Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2025; 20(S 01): S101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1807559
Abstracts | DDG 2025
Poster
Posterwalk 15: Sonstige Themen

Differences in weight reduction efficacy of tirzepatide in adults without versus with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity in SURMOUNT 1 and 2

Authors

  • R J Galindo

    1   University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Medicine, Miami, Florida, United States
  • W T Garvey

    2   UAB Diabetes Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Nutrition Sciences, Birmingham, AL, United States
  • L M Neff

    3   Eli Lilly and Company, Global Medical Affairs-Obesity, Indianapolis, United States
  • A Stefanski

    4   Eli Lilly and Company, CWM Development, Indianapolis, United States
  • D Cao

    5   Eli Lilly and Company, Statistics, Indianapolis, United States
  • C Lee

    6   Eli Lilly and Company, Obesity/NILEX, Indianapolis, United States
  • T Forst

    7   CRS Clinical Research Services, CRS Clinical Research Services, Mannheim, Germany
 

What was the weight reduction (WR) efficacy observed with tirzepatide (TZP) in participants with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes (T2D, SURMOUNT (SM)-1) compared to with T2D (SM-2) after matching key baseline characteristics, given the higher WR efficacy with obesity treatment observed in people without T2D compared to people with T2D?

Methods: Propensity score matching was used to create a balanced cohort of participants from SM-1 (excluding TZP 5 mg) and SM-2 (excluding those on sulfonylurea or pioglitazone), matched by age, gender, weight, BMI, antidepressant use or depression, and obesity-related comorbidities (ORCs). MMRM was performed to compare the percent of WR at Week 72 between the groups.

Results: At baseline, SM-2 cohort was on average older with more males, lower weight, higher HbA1c and higher comorbidity burden, compared to SM-1. The differences in WR remained after balancing baseline characteristics in the propensity matched sample (mean age 51.6 vs 53.9 yrs, females 55% vs 55%, weight 103.3 vs 99.5 kg and≥2 ORCs 85% vs 85%).

Conclusion: The differences in WR efficacy with TZP between the SM-1 and SM-2 studies persisted after matching key baseline characteristics suggesting additional contributing factors.



Publication History

Article published online:
28 May 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany