The Trulicity Experience

Real patients. Real stories.

Hear from actual Trulicity patients on how Trulicity has impacted the way they manage their type 2 diabetes.

Lynda D.

Actual Trulicity Patient
Play

Indication and Limitations of Use

Trulicity® is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Not recommended as first line therapy for patients inadequately controlled on diet and exercise because of the uncertain relevance of rodent C-cell tumor findings to humans. Prescribe only if potential benefits outweigh potential risks. Has not been studied in patients with a history of pancreatitis; consider another antidiabetic therapy. Not for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus or diabetic ketoacidosis. Not a substitute for insulin. Has not been studied in patients with severe gastrointestinal disease, including severe gastroparesis. Not for patients with pre-existing severe gastrointestinal disease.

Important Safety Information

WARNING: RISK OF THYROID C-CELL TUMORS

In male and female rats, dulaglutide causes a dose related and treatment-duration-dependent increase in the incidence of thyroid C cell tumors (adenomas and carcinomas) after lifetime exposure. It is unknown whether Trulicity causes thyroid C cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC), in humans as human relevance of dulaglutide induced rodent thyroid C cell tumors has not been determined.

Trulicity is contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of MTC and in patients with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia syndrome type 2 (MEN 2). Counsel patients regarding the potential risk of MTC with use of Trulicity and inform them of symptoms of thyroid tumors (eg, mass in the neck, dysphagia, dyspnea, persistent hoarseness). Routine monitoring of serum calcitonin or using thyroid ultrasound is of uncertain value for early detection of MTC in patients treated with Trulicity.

Could Trulicity change the way patients think about starting a new treatment?

Consider an option that can help address a patient’s preconceived notions1-4

*In placebo-controlled clinical studies, the incidence of hypoglycemia was 0.3%-2.1% for the 0.75 mg dose and 0%-14.7% for the 1.5 mg dose. Severe hypoglycemia was reported at an incidence of 0.7% in two studies, in the 0.75 mg dose group in one study and in the 1.5 mg dose group in the other study.1

The risk of hypoglycemia is increased when Trulicity is used in combination with insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylureas) or insulin. Patients may require a lower dose of sulfonylurea or insulin to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

[Icons of the Trulicity benefits: once weekly, pre-attached hidden needle, preset dose, low incidence of hypoglycemia]

What would help patients be more willing and able to administer treatment once they leave the office?

Trulicity offers patients1,2:
No fasting
No waiting to eat
No attaching a needle
No priming or checking the flow of the pen


Preparation2

  • Check the pen to be sure it is not expired or damaged and that the medicine is not cloudy, discolored, or has particles in it
  • Choose an area for injection (abdomen or thigh), being sure to choose a different site (even within an area) each week

Key administration steps2

1
Uncap the pen
2
Place and unlock
3
Press and hold

Disposal2

  • Dispose of the pen in a closeable puncture-resistant container and not in household trash

Please review the full Instructions for Use with your patients to ensure they understand how to properly administer Trulicity.

Can a simple administration experience help patients continue on your treatment plan?

[99% injected successfully, 98% found the Trulicity Pen convenient to self-inject, 99% reported the Trulicity Pen was easy/very easy to use]
[97% were willing to continue using the Trulicity Pen]
  • Phase 3b, multicenter, single-arm, outpatient study on the safe and effective use of the Trulicity single-dose pen [SDP] in patients with type 2 diabetes who were naïve to self-injection and injecting others (n=214)
  • The primary objective of a success rate significantly greater than 80% at the fourth weekly injection was met. 99.1% [95% CI: 96.6% to 99.7%] (n=209) of patients successfully completed each step in the sequence of drug administration after proper self-injection training at baseline
  • Limitations include the administration of placebo rather than active drug product and the willingness of injection-naïve patients to self-inject, which may not be entirely representative of an injection-naïve type 2 diabetes patient population. The patients in this study with fairly well-controlled type 2 diabetes may not be entirely representative of an injection-naïve population progressing to injectable therapy. In clinical practice, patient training on self-injection with the single-dose pen may differ from the method in this study
  • After the final self-injection, patients completed an 8-item experience module (secondary endpoint). 206 (98.1%) out of 210 patients agreed or strongly agreed that it was convenient to take injections with the single-dose pen
  • After the final self-injection, patients completed a 12-item ease of use module (secondary endpoint). 208 (99%) out of 210 patients reported that overall, single dose pen was “easy” or “very easy” to use

After being trained on both pens, patients preferred the Trulicity Pen experience over that of Ozempic®6

84% of patients preferred the Trulicity Pen

[Bar chart: Trulicity Pen with 84% and Ozempic device with 12%]

These data make no representation or conclusion as to the factors contributing to patient preference.
These data do not establish clinical comparability of the products for any indications and should not be seen as making any claim regarding efficacy or safety.


More willing to use. Easier pen experience. More convenient.

Among 310 injection-naïve patients6

  • More than twice as many patients were willing to use the Trulicity Pen than the Ozempic pen after being trained on the devices
    • Before training, 65% of patients were very willing or somewhat willing to use an injectable diabetes medication
    • After being trained, 94% of patients were very willing or somewhat willing to use the Trulicity Pen; 46% of patients were very willing or somewhat willing to use the Ozempic pen
  • More than 8 out of 10 patients found the Trulicity Pen:
    • Easier to use than the Ozempic pen (87% vs 7%, P<.0001)
    • More convenient to use than the Ozempic pen (86% vs 8%)
  • In an exploratory analysis of 78 patients, training patients to use the Trulicity Pen took less than half the time of the Ozempic pen (3 minutes vs 8 minutes)

Study Descriptions

Preference between the Trulicity pen and Ozempic pen

  • Open‐label, multicenter, randomized, crossover study to evaluate patient preference between the Trulicity Pen and the Ozempic pen among adults with type 2 diabetes who were naïve to self‐injecting and injecting others (N=310)
  • Patients read and were trained on the Instructions for Use for each device containing the lowest available dose of medication prior to administering mock injections into an injection pad. After using both devices, patients reported which device they preferred (primary endpoint) and completed a 10‐item preference questionnaire. Patients completed questions on willingness to use before device trainings and after using the devices
  • Primary outcome: Difference in preference between two devices measured by global preference item “Overall which device do you prefer”
  • Limitations include the use of injection pads rather than actual injections and the participants used each device only one time
  • Secondary outcome controlled for multiplicity testing: Patients “preferred” or “strongly preferred” overall ease of using the device measured by item 9 of the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire
  • Exploratory objective: Patients “preferred” or “strongly preferred” overall convenience of using the device measured by item 10 of the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire
  • Exploratory objective: Patients responded to supplemental questions on willingness to use the device in administered survey
  • Exploratory objective: Time to train was assessed on a subset of patients (N=78). The patients were timed from the start of training, with time to ask questions, until successful completion of an injection into an injection pad

Indication and Important Safety Information 
WARNING: POTENTIAL RISK OF THYROID TUMORS INCLUDING THYROID CANCER

Indication and Important Safety Information 
WARNING: POTENTIAL RISK OF THYROID TUMORS INCLUDING THYROID CANCER

Back to top