Abstract
Introduction
Tirzepatide, a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, is approved for glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials assessed the efficacy of once weekly tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) versus placebo or active comparators (semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec and insulin glargine) in T2D. We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that measured overall quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction and weight-related attributes across the five SURPASS studies.
Methods
PRO instruments utilised at baseline and primary timepoint (40 weeks for SURPASS-1, -2 and -5; 52 weeks for SURPASS-3 and -4) or early termination visit were EQ-5D-5L (SURPASS-1 to -5); Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (SURPASS-1 to -5); Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (SURPASS-1 to -5); Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (SURPASS-2 to -5); and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (SURPASS-2 only).
Results
Across all five studies at week 40/52, tirzepatide improved patients’ QoL measured by general health and weight-related PROs over the comparator. Generally, higher doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater increases in PRO scores.
Conclusion
Overall, tirzepatide produced significant health and weight-related QoL improvements versus comparators in the five SURPASS studies.
Clinical Trial Registration
SURPASS-1: NCT03954834; SURPASS-2: NCT03987919; SURPASS-3: NCT03882970; SURPASS-4: NCT03730662; SURPASS-5: NCT04039503.
Plain Language Summary
Tirzepatide is the first glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes. The SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) compared with placebo or active comparators (including semaglutide 1 mg and basal insulins) in people with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated other outcomes reported by patients that measured overall quality of life, treatment satisfaction and weight-related attributes across the five SURPASS studies.
Five validated questionnaires were completed by patients at the beginning and end of the clinical trials, which was after 40 weeks for SURPASS-1, -2 and -5 and after 52 weeks for SURPASS-3 and -4, or when the person left the trial if this was before the official end. These questionnaires were EQ-5D-5L (SURPASS-1 to -5); Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (SURPASS-1 to -5); Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (SURPASS-1 to -5); Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (SURPASS-2 to -5); and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (SURPASS-2 only).
Across all five studies, treatment with tirzepatide resulted in greater improvements in people’s quality of life at the end of the study compared with placebo or treatment with the comparators. Generally, higher doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater increases in questionnaire scores than lower doses of tirzepatide.
Overall, tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg treatment resulted in significant health- and weight-related quality of life improvements versus comparators in the five SURPASS studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out the study? |
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disease that can have a huge impact on people’s quality of life, and patient-reported outcomes collected during clinical trials can be helpful in understanding patients’ perceptions of their treatment and their quality of life while receiving new medications. |
We present patient-reported outcome data from the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials of tirzepatide, a novel once weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes. |
What was learned from the study? |
Tirzepatide produced significant health- and weight-related quality of life improvements versus comparators in the SURPASS-1 to -5 studies. |
These patient-reported outcome results further add to the previously reported benefits of tirzepatide treatment for people with type 2 diabetes, namely substantial improvements in glycaemic control and body weight. |
Introduction
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic disease that can have a huge impact on people’s quality of life (QoL). Tirzepatide, a once weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that combines both GIP receptor agonism and GLP-1 receptor agonism in a single molecule, is approved for the treatment of people with T2D [1,2,3] and is in development for chronic weight management. The SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials assessed the efficacy of once weekly tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg) versus placebo and active comparators. In these studies, tirzepatide demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, which were greater than those with placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, titrated insulin degludec and titrated insulin glargine [4,5,6,7,8]. These treatment effects were sustained up to 104 weeks [7]. Tirzepatide has been shown to normalise blood glucose levels, defined as HbA1c < 5.7%, as these levels were achieved by up to 62% of participants treated with tirzepatide 15 mg [4,5,6,7,8,9].
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are standardised questionnaires used to assess outcomes from the patients’ perspective, including perceptions, symptoms, satisfaction with treatment and adherence to prescribed regimens. PROs provide information of value when deciding which treatment will suit which patient that is additional to clinical endpoints such as HbA1c and body weight. The collection of PROs during clinical trials can be useful in understanding patients’ perceptions of their treatment and their QoL while receiving new medications. Indeed, there continues to be a growing emphasis on the importance of collecting and publishing patient-reported information directly from clinical trials, so that the patient voice can be considered in drug development and the regulatory/licensing process [10, 11].
