least three months, with A1C ≥ 6.5% and ≤ 10%, and BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either tirzepatide with a target dosage of 5.0 mg (after titration) or standard of care (SoC) for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured percent time spent between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L (TIR) from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints include: the CGM-measured change in 24/7 percent time >10.0 mmol/L, > 13.9 mmol/L, < 3.9 mmol/L, < 3.0 mmol/L. The exploratory endpoints include: the change in body mass index (BMI), liver steatosis (MASLD), and body composition. Safety outcomes include severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and refractory gastrointestinal side effects. This is the first prospective study to investigate the safety and efficacy of tirzepatide (GIP/GLP1-RAs) as an adjuvant therapy to AID in T1D. This study may contribute unique data to significantly improving glucose and cardio-metabolic outcomes, re-directing attention to further treatment in T1D beyond insulin therapies.

Abstract Context Antidrug antibodies (ADA) can potentially affect drug pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy. Objective This work aimed to evaluate treatment-emergent (TE) ADA in tirzepatide (TZP)-treated participants across 7 phase 3 trials and their potential effect on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety. Methods ADA were assessed at baseline and throughout the study until end point, defined as week 40 (SURPASS-1, -2, and -5) or week 52 (SURPASS-3, -4, Japan-Mono, and Japan-Combo). Samples for ADA characterization were collected at SURPASS trial sites. Participants included ADA-evaluable TZP-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 5025). Interventions included TZP 5, 10, or 15 mg. ADA were detected and characterized for their ability to cross-react with native glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (nGIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (nGLP-1), neutralize tirzepatide activity on GIP and GLP-1 receptors, and neutralize nGIP and nGLP-1. Results TE ADA developed in 51.1% of tirzepatide-treated patients. Proportions were similar across dose groups. Maximum ADA titers ranged from 1:20 to 1: 81 920 among TE ADA+ patients. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against TZP activity on GIP and GLP-1 receptors were observed in 1.9% and 2.1% of patients, respectively. Less than 1.0% of patients had cross-reactive NAb against nGIP or nGLP-1. TE ADA status, ADA titer, and NAb status had no effect on the pharmacokinetics or efficacy of TZP. More TE ADA+ patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions or injection site reactions than TE ADA– patients. The majority of hypersensitivity and injection site reactions were nonserious and nonsevere, and most events occurred and/or resolved irrespective of TE ADA status or titer. Conclusion Immunogenicity did not affect TZP pharmacokinetics or efficacy. The majority of hypersensitivity or injection site reactions experienced by TE ADA+ patients were mild to moderate in severity.

The incretin glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) exerts insulinotropic activity in type 2 diabetic patients, whereas glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) no longer does. We studied whether GIP can alter the insulinotropic or glucagonostatic activity of GLP-1 in type 2 diabetic patients. Twelve patients with type 2 diabetes (nine men and three women; 61 ± 10 years; BMI 30.0 ± 3.7 kg/m²; HbA(1c) 7.3 ± 1.5%) were studied. In randomized order, intravenous infusions of GLP-1(7-36)-amide (1.2 pmol · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹), GIP (4 pmol · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹), GLP-1 plus GIP, and placebo were administered over 360 min after an overnight fast (≥ 1 day wash-out period between experiments). Capillary blood glucose, plasma insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, GIP, GLP-1, and free fatty acids (FFA) were determined. Exogenous GLP-1 alone reduced glycemia from 10.3 to 5.1 ± 0.2 mmol/L. Insulin secretion was stimulated (insulin, C-peptide, P < 0.0001), and glucagon was suppressed (P = 0.009). With GIP alone, glucose was lowered slightly (P = 0.0021); insulin and C-peptide were stimulated to a lesser degree than with GLP-1 (P < 0.001). Adding GIP to GLP-1 did not further enhance the insulinotropic activity of GLP-1 (insulin, P = 0.90; C-peptide, P = 0.85). Rather, the suppression of glucagon elicited by GLP-1 was antagonized by the addition of GIP (P = 0.008). FFA were suppressed by GLP-1 (P < 0.0001) and hardly affected by GIP (P = 0.07). GIP is unable to further amplify the insulinotropic and glucose-lowering effects of GLP-1 in type 2 diabetes. Rather, the suppression of glucagon by GLP-1 is antagonized by GIP.

