Predictors of initial and sustained glycemic and weight response to tirzepatide: a post hoc analysis of SURPASS-4
Le résumé fourni par la source
This post hoc analysis assessed sustainability of lowered HbA1c and weight with tirzepatide in people with type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk. Participants achieving HbA1c ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) or weight loss ≥10% at 52 weeks were evaluated for sustained glycemic or weight control and predictors of initial and sustained efficacy. For tirzepatide-treated participants achieving HbA1c ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at 52 weeks, 75-84% sustained this until study end (median: 81 weeks). Factors predicting achievement were higher tirzepatide dose, shorter diabetes duration, and lower HbA1c, higher HOMA of beta-cell function (HOMA-B), metformin alone, and absence of albuminuria at baseline. Factors predicting sustained glycemic control were greater weight loss, smaller fasting glucose decrease, no sulfonylurea, and higher HOMA-B at 52 weeks. For participants achieving ≥10% weight loss at 52 weeks, 79-82% maintained weight loss. Factors predicting achievement were higher tirzepatide dose, female sex, no cardiovascular disease history, and lower baseline HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and triglycerides. Greater decrease in LDL-cholesterol to 52 weeks predicted maintained weight loss. Greater weight loss and better beta-cell function achieved with tirzepatide were the main predictors for sustained glycemic control in this post hoc analysis; no clinically meaningful predictor was identified for sustained weight control.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- <b>Predictors of initial and sustained glycemic and weight response to tirzepatide: a post hoc analysis of SURPASS-4</b>
- Date Crossref
- 09/07/2025
- Éditeur
- American Diabetes Association
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.