A range of PROs are available for use in T2D clinical trials [12], and these can be tailored to each trial depending on the medication studied. Irrespective of class of glucose-lowering therapy, the selection of appropriate PROs should be both relevant to the patients being treated and reflect their assessment of the treatment, disease state and burden. There is substantial value in collecting PRO data from patients receiving treatment for T2D, as it is a chronic disease with a significant impact on QoL, which can also be affected by adverse events (AEs) experienced during treatment.
It was particularly important to collect PRO data from the SURPASS clinical development programme, as tirzepatide is a novel GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist. Collecting and reporting PROs from clinical trials associated with a new class of medication can be particularly insightful for clinicians, helping them to fully understand the patients’ experience while establishing their own prescribing experience. In the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials, the focus was on consistent use of PROs, collecting outcomes relevant across the continuum of T2D treatment, from early stages treated with oral medications to later stages requiring injectable therapy. The collected PROs had a particular focus on health-related QoL (HRQoL) and weight loss measures, given the clinically meaningful HbA1c- and weight-reducing attributes of tirzepatide demonstrated in clinical trials [4,5,6,7,8,9].
American Diabetes Association guidance recommends that patient preference and experience play a major role in decisions made by healthcare providers, forming part of the discussion when choosing treatment for individual patients [13]. Furthermore, patient perspective is now an important consideration for regulatory boards, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency, when assessing new drug candidates [14, 15]. This paper presents PRO data from the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials.
Methods
Study Design
SURPASS-1 to -5 Studies
Figure S1 (in the supplementary material) provides a summary of the study design of the five phase 3 SURPASS studies included in these analyses. All were randomised, parallel group, multinational trials of 40 or 52 weeks treatment duration at the primary timepoint that compared the efficacy and safety of once weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg versus placebo or active comparator in adults with T2D. Additional study design details and inclusion/exclusion criteria have been previously reported [4,5,6,7,8].
Tirzepatide Versus Placebo
In the double-blind SURPASS-1 and -5 studies, patients were randomised to once weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg or placebo as monotherapy or all with background insulin glargine (titrated following a treat-to-target algorithm) ± metformin, respectively, for 40 weeks.
Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide
In the open-label SURPASS-2 study, patients were randomised to once weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg (blinded) versus semaglutide 1 mg, all with background metformin (minimum 1500 mg/day) for 40 weeks.
Tirzepatide Versus Insulin Degludec
In the open-label SURPASS-3 study, patients were randomised to once weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg or once daily insulin degludec (titrated following a treat-to-target algorithm), all with metformin ± sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for 52 weeks.
Tirzepatide Versus Insulin Glargine
In the open-label SURPASS-4 study, patients at increased cardiovascular risk on one to three oral glucose-lowering medications (± metformin ± sulfonylurea ± SGLT2 inhibitor) were randomised to once weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg or once daily insulin glargine (titrated following a treat-to-target algorithm) for up to 104 weeks with the primary timepoint at 52 weeks.
Ethical Considerations
The SURPASS-1 to -5 studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study protocols were approved by ethical review boards and all patients provided written informed consent. This particular article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
PRO Instruments
Five different PRO instruments were completed at baseline and primary timepoint (week 40/52) by participants enrolled in the five phase 3 SURPASS clinical trials (Table 1). Overall HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L instrument, while treatment satisfaction was evaluated using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Different concepts associated with weight-related QoL were measured using the Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions (IW-SP) questionnaire, the Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL) questionnaire and the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (IWQOL-Lite-CT). The PRO instruments selected for inclusion in each SURPASS-1 to -5 trial were determined by the availability of the measures at the time of protocol approval and the individual study characteristics.
