Precision medicine aims to treat an individual based on their clinical characteristics. A differential drug response, critical to using these features for therapy selection, has never been examined directly in type 2 diabetes. In this study, we tested two hypotheses: (1) individuals with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2, compared to BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2, have greater glucose lowering with thiazolidinediones than with DPP4 inhibitors, and (2) individuals with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-90 ml/min/1.73 m2, compared to eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m2, have greater glucose lowering with DPP4 inhibitors than with SGLT2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint for both hypotheses was the achieved HbA1c difference between strata for the two drugs. In total, 525 people with type 2 diabetes participated in this UK-based randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover trial of 16 weeks of treatment with each of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily added to metformin alone or metformin plus sulfonylurea. Overall, the achieved HbA1c was similar for the three drugs: pioglitazone 59.6 mmol/mol, sitagliptin 60.0 mmol/mol and canagliflozin 60.6 mmol/mol (P = 0.2). Participants with BMI > 30 kg/m2, compared to BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2, had a 2.88 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98, 4.79) lower HbA1c on pioglitazone than on sitagliptin (n = 356, P = 0.003). Participants with eGFR 60-90 ml/min/1.73 m2, compared to eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m2, had a 2.90 mmol/mol (95% CI: 1.19, 4.61) lower HbA1c on sitagliptin than on canagliflozin (n = 342, P = 0.001). There were 2,201 adverse events reported, and 447/525 (85%) randomized participants experienced an adverse event on at least one of the study drugs. In this precision medicine trial in type 2 diabetes, our findings support the use of simple, routinely available clinical measures to identify the drug class most likely to deliver the greatest glycemic reduction for a given patient. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02653209 ; ISRCTN registration: 12039221 .).

Patient preference is very important for medication selection in chronic medical conditions, like type 2 diabetes, where there are many different drugs available. Patient preference balances potential efficacy with potential side effects. As both aspects of drug response can vary markedly between individuals, this decision could be informed by the patient personally experiencing the alternative medications, as occurs in a crossover trial. In the TriMaster (NCT02653209, ISRCTN12039221), randomized double-blind, three-way crossover trial patients received three different second- or third-line once-daily type 2 diabetes glucose-lowering drugs (pioglitazone 30 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg). As part of a prespecified secondary endpoint, we examined patients' drug preference after they had tried all three drugs. In total, 448 participants were treated with all three drugs which overall showed similar glycemic control (HbA1c on pioglitazone 59.5 sitagliptin 59.9, canagliflozin 60.5 mmol mol-1, P = 0.19). In total, 115 patients (25%) preferred pioglitazone, 158 patients (35%) sitagliptin and 175 patients (38%) canagliflozin. The drug preferred by individual patients was associated with a lower HbA1c (mean: 4.6; 95% CI: 3.9, 5.3) mmol mol-1 lower versus nonpreferred) and fewer side effects (mean: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.64) fewer side effects versus nonpreferred). Allocating therapy based on the individually preferred drugs, rather than allocating all patients the overall most preferred drug (canagliflozin), would result in more patients achieving the lowest HbA1c for them (70% versus 30%) and the fewest side effects (67% versus 50%). When precision approaches do not predict a clear optimal therapy for an individual, allowing patients to try potential suitable medications before they choose long-term therapy could be a practical alternative to optimizing treatment for type 2 diabetes.

The newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron sublineages, including the BA.2-derived BA.2.75.2 and the BA.5-derived BQ.1.1 and XBB.1, have accumulated additional spike mutations that may affect vaccine effectiveness. Here we report neutralizing activities of three human serum panels collected from individuals 23-94 days after dose 4 of a parental mRNA vaccine; 14-32 days after a BA.5 bivalent booster from individuals with 2-4 previous doses of parental mRNA vaccine; or 14-32 days after a BA.5 bivalent booster from individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 2-4 doses of parental mRNA vaccine. The results showed that a BA.5 bivalent booster elicited a high neutralizing titer against BA.4/5 measured at 14-32 days after boost; however, the BA.5 bivalent booster did not produce robust neutralization against the newly emerged BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1 or XBB.1. Previous infection substantially enhanced the magnitude and breadth of BA.5 bivalent booster-elicited neutralization. Our data support a vaccine update strategy that future boosters should match newly emerged circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.