Skip to content

A Study of Insulin Efsitora Alfa (LY3209590) Compared to Glargine in Adult Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Who Are Starting Basal Insulin for the First Time (QWINT-1)

A Phase 3, Parallel-Design, Open-Label, Randomized Control Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LY3209590 Administered Weekly Using a Fixed Dose Escalation Compared to Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naïve Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05662332
Acronym
QWINT-1
Enrollment
795
Registered
2022-12-22
Start date
2023-01-14
Completion date
2024-07-19
Last updated
2025-08-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Type 2 Diabetes, T2D

Brief summary

The main purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of insulin efsitora alfa (LY3209590) administered weekly using a fixed dose escalation compared to insulin glargine in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are starting basal insulin therapy for the first time.

Interventions

Administered SC

DRUGInsulin Glargine

Administered SC

Sponsors

Eli Lilly and Company
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Masking description

Sponsor will be blinded throughout the study.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Have a diagnosis of T2D according to the World Health Organization criteria. * Have an HbA1c of 7.0% to 10.0%, inclusive, at screening. * Are on a stable treatment of at least 1 antihyperglycemic medication, for at least 3 months prior to screening, and willing to continue the stable treatment for the duration of the study. * Are insulin naive Exceptions: * short-term insulin treatment for a maximum of 14 days, prior to screening, and * prior insulin treatment for gestational diabetes.