EQ-5D-5L
The EQ-5D-5L is a generic health status measure used for clinical and economic appraisal that assesses five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression) with five levels of response (no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and unable to/extreme problems) [16]. EQ-5D-5L index scores were based on the UK value set [17]. Index scores range in value from − 0.59 to 1.00 and are anchored at 0 (death), with higher scores indicating better health utility and negative scores representing health states considered worse than death. The EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), which provides a quantitative measure of the patient’s perception of their overall health, allows a patient to rate their perceived health state from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state) [18].
DTSQ
DTSQ Status (DTSQs)
The DTSQs measures satisfaction with treatment, as well as concerns about hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, at baseline [19, 20]. Eight items are measured: satisfied with current treatment; feel convenient about recent treatment; feel flexible about recent treatment; satisfied with diabetes understanding; recommend present treatment to others; continue with present treatment; times of unacceptably high; and unacceptably low blood glucose. Items concerning times of unacceptably high and low blood glucose are scored separately from the satisfaction items and from each other. The treatment satisfaction scores are measured from 0 to 36 where a higher score indicates greater treatment satisfaction. The hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia scores are measured from 0 to 6 where a lower score indicates lower perceived hyper- or hypoglycaemia frequency.
DTSQ Change (DTSQc)
The DTSQc measures the change in satisfaction with current treatment compared to before the study began (i.e. baseline), as well as changes in concerns about hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia [21].
IW-SP
The IW-SP questionnaire assesses the self-perceptions of an individual related to his/her weight [22]. The IW-SP contains three items, each rated on a 5-point scale, averaged and linearly transformed to produce a measure from 0 to 100. Higher raw and transformed scores are indicative of better self-perceptions in relation to one’s weight.
APPADL
The APPADL questionnaire contains seven items that assess how difficult it is for patients to engage in certain activities considered to be integral to normal daily life, such as walking, standing and climbing stairs [23]. Items are scored on a 5-point numeric rating scale ranging from 1 ‘unable to do’ to 5 ‘not at all difficult’. Raw scores, derived by summing the item scores and dividing by the number of items, are linearly transformed to a range from 0 to 100. Higher raw and transformed scores correspond to better self-reported APPADL.
IWQOL-Lite-CT
The IWQOL-Lite-CT is a measure of weight-related functioning in populations commonly targeted for clinical trials [24]. The IWQOL-Lite-CT is a 20-item measure with two primary domains (physical [7 items, with physical function comprising 5 of the 7 items] and psychosocial [13 items]). The IWQOL-Lite-CT also has a total score, which includes all 20 items. It is scored from 0 to 100 where higher composite scores indicate higher levels of functioning.
Statistical Methods
Statistical analyses were performed on the modified intent-to-treat population composed of all randomly assigned patients exposed to at least one dose of the study drug and assigned to the treatment the patient was randomised to regardless of the treatment received. In addition, patients who discontinued the study drug after randomisation for not fulfilling any of the eligibility criteria were excluded. Observations occurring after rescue therapy with other antihyperglycaemic treatment or prematurely stopping study drug were also excluded. PRO at early termination visit was used in lieu of primary timepoint PRO assessment, where missing. The last post-baseline observation was carried forward to impute missing post-baseline values. Overall scoring and calculation of scores in the presence of missing items was handled according to the developer’s instruction. Changes from baseline in PRO measures at specified timepoints were analysed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value of the PRO measure, treatment and study-specific stratification variables included in the model. In order to understand the impact that the most common AEs had on PRO outcomes, exploratory analyses evaluated changes from baseline to week 40 in PRO measures for patients receiving tirzepatide pooled doses (5, 10 or 15 mg) or semaglutide 1 mg in SURPASS-2 by gastrointestinal AE category (i.e. with or without nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea) at week 40. A two-sided alpha-level of 0.05 was used for all statistical comparisons. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS, Version 9.4 (The SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Results
Patient Demographics
The baseline characteristics and demographics of patients in the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials were described in detail in the respective study publications [4,5,6,7,8] and, within each study, baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. The baseline characteristics and demographics of patients pooled by study are summarised in Table S1 (in the supplementary material).
