Use of once-daily oral semaglutide and associated clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice in Canada: A multicentre, prospective real-world study (PIONEER REAL Canada).

AIM: PIONEER REAL Canada examined real-world clinical outcomes associated with the use of once-daily oral semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 34- to 44-week, multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-interventional study in adults who were treatment-naive to injectable glucose-lowering medication and initiated oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of the study (EoS). Secondary endpoints assessed at EoS were change from baseline in body weight (BW); the proportion of participants reaching HbA1c levels <7% and the composite endpoints, HbA1c reduction ≥1% point with BW reduction ≥3% and ≥5%; and treatment satisfaction measured using Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires (DTSQ) status and change. Primary analyses were based on the in-study observation period. RESULTS: In total, 182 participants initiated oral semaglutide (mean age, 58.6 years; HbA1c, 8.0%; BW, 93.7 kg). The estimated changes (95% confidence interval) from baseline to EoS in HbA1c and BW were -1.09% points (-1.24, -0.94; p < .0001) and -7.17% (-8.24, -6.11; p < .0001), respectively. At EoS, 53.7% of participants had HbA1c levels <7%; 39.3% and 31.6% reached HbA1c reduction ≥1% point plus BW reduction ≥3% and ≥5%, respectively. Treatment satisfaction significantly increased (DTSQ status, +4.47 points; DTSQ change, 11.83 points; both p < .0001). At EoS, 75.3% of participants remained on oral semaglutide (55.5% received oral semaglutide 14 mg). No new safety signals were identified for oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In PIONEER REAL Canada, participants treated with oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice experienced clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c and BW and increased treatment satisfaction.

A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of oral semaglutide in healthy Chinese subjects.

AIM: The trial (NCT04016974) investigated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of oral semaglutide, the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue for type 2 diabetes, in healthy Chinese subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-centre, multiple-dose, placebo-controlled trial randomized 32 healthy Chinese adults to once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg escalating to 14 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. Blood samples were collected regularly during treatment and follow-up. The primary endpoint was the area under the semaglutide concentration-time curve over a dosing interval (0-24 h) at steady state (AUC0-24h,sema,SS). Secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints included the maximum observed semaglutide plasma concentration at steady state (Cmax,sema,SS). Supportive secondary pharmacodynamics endpoints included changes in body weight and fasting plasma glucose. RESULTS: Treatment with all oral semaglutide doses showed dose-dependent increases in semaglutide exposure in healthy Chinese subjects at steady state, determined by AUC0-24h,sema,SS (233, 552 and 1288 h·nmol/L for 3, 7 and 14 mg of oral semaglutide, respectively) and Cmax,sema,SS. Oral semaglutide treatment was associated with significant reductions in body weight (p = .0001) and fasting plasma glucose (p = .0011) versus placebo at the end of treatment. The safety and tolerability of oral semaglutide were consistent with the known profile of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, with no severe or blood-glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic events, serious adverse events or deaths. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: At steady state, oral semaglutide exposure was dose dependent and close to dose proportionality in healthy Chinese subjects. This is consistent with previous clinical pharmacology results for oral semaglutide.

Effect of albiglutide on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults: A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To analyse the effects of albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease who participated in the Harmony Outcomes trial (NCT02465515). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the primary endpoint of the Harmony Outcomes trial-time to first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event-in subgroups of participants aged <65 and ≥65 years and <75 and ≥75 years at baseline. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The analysis population included 9462 Harmony Outcomes participants, including 4748 patients ≥65 and 1140 patients ≥75 years at baseline. Hazard ratios for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) in persons <65 and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.71-1.04) in those ≥65 years (age interaction p = .07), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.91) in <75 and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01) in ≥75 year age groups (interaction p = .6). When analysed as a continuous variable, age did not modify the effect of albiglutide on the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis adds to the body of literature showing that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists added to standard type 2 diabetes therapy safely reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in older adults with established cardiovascular disease. In this analysis, the risk-benefit profile was similar between younger and older age groups treated with albiglutide.