Exclusion criteria

* Have a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D), latent autoimmune diabetes, or specific type of diabetes other than T2D, for example, monogenic diabetes, diseases of the exocrine pancreas, or drug induced or chemical-induced diabetes. * Have a history of \>1 episode of ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar state or coma requiring hospitalization within 6 months prior to screening. * Have had severe hypoglycemia episodes within 6 months prior to screening. * Have known hemoglobinopathy, hemolytic anemia or sickle cell anemia, or any other traits of hemoglobin abnormalities known to interfere with the measurement of HbA1c. * Have had New York Heart Association Class IV heart failure or any of these cardiovascular conditions within 3 months prior to screening * acute myocardial infarction * cerebrovascular accident (stroke), or * coronary bypass surgery. * Have had gastric bypass (bariatric) surgery, restrictive bariatric surgery, for example Lap-Band, or sleeve gastrectomy within 1 year prior to screening * Have had significant weight gain or loss within 3 months prior to screening, for example, ≥5%.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) [Noninferiority Analysis]Baseline, Week 52HbA1c is the glycated fraction of hemoglobin A. HbA1c is measured to identify average plasma glucose concentration over the last 2-3 months. Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputation approach.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline in Fasting GlucoseBaseline, Week 52Change from baseline in fasting blood glucose measured by self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Variable = Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Baseline + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares).
Basal Insulin Dose at Week 52Week 52The insulin dose was recorded daily or weekly in an electronic diary. The average weekly basal insulin dose at Week 52 was reported. LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA use at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.
Rate Per Year of Hypoglycemia EventsBaseline up to Week 52Rate of Composite Level 2 and 3 Hypoglycemia Events were reported. Hypoglycemia with glucose \<54 mg/dL (Level 2) or Severe Hypoglycemia confirmed by the investigator to be an event that required assistance for treatment (Level 3) was reported. A severe hypoglycemic event is characterized by altered mental or physical status requiring assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions for the treatment of hypoglycemia. Group mean was reported and determined by Negative binomial model using Number of episodes = Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.
Percentage of Participants With Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)Week 52Incidence of hypoglycemic episodes is defined as 100 multiplied by the number of participants experiencing a hypoglycemic episode divided by the number of participants exposed to the study drug. Incidence of Composite Level 2 and 3 Hypoglycemia Events was reported. Hypoglycemic episodes are defined as an event that is associated with reported signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia with glucose \<54 mg/dL (Level 2) or severe hypoglycemia confirmed by the investigator to be an event that required assistance for treatment (Level 3). A severe hypoglycemic event is characterized by altered mental or physical status requiring assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions for the treatment of hypoglycemia.
Rate Per Year of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia EventsBaseline up to Week 52The event rate of participant-reported clinically significant glucose \<54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) or severe nocturnal hypoglycemia that occurs at night and presumably during sleep between midnight and 6:00 AM), measured during treatment period up to week 52. Group mean is reported here. Group mean is determined by Negative Binomial Model using Number of episodes = .Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.
Percentage of Participants With Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)Week 52Incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes is defined as 100 multiplied by the number of participants experiencing a hypoglycemic episode divided by the number of participants exposed to the study drug. Nocturnal hypoglycemia is defined as any hypoglycemic event that occurs between bedtime and waking. The event rate of participant-reported clinically significant glucose \<54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) or severe nocturnal hypoglycemia that occurs at night and presumably during sleep between midnight and 6:00 AM), measured during treatment period up to week 52..
Change From Baseline in HbA1c [Superiority]Baseline, Week 52HbA1c is the glycated fraction of hemoglobin A. HbA1c is measured to identify average plasma glucose concentration over prolonged periods of time. Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputation approach.
Change From Baseline in Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes (TRIM-D) Total ScoreBaseline, Week 52The TRIM-D is a self-administered instrument, which assesses the impact of diabetes treatment on participants' functioning and well-being across available diabetes treatments. The TRIM-D consists of 28 items, each assessed on a 5-point scale. The TRIM-D questionnaire consists of 5 sub-domains. Treatment Burden (6 items) Daily Life (5 items) Diabetes Management (5 items), Compliance (4 items), and Psychological Health (8 items), where each question is scored on a 1-5-point scale with a higher score indicating a better health state (less negative impact). Mean TRIM-D individual sub-domain scores and total scores are later transformed to a 0-100 scale for analysis. LS mean change in scores from baseline to 52 weeks for total score are presented here. LS mean was determined using MMRM model with BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA. Use at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time(Type III sum of squares) as variables.
Change From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Baseline, Week 52The DTSQ-c is a validated, patient-reported questionnaire designed to assess perceived changes in satisfaction with diabetes treatment over time. It is especially useful in clinical trials comparing a new treatment to a previous one. The DTSQ-c includes 8 items, each scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from -3 (Much less satisfied) to +3 (Much more satisfied). A score of 0 indicates no change in perception. This outcome reports three domains: (1) Perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia - lower scores reflect fewer perceived episodes; (2) Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia - lower scores reflect fewer perceived episodes; (3) Treatment satisfaction -Aggregated score from the remaining 6 items assessing satisfaction with treatment, convenience, flexibility, understanding, and willingness to continue. A higher scores indicating greater improvement in satisfaction. Total score range: -18 to +18.
Percentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionWeek 52The SIM-Q is a brief 10-item measure developed to assess the simplicity and complexity of treatment for T2D. This version of the instrument assesses the simplicity and complexity of a single medication. Only the last 2 questions/items of the SIM-Q were completed by the study participants: 1. How simple or complex is your medication treatment for diabetes? 2. Overall, how simple or complex is it to manage your diabetes, including medication, checking your blood glucose levels, diet, and any other aspects of diabetes treatment? Participants were asked to provide responses to the study intervention at Week 52. Each item is scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Very complex to Very simple. Higher scores indicate a more favorable (simpler) treatment experience.
Change From Baseline in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) in Device CharacteristicsBaseline, Week 52DID-EQ is a validated, self-administered, 10-item PRO instrument designed to assess participants' perceptions of diabetes injection delivery systems.This outcome measure reports only the Device Characteristics Subscale, which includes Items 1 through 7. These items evaluate specific features of injection devices such as: * Ease of preparation * Comfort during injection * Portability * Discreetness * Confidence in dose delivery * Ease of learning to use * Satisfaction with device features Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Responses are transformed to a 0-100 scale, where 0 represents most negative perception and 100 represents the most positive perception.Higher scores indicate more favorable perceptions of the injection device. LS Mean determined using ANCOVA model with Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.
Percentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Week 52The DID-EQ is a validated, self-administered, 10-item PRO instrument designed to assess participants' perceptions of diabetes injection delivery systems. This outcome measure specifically reports the summary of DID-EQ scores for the 3 global items: * Item 8: Overall satisfaction with the injection device * Item 9: Ease of use of the injection device * Item 10: Convenience of the injection device Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale: * Strongly Disagree * Disagree * Agree * Strongly Agree Responses are transformed to a 0-100 scale, where: * 0 = Most negative perception * 100 = Most positive perception Higher scores indicate more favorable perceptions of the injection device's global characteristics.
Change From Baseline in Body WeightBaseline, Week 52Change from baseline in body weight was reported. LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Variable = Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Baseline + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares).

