ae:I[454378,["$34","$35","$29","$36","$37","$38","$39","$3a","$3b","$3c","$3d","$2e","$2b","$3e","$2f","$3f","$2d","$40","$41","$42","$2c","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49"],"default"] af:T64b,Based on the provided articles, here are the key differences between dulaglutide and semaglutide: 1. **Efficacy:** - Semaglutide demonstrated superior glycemic control compared to dulaglutide: - Semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 0.41 percentage points more than dulaglutide 1.5 mg [1] - Semaglutide 2.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 0.28-0.44 percentage points more than dulaglutide 3.0-4.5 mg [2] 2. **Weight Loss:** - Semaglutide showed greater weight reduction: - Semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced body weight by 3.55 kg more than dulaglutide 1.5 mg [3] - Semaglutide 2.0 mg reduced body weight by 2.57-3.29 kg more than dulaglutide 3.0-4.5 mg [2] 3. **Adherence and Persistence:** - Dulaglutide had higher adherence at 6 months (59.7% vs 42.7% for semaglutide) [4] - However, semaglutide showed higher persistence at 360 days (67.0% vs 56.0% for dulaglutide) [5] 4. **Injection Experience:** - Semaglutide injection was rated as less painful than dulaglutide (VAS score 5.6 mm vs 11.5 mm) [6] 5. **Device Preference:** - More patients preferred the dulaglutide device (84.2% vs 12.3% for semaglutide) [7] 6. **Cost-effectiveness:** - Semaglutide was generally found to be more cost-effective than dulaglutide in various analyses [8, 9] 7. **Gastrointestinal Side Effects:** - Semaglutide had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms (46.3% vs 13.2% for dulaglutide) [10] In summary, semaglutide appears to offer superior glycemic control and weight loss, while dulaglutide may have advantages in terms of device preference and fewer gastrointestinal side effects.b0:T5ea,To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings. This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.b1:T6b2,Currently, no head-to-head data are available comparing semaglutide 2.0 mg with dulaglutide 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of their effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. Multilevel network meta-regression was conducted, based on a connected evidence network of published results from the A Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide (LY2189265) in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes 11 trial and individual patient data from the A Research Study to Compare Two Doses of Semaglutide Taken Once Weekly in People With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN) and SUSTAIN 7 trials. Semaglutide 2.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg, with estimated treatment differences (ETDs) of -0.44% points (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.68 to -0.19) and -0.28% points (95% CrI, -0.52 to -0.03), respectively. Semaglutide 2.0 mg also significantly reduced body weight vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg with ETDs of -3.29 kg (95% CrI, -4.62 to -1.96) and -2.57 kg (95% CrI, -3.90 to -1.24), respectively. Odds of achieving HbA1c < 7.0% were significantly greater for semaglutide 2.0 vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23 [95% CrI, 1.15-3.90]), whereas this did not reach significance for semaglutide 2.0 mg vs dulaglutide 4.5 mg (OR: 1.58 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.78]). Sensitivity analyses supported the main analysis findings. This ITC demonstrated significantly greater reductions from baseline in HbA1c and body weight with semaglutide 2.0 mg vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg. The findings of this study provide important comparative effectiveness information until randomized head-to-head studies become available.b2:Tdb2,Despite common mechanisms of actions, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists differ in structure, pharmacokinetic profile, and clinical effects. This head-to-head trial compared semaglutide with dulaglutide in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.This was an open-label, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 194 hospitals, clinical institutions or private practices in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had type 2 diabetes with HbA_{1c} 7·0-10·5% (53·0-91·0 mmol/mol) on metformin monotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by use of an interactive web-response system to once a week treatment with either semaglutide 0·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, semaglutide 1·0 mg, or dulaglutide 1·5 mg subcutaneously. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in percentage HbA_{1c}; the confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in bodyweight, both at week 40. The primary analysis population included all randomly assigned patients exposed to at least one dose of trial product obtained while on treatment and before the onset of rescue medication. The safety population included all randomly assigned patients exposed to at least one dose of trial product obtained while on treatment. The trial was powered for HbA_{1c} non-inferiority (margin 0·4%) and bodyweight superiority. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02648204.Between Jan 6, 2016, and June 22, 2016, 1201 patients were randomly assigned to treatment; of these, 301 were exposed to semaglutide 0·5 mg, 299 to dulaglutide 0·75 mg, 300 to semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 299 to dulaglutide 1·5 mg. 72 (6%) patients withdrew from the trial (22 receiving semaglutide 0·5 mg, 13 receiving dulaglutide 0·75 mg, 21 receiving semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 16 receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg). From overall baseline mean, mean percentage HbA_{1c} was reduced by 1·5 (SE 0·06) percentage points with semaglutide 0·5 mg versus 1·1 (0·05) percentage points with dulaglutide 0·75 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·40 percentage points [95% CI -0·55 to -0·25]; p<0·0001) and by 1·8 (0·06) percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg versus 1·4 (0·06) percentage points with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (ETD -0·41 percentage points [-0·57 to -0·25]; p<0·0001). From overall baseline mean, mean bodyweight was reduced by 4·6 kg (SE 0·28) with semaglutide 0·5 mg compared with 2·3 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 0·75 mg (ETD -2·26 kg [-3·02 to -1·51]; p<0·0001) and by 6·5 kg (0·28) with semaglutide 1·0 mg compared with 3·0 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (ETD -3·55 kg [-4·32 to -2·78]; p<0·0001). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse event, occurring in 129 (43%) of 301 patients receiving semaglutide 0·5 mg, 133 (44%) of 300 patients receiving semaglutide 1·0 mg, 100 (33%) of 299 patients receiving dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and in 143 (48%) of 299 patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg. Gastrointestinal disorders were also the most common reason for discontinuing treatment with semaglutide and dulaglutide. There were six fatalities: one in each semaglutide group and two in each dulaglutide group.At low and high doses, semaglutide was superior to dulaglutide in improving glycaemic control and reducing bodyweight, enabling a significantly greater number of patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve clinically meaningful glycaemic targets and weight loss, with a similar safety profile.Novo Nordisk.b3:T6fd,To compare 6-month adherence, persistence and treatment patterns among patients initiating once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dulaglutide versus semaglutide, and dulaglutide versus exenatide BCise, using claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients aged ≥18 years, with type 2 diabetes, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide, semaglutide or exenatide BCise during the index period February 2018 to December 2018 (index date = earliest GLP-1RA fill date), no claim for GLP-1RAs in the 6-month pre-index period, and continuous enrolment 6 months pre- and post-index were included. Dulaglutide users were propensity-matched 1:1 to semaglutide users (3852 pairs) or exenatide BCise users (1879 pairs). The proportions of adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) patients were compared using chi-squared tests. Persistence, measured as days to discontinuation, was analysed using a Cox regression model. Matched cohorts (dulaglutide:semaglutide and dulagutide:exenatide BCise) were balanced in baseline characteristics and the mean age was 54 and 55 years, respectively, with approximately 51% and 49% women, respectively. At 6 months, significantly more dulaglutide users were adherent than semaglutide (59.7% vs. 42.7%; P <0.0001) or exenatide BCise users (58.1% vs. 40.3%; P <0.0001). Cox regression showed that dulaglutide users were less likely to discontinue therapy than semaglutide (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66, 0.76) or exenatide BCise users (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53, 0.65; P <0.0001, both). At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of patients initiating dulaglutide were adherent to and persistent with their treatment, compared to matched patients initiating either semaglutide or exenatide BCise.b4:T8a0,The superior efficacy and safety of semaglutide once-weekly (QW), compared with dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW, have been demonstrated in the SUSTAIN trials. This study assessed treatment persistence and adherence to semaglutide QW versus dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW in a real-world setting. This retrospective, database study used Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database to identify glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) treatment-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating semaglutide QW, dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. Persistence (time remaining on treatment) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard models. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients with PDC > 80%. Of 56,715 patients included, 3279 received semaglutide QW, 27,891 dulaglutide, 17,186 liraglutide, and 8359 exenatide QW. Patients initiating semaglutide QW were younger and with lower percentage of Medicare coverage than patients initiating the comparators. Persistence at 360 days was significantly higher for semaglutide QW (67.0%) versus dulaglutide (56.0%), liraglutide (40.4%), and exenatide QW (35.5%); p < 0.001 for all comparisons. Compared with semaglutide QW, the discontinuation rate was significantly higher for dulaglutide (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13, 1.32; p < 0.001), liraglutide (HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.66, 1.95; p < 0.001), and exenatide QW (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.96, 2.30; p < 0.001). Adherence to semaglutide QW versus liraglutide at 360 days and to exenatide QW was 39.1% versus 30.0% [p = 0.07] and 27.7% [p = 0.02], respectively. Adherence to dulaglutide at 360 days was numerically higher than semaglutide QW (43.2% versus 39.1%; p = 0.45) but did not reach statistical significance. Persistence with semaglutide QW was significantly greater than comparators, while adherence was comparable or greater. Together with earlier results from double-blind clinical studies, these data support semaglutide QW use for treatment of patients with T2D.b5:T529,This double-blind, randomized, single-site, crossover trial compared the injection-site experience with the starting doses of semaglutide and dulaglutide. Healthy subjects (aged 18-75 years; body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m^{2} ; n = 104) were randomized 1:1, using a pregenerated list, to semaglutide 0.25 mg as the first injection and dulaglutide 0.75 mg as the second injection or vice versa; each was administered using their proprietary pen-injectors, according to instructions for use. The primary endpoint was intensity of injection-site pain, measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 mm = no pain, 100 mm = unbearable pain). Exploratory endpoints included intensity category, duration and quality of injection-site pain, and comparative assessment of injection-site pain with the two injections. The point estimate of the VAS score for injection-site pain intensity was 11.5 mm with dulaglutide versus 5.6 mm with semaglutide; mean (95% confidence interval) estimated treatment difference 5.9 (3.6; 8.2) mm; p < .0001. Other endpoints corroborated a less painful injection experience with semaglutide versus dulaglutide. Safety was consistent with reported data for the drugs. In conclusion, the injection-site experience with semaglutide was rated as less painful than that with dulaglutide.b6:T6cd,When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset. There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001). Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.b7:T6c5,Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose-lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head-to-head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making. Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes-related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs). Compared with treatment with dulaglutide, once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.b8:T6b5,Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK. The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.b9:T7a6,To compare the clinical usefulness of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide at the doses approved for use in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.In total, 120 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7% were randomly assigned to dulaglutide (n = 59) or semaglutide group (n = 61), and 107 participants (dulaglutide/semaglutide = 53/54) completed the 24-week trial. The primary endpoint was the difference of HbA1c level between the two groups at 24 weeks.HbA1c level at 24 weeks was significantly lower in the semaglutide group (7.9 ± 0.5%-6.7 ± 0.5%) compared with the dulaglutide group (8.1 ± 0.6%-7.4 ± 0.8%) (p < .0001). Reduction in body mass index and visceral fat area were also more significant in the semaglutide group (p < .05, respectively). The achievement rate of HbA1c <7% was higher in the semaglutide group (p < .0001). The parameters such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase were decreased in the semaglutide group. Surprisingly, only semaglutide group significantly improved the apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, which is considered a useful myocardial infarction risk index. Using computed tomography, the liver to spleen ratio was significantly elevated only in the semaglutide group. In contrast, gastrointestinal symptoms were observed in 13.2% of dulaglutide and 46.3% of semaglutide group (p < .01). The Diabetes Treatment-Related Quality of Life scores related to pain and gastrointestinal symptoms were also superior in the dulaglutide group.This prospective trial showed that semaglutide has more pronounced glucose- and body mass index-lowering effects and reduces liver fat percentage and visceral fat area and that dulaglutide has less gastrointestinal symptoms and