Separate and combined effects of empagliflozin and semaglutide on vascular function: A 32-week randomized trial.

AIM: Despite the increasing use of combination treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, data are limited on the effects of combination treatment on markers of cardiovascular disease. This study aimed to investigate the effect of empagliflozin, semaglutide, and their combination on vascular function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 120 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized into four groups (n = 30 in each) for 32 weeks: placebo, semaglutide, empagliflozin, and their combination. The study had two co-primary outcomes: change in arterial stiffness and kidney oxygenation. This paper reports on arterial stiffness assessed as carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity. Secondary outcomes included 24-h blood pressure (BP), 24-h central BP, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio and glycaemic control assessed by both continuous glucose monitoring and glycated haemoglobin. RESULTS: The carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity did not change significantly in any of the groups compared with placebo. Twenty-four-hour systolic BP was reduced by 10 mmHg (95% CI 6-14), p < .001 in the combination group, significantly superior to both placebo and monotherapy (p < .05). Combination treatment increased glycaemic time in range from 72% at baseline to 91% at week 32, p < .001, without increasing time below range. The urinary albumin to creatinine ratio decreased by 36% (95% CI 4-57), p = .03 in the combination group compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin, semaglutide, or their combination did not reduce arterial stiffness. Combination treatment showed a substantial and clinically important reduction in 24-h systolic BP compared with either treatment alone. Combination treatment increased glycaemic time in range without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

iGlarLixi versus basal plus Rapid-Acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliSimplify Real-World study.

AIM: For people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin (BI), guidelines recommend several treatment advancement options. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of once-daily iGlarLixi versus a multiple-injection BI + rapid acting insulin (RAI) regimen in adults with T2D advancing from BI therapy in real-world clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) database were analysed retrospectively using propensity score matching to compare therapy advancement with iGlarLixi or BI + RAI in US adults ≥18 years with T2D on BI who had ≥1 valid glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. The primary objective was non-inferiority of iGlarLixi to BI + RAI in HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months (margin 0.3%). RESULTS: Propensity score matching generated cohorts with balanced baseline characteristics (N = 814 in each group). HbA1c reduction from baseline to 6 months with iGlarLixi was non-inferior to BI + RAI [mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)%; one-sided p = .0032]. At 6 months, weight gain was significantly lower with iGlarLixi than with BI + RAI [-0.8 (-1.3, -0.2) kg; two-sided p = .0069]. Achievement of HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia and weight gain were similar between groups [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.15 (0.81, 1.63); p = .4280]. Hypoglycaemia was low in both groups, probably because of underreporting. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice, glycaemic outcomes 6 months after treatment advancement from BI are similar for people with T2D using iGlarLixi versus BI + RAI, with iGlarLixi leading to less weight gain.

INnoVative trial design for testing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of 6-month treatment with incretin-based therapy to prevent type 1 DIAbetes in autoantibody positive participants: A protocol for three parallel double-blind, randomised controlled trials (INVESTDIA).

AIMS: ß-cell stress and dysfunction may contribute to islet autoimmunity and progression to clinical type 1 diabetes. We present a protocol of three randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP - 1) analogue liraglutide in three early stages of type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We will test 10- to 30-year-old people with multiple islet autoantibodies for their glucose metabolism and randomise participants with stage 1 (multiple islet autoantibodies and normoglycaemia), stage 2 (multiple islet autoantibodies and dysglycaemia) and early stage 3 (clinical diagnosis) type 1 diabetes, 10-14 persons in each, to a 6-month intervention with liraglutide or placebo with 6-month follow-up in the stage 2 and stage 3 trials and 18-month follow-up in the stage 1 trial. Primary efficacy outcome in the stage 1 and stage 2 trials is a first-phase insulin response in an intravenous glucose tolerance test and C-peptide area under the curve in a 2-h mixed-meal tolerance test in the stage 3 trial. In addition, safety and tolerability of liraglutide treatment will be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Most prevention trials of type 1 diabetes have targeted the immune system. Treatment with GLP-1 analogue liraglutide supports the pancreatic ß-cells, which should likewise attenuate islet autoimmunity. Our innovative study design allows simultaneous investigation of an intervention in three groups of people who represent various early stages of type 1 diabetes and maximises the eligibility to participate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02611232 (stage 1 trial), NCT02898506 (stage 2 trial), NCT02908087 (stage 3 trial).