Countries

Argentina, Mexico, Puerto Rico, United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Efsitora
Participants received Insulin Efsitora Alfa (insulin efsitora; 500 U/ml) administered subcutaneously (SC) once weekly (QW) for 52 weeks, with titration using fixed-doses 100 U, 150 U, 250 U, and 400 U.
397
Glargine
Participants received Insulin glargine (100 U/ml) administered SC once daily (QD) for 52 weeks with titration by standard sliding-scale dose adjustments.
398
Total795

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAssigned Treatment by Mistake57
Overall StudyDeath33
Overall StudyDue to Bariatric surgery10
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up38
Overall StudyNon-compliance with study drug41
Overall StudyPhysician Decision12
Overall StudyProtocol Deviation21
Overall StudySubject Missed the Schedule10
Overall StudySubject Moving out of State01
Overall StudyThe Patient Moved to Another City10
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject1414

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalEfsitoraGlargine
Age, Continuous56.30 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.84
56.40 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.02
56.20 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.67
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
674 Participants338 Participants336 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
120 Participants59 Participants61 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
HemoglobinA1c (HbA1c)8.24 Percentage of HbA1c
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.99
8.20 Percentage of HbA1c
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.91
8.28 Percentage of HbA1c
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.06
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
213 Participants106 Participants107 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
9 Participants3 Participants6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
23 Participants13 Participants10 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
4 Participants3 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
542 Participants270 Participants272 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Argentina
341 participants170 participants171 participants
Region of Enrollment
Mexico
258 participants129 participants129 participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
196 participants98 participants98 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
397 Participants194 Participants203 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
398 Participants203 Participants195 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
3 / 3973 / 398
other
Total, other adverse events
104 / 397121 / 398
serious
Total, serious adverse events
26 / 39721 / 398

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) [Noninferiority Analysis]

HbA1c is the glycated fraction of hemoglobin A. HbA1c is measured to identify average plasma glucose concentration over the last 2-3 months. Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputation approach.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had HbA1c measurement at baseline or Week 52, excluding participants discontinuing the study treatment due to inadvertent enrollment. All measurements were included regardless of the use of study treatment or rescue medication.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) [Noninferiority Analysis]-1.19 Percentage of HbA1cStandard Error 0.0546
GlargineChange From Baseline in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) [Noninferiority Analysis]-1.16 Percentage of HbA1cStandard Error 0.0545
95% CI: [-0.18, 0.12]ANCOVA
Secondary

Basal Insulin Dose at Week 52

The insulin dose was recorded daily or weekly in an electronic diary. The average weekly basal insulin dose at Week 52 was reported. LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA use at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.

Time frame: Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had evaluable data for this outcome.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraBasal Insulin Dose at Week 52289.1 Units per week (U/week)Standard Error 6.81
GlargineBasal Insulin Dose at Week 52332.8 Units per week (U/week)Standard Error 6.68
Comparison: Week 52p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-62.4, -25]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Body Weight

Change from baseline in body weight was reported. LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Variable = Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Baseline + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline value for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Body Weight3.86 Kilogram (kg)Standard Error 0.19
GlargineChange From Baseline in Body Weight3.29 Kilogram (kg)Standard Error 0.189
p-value: 0.03395% CI: [0.047, 1.1]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) in Device Characteristics

DID-EQ is a validated, self-administered, 10-item PRO instrument designed to assess participants' perceptions of diabetes injection delivery systems.This outcome measure reports only the Device Characteristics Subscale, which includes Items 1 through 7. These items evaluate specific features of injection devices such as: * Ease of preparation * Comfort during injection * Portability * Discreetness * Confidence in dose delivery * Ease of learning to use * Satisfaction with device features Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Responses are transformed to a 0-100 scale, where 0 represents most negative perception and 100 represents the most positive perception.Higher scores indicate more favorable perceptions of the injection device. LS Mean determined using ANCOVA model with Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline value for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) in Device Characteristics91.4 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.71
GlargineChange From Baseline in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) in Device Characteristics89.6 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.71
Comparison: Week 52p-value: 0.07295% CI: [-0.2, 3.8]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)