superior Diabetes Treatment-Related Quality of Life scores related to pain and gastrointestinal symptoms.4f:[["$","$Lae",null,{"initialQaList":[{"id":"","streamId":"","question":"**Differences Between Dulaglutide vs Semaglutide:**","answer":"$af","articles":[{"title":"An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34286894/","authors":["Richard E Pratley","Andrei-Mircea Catarig","Ildiko Lingvay","Adie Viljoen","Abby Paine","Jack Lawson","Barrie Chubb","Anders Gorst-Rasmussen","Nino Miresashvili"],"year":2021,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b0","score":1.0002525242601121,"journal":"Diabetes, obesity & metabolism","n_citations":5,"tldr":"This indirect comparison demonstrated significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg and comparable Hb a1c reductions versus dulagLutide 4.5 mg.","highlighted_text":"This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.","quantitative_data":"Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively.","is_high_quality_source":"False","images":[],"nCitations":5,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.","quantitativeData":"Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively.","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":false,"id":"1f04ec53-322d-4b96-a3a4-ab892b258a08"},{"title":"An Indirect Treatment Comparison of Semaglutide 2.0 mg vs Dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg Using Multilevel Network Meta-regression.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34922383/","authors":["Ildiko Lingvay","Robert Bauer","James Baker-Knight","Jack Lawson","Richard Pratley"],"year":2022,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b1","score":1.000448964578856,"journal":"The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism","n_citations":3,"tldr":"This ITC demonstrated significantly greater reductions from baseline in HbA1c and body weight with semaglutide and provides important comparative effectiveness information until randomized head-to-head studies become available.","highlighted_text":"Currently, no head-to-head data are available comparing semaglutide 2.0 mg with dulaglutide 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of their effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes.","quantitative_data":"Semaglutide 2.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg, with estimated treatment differences (ETDs) of -0.44% points (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.68 to -0.19) and -0.28% points (95% CrI, -0.52 to -0.03), respectively.","is_high_quality_source":"False","images":[],"nCitations":3,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"Currently, no head-to-head data are available comparing semaglutide 2.0 mg with dulaglutide 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of their effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes.","quantitativeData":"Semaglutide 2.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg, with estimated treatment differences (ETDs) of -0.44% points (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.68 to -0.19) and -0.28% points (95% CrI, -0.52 to -0.03), respectively.","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":false,"id":"9f43abba-f7c4-4ec7-a9cb-7b972463a957"},{"title":"Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29397376/","authors":["Richard E Pratley","Vanita R Aroda","Ildiko Lingvay","Jörg Lüdemann","Camilla Andreassen","Andrea Navarria","Adie Viljoen"],"year":2018,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b2","score":1.0002060014781677,"journal":"The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology","n_citations":213,"tldr":"This head-to-head trial compared semaglutide with dulag lutide in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, finding that gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse event and bodyweight superiority was powered for HbA1c non-inferiority and body weight superiority.","highlighted_text":"There were six fatalities: one in each semaglutide group and two in each dulaglutide group.At low and high doses, semaglutide was superior to dulaglutide in improving glycaemic control and reducing bodyweight, enabling a significantly greater number of patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve clinically meaningful glycaemic targets and weight loss, with a similar safety profile.Novo Nordisk.","quantitative_data":"From overall baseline mean, mean bodyweight was reduced by 4·6 kg (SE 0·28) with semaglutide 0·5 mg compared with 2·3 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 0·75 mg (ETD -2·26 kg [-3·02 to -1·51]; p<0·0001) and by 6·5 kg (0·28) with semaglutide 1·0 mg compared with 3·0 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (ETD -3·55 kg [-4·32 to -2·78]; p<0·0001).","is_high_quality_source":"False","images":[],"nCitations":213,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"There were six fatalities: one in each semaglutide group and two in each dulaglutide group.At low and high doses, semaglutide was superior to dulaglutide in improving glycaemic control and reducing bodyweight, enabling a significantly greater number of patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve clinically meaningful glycaemic targets and weight loss, with a similar safety profile.Novo Nordisk.","quantitativeData":"From overall baseline mean, mean bodyweight was reduced by 4·6 kg (SE 0·28) with semaglutide 0·5 mg compared with 2·3 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 0·75 mg (ETD -2·26 kg [-3·02 to -1·51]; p<0·0001) and by 6·5 kg (0·28) with semaglutide 1·0 mg compared with 3·0 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (ETD -3·55 kg [-4·32 to -2·78]; p<0·0001).","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":false,"id":"172eca01-08b2-4852-9dcc-cbb94bbc161f"},{"title":"Adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with semaglutide and exenatide BCise: 6-month follow-up from US real-world data.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32945083/","authors":["Reema Mody","Maria Yu","Bal Nepal","Manige Konig","Michael Grabner"],"year":2021,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b3","score":1.0003745253358147,"journal":"Diabetes, obesity & metabolism","n_citations":11,"tldr":"To compare 6‐month adherence, persistence and treatment patterns among patients initiating once‐weekly glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs), dulaglutide versus semaglUTide, and dulAGlutides versus exenatide BCise, using claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database.","highlighted_text":"","quantitative_data":"At 6 months, significantly more dulaglutide users were adherent than semaglutide (59.7% vs. 42.7%; P <0.0001) or exenatide BCise users (58.1% vs. 40.3%; P <0.0001).","is_high_quality_source":"True","images":[],"nCitations":11,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"","quantitativeData":"At 6 months, significantly more dulaglutide users were adherent than semaglutide (59.7% vs. 42.7%; P <0.0001) or exenatide BCise users (58.1% vs. 40.3%; P <0.0001).","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":true,"id":"fcceaad7-2a60-4357-8ebd-e68ed3ce028a"},{"title":"Semaglutide Once-Weekly Persistence and Adherence Versus Other GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a US Real-World Setting.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33837922/","authors":["Chioma Uzoigwe","Yuanjie Liang","Sarah Whitmire","Yurek Paprocki"],"year":2021,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b4","score":1.0001778099970693,"journal":"Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders","n_citations":18,"tldr":"Data from this retrospective, database study support semaglutide QW use for treatment of patients with T2D as treatment persistence and adherence was significantly greater than comparators, while adherence was comparable or greater.","highlighted_text":"","quantitative_data":"Persistence at 360 days was significantly higher for semaglutide QW (67.0%) versus dulaglutide (56.0%), liraglutide (40.4%), and exenatide QW (35.5%); p < 0.001 for all comparisons.","is_high_quality_source":"True","images":[],"nCitations":18,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"","quantitativeData":"Persistence at 360 days was significantly higher for semaglutide QW (67.0%) versus dulaglutide (56.0%), liraglutide (40.4%), and exenatide QW (35.5%); p < 0.001 for all comparisons.","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":true,"id":"c536f343-12a4-44d2-94ed-92fa5d349d60"},{"title":"Comparison of the injection-site experience of the starting doses with semaglutide and dulaglutide: A randomized, double-blind trial in healthy subjects.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33591618/","authors":["Søren Snitker","Andreas Andersen","Birgitte Berg","Sjoerd van Marle","Thomas Sparre"],"year":2021,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b5","score":1.0002315866225853,"journal":"Diabetes, obesity & metabolism","n_citations":2,"tldr":"The injection‐site experience with semaglutide was rated as less painful than that with dulagliltide, corroborated by other endpoints corroborated a less painful injection experience withSemaglUTide versus dulgellutide.","highlighted_text":"","quantitative_data":"Healthy subjects (aged 18-75 years; body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m^{2} ; n = 104) were randomized 1:1, using a pregenerated list, to semaglutide 0.25 mg as the first injection and dulaglutide 0.75 mg as the second injection or vice versa; each was administered using their proprietary pen-injectors, according to instructions for use.","is_high_quality_source":"False","images":[],"nCitations":2,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"","quantitativeData":"Healthy subjects (aged 18-75 years; body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m^{2} ; n = 104) were randomized 1:1, using a pregenerated list, to semaglutide 0.25 mg as the first injection and dulaglutide 0.75 mg as the second injection or vice versa; each was administered using their proprietary pen-injectors, according to instructions for use.","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":false,"id":"04d62af3-01a7-4f72-947a-67902cdbd50e"},{"title":"Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31646727/","authors":["Louis