Background Tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/ glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is approved in the United States, Europe and Japan for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Across the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical studies, tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg demonstrated significant improvements in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (− 1.9 to − 2.6%), body weight (− 6.6 to − 13.9%) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (− 2.8 to − 12.6 mmHg) at the end of study treatment. Methods Post-hoc mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate weight-loss dependent and weight-loss independent effects of tirzepatide on SBP reductions across the 5 SURPASS studies. The safety population (all randomized patients who took at least 1 dose of study drug) of each study was analyzed. Additional analyses were conducted at individual study level or pooled across 5 SURPASS trials. Results The difference in mean SBP change from baseline at 40 weeks (total effect) between the tirzepatide and comparator groups was − 1.3 to − 5.1 mmHg (tirzepatide 5 mg), − 1.7 to − 6.5 mmHg (tirzepatide 10 mg) and − 3.1 to − 11.5 mmHg (tirzepatide 15 mg). These SBP reductions were primarily mediated through weight loss, with different degrees of contributions from weight-loss independent effects across the different trials. In the SURPASS-4 study, which enrolled patients with established cardiovascular disease, weight-loss independent effects explained 33% to 57% of difference in SBP change between tirzepatide and insulin glargine groups. In a pooled analysis of the SURPASS-1 to -5 studies, there was a significant (p < 0.001) but weak correlation (r = 0.18 to 0.22) between change in body weight and SBP. Reductions in SBP with tirzepatide were not dependent on concomitant antihypertensive medications at baseline as similar reductions were observed whether participants were receiving them or not (interaction p = 0.77). The largest SBP reductions were observed in the highest baseline category (> 140 mmHg), while those in the first quartile of baseline SBP category (< 122 mmHg) observed no further decrease in SBP. Conclusions Tirzepatide-induced SBP reduction was primarily mediated through weight loss, with different degrees of contributions from weight-loss independent effects across the different trials. SBP reduction was not dependent on antihypertensive medication use but dependent on baseline SBP value, alleviating theoretical concerns of hypotension.

Introduction Insulin is used to treat hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients but can cause hypoglycaemia, which is associated with poorer outcomes. In health glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a potent glucose-lowering peptide that does not cause hypoglycaemia. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of exogenous GIP infusion on blood glucose concentrations, glucose absorption, insulinaemia and gastric emptying in critically ill patients without known diabetes. Methods A total of 20 ventilated patients (Median age 61 (range: 22 to 79) years, APACHE II 21.5 (17 to 26), BMI 28 (21 to 40) kg/m 2 ) without known diabetes were studied on two consecutive days in a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over fashion. Intravenous GIP (4 pmol/kg/min) or placebo (0.9% saline) was infused between T = −60 to 300 minutes. At T0, 100 ml of liquid nutrient (2 kcal/ml) containing 3-O-Methylglucose (3-OMG), 100 mcg of Octanoic acid and 20 MBq Tc-99 m Calcium Phytate, was administered via a nasogastric tube. Blood glucose and serum 3-OMG (an index of glucose absorption) concentrations were measured. Gastric emptying, insulin and glucagon levels and plasma GIP concentrations were also measured. Results While administration of GIP increased plasma GIP concentrations three- to four-fold (T = −60 23.9 (16.5 to 36.7) versus T = 0 84.2 (65.3 to 111.1); P <0.001) and plasma glucagon (iAUC 300 4217 (1891 to 7715) versus 1232 (293 to 4545) pg/ml.300 minutes; P  = 0.04), there were no effects on postprandial blood glucose (AUC 300 2843 (2568 to 3338) versus 2819 (2550 to 3497) mmol/L.300 minutes; P  = 0.86), gastric emptying (AUC 300 15611 (10993 to 18062) versus 15660 (9694 to 22618) %.300 minutes; P  = 0.61), glucose absorption (AUC 300 50.6 (22.3 to 74.2) versus 64.3 (9.9 to 96.3) mmol/L.300 minutes; P  = 0.62) or plasma insulin (AUC 300 3945 (2280 to 6731) versus 3479 (2316 to 6081) mU/L.300 minutes; P  = 0.76). Conclusions In contrast to its profound insulinotropic effect in health, the administration of GIP at pharmacological doses does not appear to affect glycaemia, gastric emptying, glucose absorption or insulinaemia in the critically ill patient. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000488808 . Registered 3 May 2012.

Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) exhibit incretin activity, meaning that they potentiate glucose-dependent insulin secretion. The emergence of GIP receptor (GIPR)–GLP1 receptor (GLP1R) co-agonists has fostered growing interest in the actions of GIP and GLP1 in metabolically relevant tissues. Here, we update concepts of how these hormones act beyond the pancreas. The actions of GIP and GLP1 on liver, muscle and adipose tissue, in the control of glucose and lipid homeostasis, are discussed in the context of plausible mechanisms of action. Both the GIPR and GLP1R are expressed in the central nervous system, wherein receptor activation produces anorectic effects enabling weight loss. In preclinical studies, GIP and GLP1 reduce atherosclerosis. Furthermore, GIPR and GLP1R are expressed within the heart and immune system, and GLP1R within the kidney, revealing putative mechanisms linking GIP and GLP1R agonism to cardiorenal protection. We interpret the clinical and mechanistic data obtained for different agents that enable weight loss and glucose control for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively, by activating or blocking GIPR signalling, including the GIPR–GLP1R co-agonist tirzepatide, as well as the GIPR antagonist–GLP1R agonist AMG-133. Collectively, we update translational concepts of GIP and GLP1 action, while highlighting gaps, areas of uncertainty and controversies meriting ongoing investigation.This Review highlights the extrapancreatic actions of the incretin hormones gastric inhibitory polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1. These peptides are active on tissues with cardiometabolic relevance, such as liver, adipose tissue, muscle, the immune, kidney, heart, blood vessels and the central nervous system.