The DTSQ-c is a validated, patient-reported questionnaire designed to assess perceived changes in satisfaction with diabetes treatment over time. It is especially useful in clinical trials comparing a new treatment to a previous one. The DTSQ-c includes 8 items, each scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from -3 (Much less satisfied) to +3 (Much more satisfied). A score of 0 indicates no change in perception. This outcome reports three domains: (1) Perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia - lower scores reflect fewer perceived episodes; (2) Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia - lower scores reflect fewer perceived episodes; (3) Treatment satisfaction -Aggregated score from the remaining 6 items assessing satisfaction with treatment, convenience, flexibility, understanding, and willingness to continue. A higher scores indicating greater improvement in satisfaction. Total score range: -18 to +18.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline value for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Perceived frequency of hypoglycemia score-1.2 Score on a scaleStandard Error 1.95
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Perceived frequency of hyperglycemia score-1.0 Score on a scaleStandard Error 1.84
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Treatment satisfaction score15.1 Score on a scaleStandard Error 4.57
GlargineChange From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Perceived frequency of hypoglycemia score-1.3 Score on a scaleStandard Error 1.89
GlargineChange From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Perceived frequency of hyperglycemia score-0.9 Score on a scaleStandard Error 1.8
GlargineChange From Baseline in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - Change Version (DTSQ-c)Treatment satisfaction score14.5 Score on a scaleStandard Error 4.73
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Fasting Glucose

Change from baseline in fasting blood glucose measured by self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Variable = Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Baseline + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline value for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Fasting Glucose-46.76 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)Standard Error 2.0797
GlargineChange From Baseline in Fasting Glucose-50.92 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)Standard Error 2.0595
Comparison: Week 52p-value: 0.15595% CI: [-1.58, 9.9]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in HbA1c [Superiority]

HbA1c is the glycated fraction of hemoglobin A. HbA1c is measured to identify average plasma glucose concentration over prolonged periods of time. Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputation approach.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had HbA1c measurement at baseline or Week 52, excluding participants discontinuing the study treatment due to inadvertent enrollment. All measurements were included regardless of the use of study treatment or rescue medication.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in HbA1c [Superiority]-1.19 Percentage of HbA1cStandard Error 0.0546
GlargineChange From Baseline in HbA1c [Superiority]-1.16 Percentage of HbA1cStandard Error 0.0545
p-value: 0.68495% CI: [-0.18, 0.12]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes (TRIM-D) Total Score

The TRIM-D is a self-administered instrument, which assesses the impact of diabetes treatment on participants' functioning and well-being across available diabetes treatments. The TRIM-D consists of 28 items, each assessed on a 5-point scale. The TRIM-D questionnaire consists of 5 sub-domains. Treatment Burden (6 items) Daily Life (5 items) Diabetes Management (5 items), Compliance (4 items), and Psychological Health (8 items), where each question is scored on a 1-5-point scale with a higher score indicating a better health state (less negative impact). Mean TRIM-D individual sub-domain scores and total scores are later transformed to a 0-100 scale for analysis. LS mean change in scores from baseline to 52 weeks for total score are presented here. LS mean was determined using MMRM model with BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA. Use at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time(Type III sum of squares) as variables.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline value for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraChange From Baseline in Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes (TRIM-D) Total Score15.4 Score on a scaleStandard Error 0.608
GlargineChange From Baseline in Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes (TRIM-D) Total Score13.87 Score on a scaleStandard Error 0.607
Comparison: Week 52p-value: 0.07195% CI: [-0.13, 3.25]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Percentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)

The DID-EQ is a validated, self-administered, 10-item PRO instrument designed to assess participants' perceptions of diabetes injection delivery systems. This outcome measure specifically reports the summary of DID-EQ scores for the 3 global items: * Item 8: Overall satisfaction with the injection device * Item 9: Ease of use of the injection device * Item 10: Convenience of the injection device Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale: * Strongly Disagree * Disagree * Agree * Strongly Agree Responses are transformed to a 0-100 scale, where: * 0 = Most negative perception * 100 = Most positive perception Higher scores indicate more favorable perceptions of the injection device's global characteristics.