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide by baseline age in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the PIONEER 9 and 10 Japan trials.

A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the PIONEER 9 and 10 trials evaluated the effect of baseline age (<65 and ≥65 years) on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. In PIONEER 9 and 10, patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide (3, 7 or 14 mg) or a comparator (placebo or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 0.9 mg [PIONEER 9]; once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0.75 mg [PIONEER 10]) for 52 weeks, with 5 weeks' follow-up. In total, 701 patients were included (PIONEER 9: N = 243; PIONEER 10: N = 458). Glycaemic efficacy of oral semaglutide was similar in Japanese patients aged <65 years compared with those ≥65 years, and there did not appear to be a clear pattern between age subgroup and body weight changes. Across treatment arms, adverse events generally occurred in greater proportions of patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years. There was generally a higher rate of premature trial product discontinuation because of adverse events in the older age group. These results indicate that oral semaglutide is efficacious in Japanese patients irrespective of age.

Oral semaglutide for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and grey literature sources up to July 1, 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral semaglutide with placebo or other antidiabetic agents. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline in body weight and blood pressure, cardiovascular endpoints, severe hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events and diabetic retinopathy. We synthesized results using weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 9890 patients in the systematic review. Compared with placebo, oral semaglutide reduced HbA1c and body weight (WMD -0.89%, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.71 and - 2.99 kg, 95% CI -3.69 to -2.30, respectively). Oral semaglutide was also superior to other active comparators (including liraglutide, empagliflozin and sitaglipitin) in terms of lowering HbA1c (WMD -0.35%, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.26) and reduction of body weight (WMD -1.48 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.67), and had a favourable effect on systolic blood pressure. Compared with placebo, oral semaglutide reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.92) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.98), and had a neutral effect on myocardial infarction, stroke, severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic retinopathy. However, treatment with oral semaglutide increased the incidence of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, while events of acute pancreatitis were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide can effectively and safely reduce blood glucose, body weight and systolic blood pressure. Nevertheless, it is associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Further research is needed to clarify its long-term safety and comparative effectiveness against other antidiabetic agents.

Prediction and validation of exenatide risk marker effects on progression of renal disease: Insights from EXSCEL.

AIM: To assess whether the previously developed multivariable risk prediction framework (PRE score) could predict the renal effects observed in the EXSCEL cardiovascular outcomes trial using short-term changes in cardio-renal risk markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Changes from baseline to 6 months in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), haemoglobin, total cholesterol, and new micro- or macroalbuminuria were evaluated. The renal outcomes were defined as a composite of a sustained 30% or 40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Relationships between risk markers and long-term renal outcomes were determined in patients with type 2 diabetes from the ALTITUDE study using multivariable Cox regression analysis, and then applied to short-term changes in risk markers observed in EXSCEL to predict the exenatide-induced impact on renal outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, mean HbA1c, BMI, SBP and total cholesterol were lower at 6 months with exenatide, as was the incidence of new microalbuminuria. The PRE score predicted a relative risk reduction for the 30% eGFR decline + ESRD endpoint of 11.3% (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.94), compared with 12.7% (HR 0.87; 0.77-0.99) observed risk reduction. For the 40% eGFR decline + ESRD endpoint, the predicted and observed risk reductions were 11.0% (HR 0.89; 0.82-0.97) and 13.7% (HR 0.86, 0.72-1.04), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating short-term risk marker changes into a multivariable risk score predicted the magnitude of renal risk reduction observed in EXSCEL.

Semaglutide (SUSTAIN and PIONEER) reduces cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes across varying cardiovascular risk.