S Matza","Kristina S Boye","Katie D Stewart","Karin S Coyne","Paula K Wullenweber","Katelyn N Cutts","Jessica B Jordan","Qianqian Wang","Maria Yu","Brooke M Currie","Karen G Malley","K Jack Ishak","Ryan T Hietpas","Luis-Emilio García-Pérez"],"year":2020,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b6","score":1.000501352014632,"journal":"Diabetes, obesity & metabolism","n_citations":19,"tldr":"The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP‐1 receptor agonists.","highlighted_text":"","quantitative_data":"More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001).","is_high_quality_source":"True","images":[],"nCitations":19,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"","quantitativeData":"More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001).","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":true,"id":"32e65bcb-929d-4b4d-b9ef-dd79934bcc81"},{"title":"Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30362224/","authors":["Adie Viljoen","Christina S Hoxer","Pierre Johansen","Samuel Malkin","Barnaby Hunt","Stephen C Bain"],"year":2019,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b7","score":1.0002694825922167,"journal":"Diabetes, obesity & metabolism","n_citations":18,"tldr":"This analysis assessed the long‐term cost‐effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglUTide 1.5 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head‐to‐head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making.","highlighted_text":"","quantitative_data":"Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg.","is_high_quality_source":"True","images":[],"nCitations":18,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"","quantitativeData":"Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg.","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":true,"id":"c9f4ab49-9ee0-4feb-8fa2-ecf4aebbc6bd"},{"title":"The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36114904/","authors":["Adie Viljoen","Barrie Chubb","Samuel J P Malkin","Sasha Berry","Barnaby Hunt","Stephen C Bain"],"year":2022,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b8","score":0.9999429593506354,"journal":"The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care","n_citations":2,"tldr":"Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglUTide in the UK from a healthcare payer perspective.","highlighted_text":"A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg.","quantitative_data":"Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively.","is_high_quality_source":"False","images":[],"nCitations":2,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg.","quantitativeData":"Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively.","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":false,"id":"4a42fb74-9e4a-41b4-bf3e-fa07fa038309"},{"title":"Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label trial (COMING study).","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37646192/","authors":["Tomohiko Kimura","Yukino Katakura","Masashi Shimoda","Fumiko Kawasaki","Mizuho Yamabe","Fuminori Tatsumi","Michihiro Matsuki","Yuichiro Iwamoto","Takatoshi Anno","Yoshiro Fushimi","Shinji Kamei","Yukiko Kimura","Shuhei Nakanishi","Tomoatsu Mune","Kohei Kaku","Hideaki Kaneto"],"year":2023,"type":"SCIENTIFIC","snippet":"$b9","score":1.0003351395747109,"journal":"Diabetes, obesity & metabolism","n_citations":0,"tldr":"A study comparing the clinical usefulness of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes found that semaglutide had more pronounced glucose- and body mass index-lowering effects, while dulaglutide had fewer gastrointestinal symptoms and superior quality of life scores related to pain and gastrointestinal symptoms.","highlighted_text":"","quantitative_data":"The primary endpoint was the difference of HbA1c level between the two groups at 24 weeks.HbA1c level at 24 weeks was significantly lower in the semaglutide group (7.9 ± 0.5%-6.7 ± 0.5%) compared with the dulaglutide group (8.1 ± 0.6%-7.4 ± 0.8%) (p < .0001).","is_high_quality_source":"False","images":[],"nCitations":0,"pmcUrl":"$undefined","documentId":"$undefined","chunkId":"$undefined","sentStart":"$undefined","sentEnd":"$undefined","citedText":"$undefined","citationLabel":"$undefined","org":"$undefined","orgFullName":"$undefined","documentTypes":"$undefined","highlightedText":"","quantitativeData":"The primary endpoint was the difference of HbA1c level between the two groups at 24 weeks.HbA1c level at 24 weeks was significantly lower in the semaglutide group (7.9 ± 0.5%-6.7 ± 0.5%) compared with the dulaglutide group (8.1 ± 0.6%-7.4 ± 0.8%) (p < .0001).","recommendationSummaries":"$undefined","sourceContext":"$undefined","citedPassage":"$undefined","isHighQualitySource":false,"id":"2951a3dc-b7e2-4ec2-8726-6a56b7e7552c"}],"images":"$undefined","uploadedFiles":"$undefined","expandedImages":false,"followUps":[],"showAllSources":false,"modelName":"standard","filters":"$undefined","searchStrings":[],"analyzedReferences":[],"articlesReceived":true}],"pageShareId":"k8qi3httEfvfpRqkavjxjo"}],"$Lba"]