Time frame: Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had evaluable data for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Disagree)0 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Agree)14.0 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Strongly Agree)84.3 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Strongly disagree)0.3 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Strongly disagree)0.3 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Strongly disagree)0.3 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Disagree)0 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Agree)15.4 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Agree)17.4 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Disagree)0 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Strongly agree)82.3 percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Strongly Agree)85.8 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Strongly agree)78.3 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Strongly disagree)1.2 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Disagree)0.3 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Agree)19.1 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Satisfied with the Injection Device (Strongly Agree)79.4 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Strongly disagree)0.9 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Disagree)0.3 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Agree)17.1 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Easy to Use the Injection Device (Strongly Agree)81.7 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Strongly disagree)1.2 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Disagree)0.3 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants in Treatment Experience in Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) (3-Global Items)Convenient to Use the Injection Device (Agree)20.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status Version

The SIM-Q is a brief 10-item measure developed to assess the simplicity and complexity of treatment for T2D. This version of the instrument assesses the simplicity and complexity of a single medication. Only the last 2 questions/items of the SIM-Q were completed by the study participants: 1. How simple or complex is your medication treatment for diabetes? 2. Overall, how simple or complex is it to manage your diabetes, including medication, checking your blood glucose levels, diet, and any other aspects of diabetes treatment? Participants were asked to provide responses to the study intervention at Week 52. Each item is scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Very complex to Very simple. Higher scores indicate a more favorable (simpler) treatment experience.

Time frame: Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug and had evaluable data for this outcome. Participants who discontinued the study drug due to inadvertent enrollment were excluded.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Complex4.7 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes : A Little Complex16.4 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Simple41.0 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Very Simple36.3 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Very Complex2.5 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Complex0.3 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: A Little Complex6.0 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Simple37.2 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Very Simple53.9 Percentage of participants
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Very Complex1.6 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Simple41.2 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Complex4.8 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Complex1.2 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes : A Little Complex15.5 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Very Complex3.0 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Simple40.3 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: A Little Complex6.6 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - Overall How to Manage Diabetes: Very Simple36.4 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Very Simple48.7 Percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants Reporting Treatment Experience Using the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (SIM-Q) Single Medication Status VersionSIMQF - How Simple or Complex Medication: Very Complex2.4 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)

Incidence of hypoglycemic episodes is defined as 100 multiplied by the number of participants experiencing a hypoglycemic episode divided by the number of participants exposed to the study drug. Incidence of Composite Level 2 and 3 Hypoglycemia Events was reported. Hypoglycemic episodes are defined as an event that is associated with reported signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia with glucose \<54 mg/dL (Level 2) or severe hypoglycemia confirmed by the investigator to be an event that required assistance for treatment (Level 3). A severe hypoglycemic event is characterized by altered mental or physical status requiring assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions for the treatment of hypoglycemia.

Time frame: Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants With Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)25.94 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants With Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)29.90 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)

Incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes is defined as 100 multiplied by the number of participants experiencing a hypoglycemic episode divided by the number of participants exposed to the study drug. Nocturnal hypoglycemia is defined as any hypoglycemic event that occurs between bedtime and waking. The event rate of participant-reported clinically significant glucose \<54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) or severe nocturnal hypoglycemia that occurs at night and presumably during sleep between midnight and 6:00 AM), measured during treatment period up to week 52..

Time frame: Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EfsitoraPercentage of Participants With Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)3.53 percentage of participants
GlarginePercentage of Participants With Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events (Incidence)5.03 percentage of participants
Secondary

Rate Per Year of Hypoglycemia Events

Rate of Composite Level 2 and 3 Hypoglycemia Events were reported. Hypoglycemia with glucose \<54 mg/dL (Level 2) or Severe Hypoglycemia confirmed by the investigator to be an event that required assistance for treatment (Level 3) was reported. A severe hypoglycemic event is characterized by altered mental or physical status requiring assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions for the treatment of hypoglycemia. Group mean was reported and determined by Negative binomial model using Number of episodes = Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraRate Per Year of Hypoglycemia Events0.50 Events per yearStandard Deviation 0.062
GlargineRate Per Year of Hypoglycemia Events0.88 Events per yearStandard Deviation 0.152
p-value: 0.00595% CI: [0.39, 0.84]Negative binomial model
Secondary

Rate Per Year of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events

The event rate of participant-reported clinically significant glucose \<54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) or severe nocturnal hypoglycemia that occurs at night and presumably during sleep between midnight and 6:00 AM), measured during treatment period up to week 52. Group mean is reported here. Group mean is determined by Negative Binomial Model using Number of episodes = .Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: All randomized participants who received at least one dose of the study drug.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EfsitoraRate Per Year of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events0.05 Events per yearStandard Error 0.013
GlargineRate Per Year of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Events0.08 Events per yearStandard Error 0.021
p-value: 0.15595% CI: [0.28, 1.23]Negative binomial model

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026