AEs
Summary data on any AEs leading to study treatment discontinuation and specific gastrointestinal AEs of interest (nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea) of any severity in SURPASS-1 to -5 are included in Table S2. Any AEs leading to study treatment discontinuation were reported by 3–11% of patients who received tirzepatide across these studies, compared with placebo (3%), semaglutide 1 mg (4%), basal insulins (1–5%) and placebo with background insulin (3%). Nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea of any severity occurred in 2–24%, 1–13% and 4–22% of patients, respectively, across all treatment groups in all SURPASS-1 to -5 studies (Table S2). Consistent with the low rate of study treatment discontinuation, at most 3% of patients who received at least one dose of tirzepatide in SURPASS-1 to -5 discontinued treatment because of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea [9].
HbA1c and Body Weight
Across the five global phase 3 SURPASS studies, which spanned the T2D disease continuum from no background therapy to multiple background treatment combinations, and included several comparators representative of clinical practice, administration of all tirzepatide doses (5, 10 and 15 mg) led to consistent improvements in glycaemic control, as shown by reductions in HbA1c from baseline to 40 or 52 weeks (Table 2) [4,5,6,7,8].
Similarly, across the five phase 3 studies, participants receiving tirzepatide showed consistent reductions in body weight at all doses at the primary timepoint (40 or 52 weeks). Weight loss with tirzepatide was observed irrespective of background therapy, even medications associated with increased weight such as insulin (SURPASS-5) or sulfonylureas (SURPASS-4) (Table 2). Across the trials, 53.9–87.8% of patients receiving tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) achieved a weight loss of at least 5%, 22.6–69.4% achieved a weight loss of at least 10% and 7.0–42.5% achieved a weight loss of at least 15% (Table 2) [4,5,6,7,8].
PROs
Tirzepatide Versus Placebo (SURPASS-1 and -5)
In SURPASS-1, participants receiving all doses of tirzepatide had significantly improved scores from baseline to week 40 across all PRO measures (p < 0.05) while significant improvements from baseline only in IW-SP score were observed in the placebo group (Fig. 1, Table S3). Higher doses of tirzepatide (10 and 15 mg) were associated with significantly improved IW-SP (Fig. 1) scores and all tirzepatide doses (5, 10 and 15 mg) were associated with significantly improved EQ VAS (Table S3) scores at week 40 versus placebo (p < 0.05), suggesting improvements in patients’ overall health and body weight-related self-perception. There were no statistically significant differences in APPADL and EQ-5D-5L index scores between participants receiving any dose of tirzepatide and placebo (Fig. 1, Table S3).
In SURPASS-5, all participants received background treatment with insulin glargine (titrated following a treat-to-target algorithm) ± metformin. Patients’ overall assessments of their health, body weight-related self-perceptions and physical well-being improved with higher doses of tirzepatide compared with placebo; participants receiving tirzepatide 10 or 15 mg had significantly improved EQ-5D-5L index, IW-SP and APPADL scores at week 40 compared with placebo (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1, Table S3). However, there were no significant differences in these three PRO scores between participants receiving 5 mg tirzepatide and those receiving placebo. There were no significant differences in EQ VAS between participants receiving tirzepatide 5 or 15 mg and the placebo group (Table S3). Participants taking any dose of tirzepatide showed significantly greater total DTSQc scores versus placebo (p < 0.05), indicating greater improvement in treatment satisfaction (Table S3). There was a significant difference in the self-reported DTSQc score for perceived hyperglycaemia for each of the three tirzepatide dose groups versus the placebo group (p < 0.05), indicating a lowered perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia versus placebo, while the self-reported DTSQc score for perceived hypoglycaemia in the three tirzepatide groups showed no significant difference compared with the placebo group.
Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide (on Background Metformin) (SURPASS-2)
In SURPASS-2, at the 40-week primary timepoint, total APPADL and IW-SP scores increased in all groups from baseline, indicating better self-reported ability to perform physical activities of daily living and better self-perceptions related to weight (Fig. 1, Table S3). There was a significantly greater improvement in these scores with tirzepatide 15 mg versus semaglutide (p < 0.05). IWQOL-Lite-CT scores increased from baseline to week 40 with all doses of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg) and semaglutide (1 mg), indicating better overall HRQoL and functioning associated with weight (Fig. 1, Table S3). Treatment with tirzepatide significantly improved IWQOL-Lite-CT physical scores (10 and 15 mg), physical function scores (all doses), psychosocial scores (15 mg) and total scores (10 and 15 mg) compared with semaglutide (all p < 0.05) (Table S3). DTSQ and EQ-5D-5L score improvements with tirzepatide were not significantly different to those with semaglutide, apart from in the 15 mg group, which had a lower perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia versus semaglutide (Table S3).
Tirzepatide Versus Insulin Degludec (SURPASS-3)
In SURPASS-3, all tirzepatide doses significantly improved EQ-5D-5L index, EQ VAS, IW-SP and APPADL scores from baseline to week 52 (p < 0.05), indicating better outcomes (Fig. 1, Table S3). The EQ VAS was the only significantly improved PRO measure at week 52 in the insulin degludec group (p < 0.05) (Table S3). Increases in EQ VAS, IW-SP and APPADL scores were significantly greater at week 52 for all tirzepatide dose groups compared with the insulin degludec group, indicating better patient-reported HRQoL, weight-related self-perceptions and self-reported APPADL (Fig. 1, Table S3). There was no significant difference in change from baseline to week 52 for EQ-5D-5L index score between tirzepatide (any dose) and insulin degludec (Table S3). The DTSQc total score was significantly higher for all tirzepatide dose groups compared with the insulin degludec group (p < 0.05), indicating that patients receiving tirzepatide experienced greater improvement in overall treatment satisfaction. The DTSQc score for perceived hyperglycaemia was significantly lower with tirzepatide 15 mg compared with insulin degludec; whereas the DTSQc score for perceived hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with tirzepatide 5 mg versus insulin degludec (both p < 0.05) (Table S3).
Tirzepatide Versus Insulin Glargine (SURPASS-4)
In the SURPASS-4 study, participants in all tirzepatide dose groups showed significant improvements from baseline to week 52 in EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, IW-SP and APPADL scores (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1, Table S3). Of these PRO measures, only the IW-SP and the EQ VAS showed significant increases at the week 52 primary timepoint with insulin glargine (titrated following a treat-to-target algorithm) (both p < 0.05). Changes from baseline to primary timepoint in IW-SP, APPADL, EQ-5D-5L and EQ VAS were significantly higher for all tirzepatide dose groups compared with the insulin glargine group (p < 0.05), indicating better HRQoL, weight-related self-perceptions and self-reported APPADL. Overall treatment satisfaction at week 52 was significantly higher for participants receiving all doses of tirzepatide versus insulin glargine (p < 0.05), as demonstrated by the DTSQc score (Table S3). The DTSQc perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia score at week 52 was significantly lower with all doses of tirzepatide compared with insulin glargine, whereas the DTSQc perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia score was significantly lower for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus insulin glargine.
Association Between Gastrointestinal AEs of Interest and PROs (SURPASS-2)
Across all PRO measures in the SURPASS-2 study, changes from baseline to week 40 were in the direction of better outcomes in both subgroups of patients who did and did not report gastrointestinal AEs (nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea) and all treatment groups (tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg or semaglutide 1 mg) (Fig. 2, Table S4).
Discussion
The SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials assessed the efficacy and safety of once weekly tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg) versus placebo or active comparators (semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec and insulin glargine) in patients with T2D. All three tirzepatide doses provided superior HbA1c and weight reductions compared to placebo or active comparators in all five SURPASS trials. Here we describe the PROs measured across the five SURPASS studies from baseline to primary timepoint that evaluated overall QoL, treatment satisfaction and patient perspectives regarding weight-related attributes.
Overall, tirzepatide improved patients’ QoL as measured by general health- and weight-related PRO instruments from baseline to primary timepoint. Tirzepatide-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvements than comparators for most of the measured PROs at primary timepoint in all five studies. Notably, tirzepatide 15 mg was associated with significantly larger improvements than comparators in physical functioning, as measured using the APPADL and IWQOL-Lite-CT (physical and physical function) in most studies. Moreover, higher tirzepatide doses, in general, resulted in greater improvements in QoL.
The patient perspective is key; patients are more likely to adhere to treatments that they value, thereby resulting in better clinical outcomes [12]. If patients are to effectively engage in their disease management, it is crucial that they are involved in the decision-making process and that their needs and wishes are accounted for when choosing treatment options. This patient-centred approach to T2D management is becoming increasingly recognised in treatment guidelines [25]. Furthermore, other bodies are recognising the value of capturing QoL data. For example, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ‘Tirzepatide for Type 2 Diabetes: Final Policy Recommendations’ published in 2022 stated that the ‘inclusion of several validated QoL measures [in trials of treatments for T2D], including versions of the DTSQ and EQ-5D are to be commended and should be replicated by all manufacturers when designing trials testing new therapies to treat T2D’ [26]. Evidence is growing to suggest that patients place value on a variety of different treatment attributes that are related to efficacy, safety and ease of use [27,28,29]. It is becoming apparent, for example, that oral therapy is not the default preference over injectable medications [30]. If medication adherence and ultimately clinical outcomes are to be improved, it is fundamental that these patient perspectives and preferences are fully understood. The findings reported here may assist clinicians and patients in their decision-making and help patients’ persistence with therapy.
In addition to the PRO measures reported here, qualitative exit interviews were conducted in a subset of patients from two open-label SURPASS trials (SURPASS-2 and -3) to provide additional details of the patients’ experience while receiving tirzepatide [31]. All patients interviewed reported at least one treatment benefit with 96% of patients reporting improved glycaemic control and 93% reporting weight loss. All 28 patients enrolled in exit interviews said they would recommend tirzepatide to others and 27 patients said they would be willing to continue treatment. While the published clinical trial outcomes demonstrate the efficacy of tirzepatide, these exit interviews indicate that the benefits obtained are important to patients and likely have an impact on their overall QoL.
Limitations of this analysis include the administration of the PRO questionnaires in a clinical trial setting. Thus, PRO results obtained in a real-world setting, where patients might have less contact with healthcare professionals, may differ. Furthermore, the data from these studies on specific aspects of QoL of interest are limited by the extent to which the available PRO questionnaires examine those particular aspects of QoL. In addition, the PRO results reported at study endpoint likely do not capture the overall impact of AEs, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, at the time of the event. Another potential limitation is the open-label clinical trial study design of SURPASS-2, -3 and -4, which may influence patients to over- or underestimate their treatment assessments on the basis of beliefs they have regarding their assigned treatment arm. Furthermore, weight loss had not plateaued in the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials; therefore, it is possible that PROs could have improved further with a longer follow-up period. Finally, at the time that SURPASS-2 was designed and implemented, semaglutide was approved for the treatment of T2D up to a dosage of 1 mg once weekly; semaglutide 2 mg is now available for patients with T2D who require additional glycaemic control after at least 4 weeks on the 1 mg dosage [32].
Conclusion
Tirzepatide produced significant health- and weight-related QoL improvements versus comparators in the SURPASS-1 to -5 studies along with substantial improvements in glycaemic control and body weight. These PRO results further confirm the benefits of tirzepatide for the treatment of T2D. Further real-world PRO research in T2D is needed, as well as new or modified PRO measures, given that advancements in T2D treatment regimens are affecting patients in ways that were previously unachievable with older medications.
References
United States Food and Drug Administration. Prescribing information: MOUNJARO (tirzepatide) injection, for subcutaneous use. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2022. p. 1–28. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/215866s000lbl.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
European Commission. Mounjaro tirzepatide. Summary of product characteristics. Brussels: EC; 2022. p. 1–87. https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2022/20220915156773/anx_156773_en.pdf. Accessed 6 Oct 2022.
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Manjaro tirzepatide. General list entry. https://www.pmda.go.jp/PmdaSearch/iyakuDetail/GeneralList/24994A8. Accessed 20 Oct 2022.
Rosenstock J, Wysham C, Frías JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:143–55.
Frías JP, Davies MJ, Rosenstock J, et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:503–15.
Ludvik B, Giorgino F, Jódar E, et al. Once-weekly tirzepatide versus once-daily insulin degludec as add-on to metformin with or without SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:583–98.
Del Prato S, Kahn SE, Pavo I, et al. Tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk (SURPASS-4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10313):1811–24.
Dahl D, Onishi Y, Norwood P, et al. Effect of subcutaneous tirzepatide vs placebo added to titrated insulin glargine on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS-5 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327:534–45.
De Block C, Bailey C, Wysham C, Hemmingway A, Allen SE, Peleshok J. Tirzepatide for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes: an endocrine perspective. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023;25(1):3–17.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). The patient’s voice in the evaluation of medicines: how patients can contribute to assessment of benefit and risk. London: EMA; 2013. p. 1–7. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/report-workshop-patients-voice-evaluation-medicines_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH reflection paper: proposed ICH guideline work to advance patient focused drug development. Geneva: ICH; 2021. p. 1–5. https://admin.ich.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/ICH_ReflectionPaper_PFDD_FinalRevisedPostConsultation_2021_0602.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
Reaney M, Elash CA, Litcher-Kelly L. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) used in recent phase 3 trials for type 2 diabetes: a review of concepts assessed by these PROs and factors to consider when choosing a PRO for future trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;116:54–67.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 5. Facilitating behavior change and well-being to improve health outcomes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S60–82.
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Patient engagement in the design and conduct of medical device clinical studies. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2022. p. 1–11. https://www.fda.gov/media/130917/download. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
European Medicines Agency. Engagement framework: EMA and patients, consumers and their organisations. Amsterdam: EMA; 2022. p. 1–8. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/engagement-framework-european-medicines-agency-patients-consumers-their-organisations_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–15.
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L user guide, 2019. Rotterdam: EuroQol; 2019.
Bradley C, Lewis KS. Measures of psychological well-being and treatment satisfaction developed from the responses of people with tablet-treated diabetes. Diabet Med. 1990;7:445–51.
Bradley C, Speight J. Patient perceptions of diabetes and diabetes therapy: assessing quality of life. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2002;18(Suppl 3):S64–9.
Bradley C. An introduction to the guide to psychological measurement in diabetes research and practice. In: Bradley C, editor. Handbook of psychology and diabetes. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 1–12.
Hayes RP, DeLozier AM. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions Questionnaire (IW-SP) in individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17:210–4.
Hayes RP, Schultz EM, Naegeli AN, Curtis BH. Test–retest, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the ability to perform physical activities of daily living questionnaire in individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:1118–25.
Kolotkin RL, Williams VSL, Ervin CM, et al. Validation of a new measure of quality of life in obesity trials: impact of weight on quality of life-lite clinical trials version. Clin Obes. 2019;9: e12310.
American Diabetes Association. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S125–213.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes: final policy recommendations. 15 February 2022. Boston, MA: ICER; 2022. p. 1–22. https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ICER_Type2Diabetes_PolicyRecommendations_02152022.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2023.
Toroski M, Kebriaeezadeh A, Esteghamati A, Karyani AK, Abbasian H, Nikfar S. Patient and physician preferences for type 2 diabetes medications: a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019;18(2):643–56.
Huang Y, Huang Q, Xu A, Lu M, Xi X. Patient preferences for diabetes treatment among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in China: a discrete choice experiment. Front Public Health. 2022;9: 782964.
Valentine W, Norrbacka K, Boye KS. Evaluating the impact of therapy on quality of life in type 2 diabetes: a literature review of utilities associated with treatment-related attributes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2022;13:97–111.
Boye K, Ross M, Mody R, Konig M, Gelhorn H. Patients’ preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: the REVISE study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(2):508–19.
Matza LS, Stewart KD, Landó LF, Patel H, Boye KS. Exit interviews examining the patient experience in clinical trials of tirzepatide for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Patient. 2022;15(3):367–77.
Novo Nordisk. Prescribing information: OZEMPIC (semaglutide injection), for subcutaneous use. Plainsboro, NJ: Novo Nordisk; 2017. p. 1–18. https://www.novo-pi.com/ozempic.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2022.
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L | About. 2021. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
McClure NS, Al Sayah F, Ohinmaa A, Johnson JA. Minimally important differences of the EQ-5D-5L index score in adults with type 2 diabetes. Value Health. 2018;21(9):1090–7.
Gelhorn H, Maher S, Sapin H, et al. PCR202 Estimating meaningful change for the Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP) questionnaire among people with type 2 diabetes. Value in Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.03.2381
Bradley C. Diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Change version for use alongside status version provides appropriate solution where ceiling effects occur. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(3):530–2.
Kolotkin RL. IWQOL-Lite Clinical Trials Version©. 2021. https://www.qualityoflifeconsulting.com/iwqol-lite-clinical-trials.html. Accessed 5 Sept 2022.
Acknowledgements
Funding
This study, Rapid Service fee and this study and rapid service were sponsored and funded by Eli Lilly and Company was sponsored and funded by Eli Lilly and Company.
Medical Writing, Editorial, and Other Assistance
The authors would like to thank the programming team involved in the delivery of the analyses and Gary Grant PhD (Eli Lilly and Company) for medical writing and editing assistance. The authors would also like to acknowledge Sue Williamson and Caroline Spencer (Rx Communications, Mold, UK) for medical writing assistance with the preparation of this manuscript, funded by Eli Lilly and Company.
Author Contributions
Kristina S Boye has made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript. Vivian Thuyanh Thieu has made substantial contributions to the conception and acquisition of data for the work, the analysis and interpretation of data for the work, the drafting and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Hélène Sapin has made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Clare J Lee has made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Laura Fernández Landó has made substantial contributions to the design of the work, the interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Katelyn Brown has made substantial contributions to the interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Ross Bray has made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Russell J Wiese has made substantial contributions to the conception and acquisition of data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Hiren Patel has made substantial contributions to the interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Ángel Rodríguez has made substantial contributions to the interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Maria Yu has made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the data for the work and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Prior Presentation
This manuscript is based on work that has previously been presented in posters at The International Diabetes Federation World Congress, 5–8 December 2022 in Lisbon, Portugal.
Disclosures
Kristina S Boye, Vivian Thuyanh Thieu, Hélène Sapin, Clare J Lee, Laura Fernández Landó, Katelyn Brown, Ross Bray, Russell J Wiese, Hiren Patel, Ángel Rodríguez and Maria Yu are full-time employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The SURPASS-1 to -5 studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study protocols were approved by ethical review boards and all patients provided written informed consent. This particular article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
Eli Lilly and Company provides access to all individual participant data collected during the trial, after anonymisation, 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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Boye, K.S., Thieu, V.T., Sapin, H. et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes in People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Tirzepatide in the SURPASS Clinical Trial Programme. Diabetes Ther 14, 1833–1852 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01451-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01451-z