AIM: To investigate the effects of semaglutide versus comparators on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular [CV] death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI] and nonfatal stroke) and hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in the SUSTAIN (subcutaneous semaglutide) and PIONEER (oral semaglutide) trials across subgroups of varying CV risk. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of individual patient-level data combined from SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 were performed to assess MACE and HF. MACE were analysed in subjects with and without: established CV disease and/or chronic kidney disease; prior MI or stroke; and prior HF. MACE in the SUSTAIN and PIONEER glycaemic efficacy trials were also assessed. RESULTS: In SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 combined, the hazard ratio (HR) for effect of semaglutide versus placebo on overall MACE was 0.76 (95% CI 0.62, 0.92), which was mainly driven by the effect on nonfatal stroke (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.43, 0.97]). The HR for hospitalization for HF was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75, 1.40). The HRs for MACE were <1.0 in all subgroups, except for those with prior HF (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.72, 1.57]); P-values for interaction of subgroup on treatment effect were >0.05, except for HF (0.046). In the combined glycaemic efficacy trials, the HR for effect of semaglutide versus comparators on MACE was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55, 1.33). CONCLUSIONS: In SUSTAIN and PIONEER combined, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue semaglutide showed consistent effects on MACE versus comparators across varying CV risk. No effect of semaglutide on MACE was observed in subjects with prior HF.

Enrolment criteria for diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials do not inform on generalizability to clinical practice: The case of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

AIM: To evaluate the generalizability of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), we assessed what proportion of real-world patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) constitute true CVOT-like populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied inclusion/exclusion (I/E) criteria of each GLP-1RA CVOT to a cross-sectional database of 281 380 T2D patients from Italian diabetes outpatient clinics. We calculated the proportion of patients eligible for each CVOT and compared their clinical characteristics with those of trial patients. In addition, we used a Bayesian network-based method to sample the greatest subsets of real-world patients yielding true CVOT-like populations. RESULTS: Between 98 725 and 124 164 T2D patients could be evaluated for CVOT eligibility. After excluding patients who were already on GLP-1RAs and applying I/E criteria, 35.8% of patients would be eligible for REWIND, 34.1% for PIONEER-6, 13.4% for EXSCEL, 10.1% for SUSTAIN-6, 9.5% for HARMONY and 9.4% for LEADER. Overall, 45.4% of patients could be eligible for at least one of the CVOTs. These patients, however, were extremely different to trial patients in most of the clinical characteristics, including demographics, concomitant medications and complications. The greatest CVOT-like subsets of real-world patients were 0.5% for SUSTAIN-6, 1.0% for EXSCEL, 1.2% for LEADER, 1.8% for PIONEER-6 and 7.9% for REWIND. CONCLUSIONS: A very small proportion of real-world patients constitute true CVOT-like populations. These findings question whether any meaningful information can be drawn from applying trial enrolment criteria to real-world T2D patients.

Comparison of lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin vs other insulin regimens for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by basal insulin: Systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lixisenatide combined with basal insulin (BI) vs intensive premix insulin (premix), BI plus prandial insulin with the main meal (basal-plus) or progressively covering all meals (basal-bolus) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by BI, and the long-term cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1998 and 2018 were systematically searched. The clinical efficacy and safety of each treatment were compared by network meta-analysis (NMA). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients treated with different strategies. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were finally included. Lixisenatide plus BI showed a similar reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus. There were significant differences in the change of body weight in favour of lixisenatide plus BI compared with the three insulin regimens. The risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia of lixisenatide plus BI was significantly lower compared with premix and basal-bolus. Lixisenatide plus BI was cost-effective compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Chinese yuan (CNY) 87 219, 48 173 and 48 670 per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide plus BI shows a similar HbA1c reduction compared with insulin regimens, accompanied by lower risk of hypoglycaemia and greater body weight reduction. It is a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by BI in China.

Benefits of insulin degludec/liraglutide are maintained even in patients discontinuing sulphonylureas or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors upon initiation of degludec/liraglutide therapy: A post hoc analysis of the DUAL II and DUAL IX trials.

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of initiating insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had discontinued pretrial sulphonylureas (SUs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) versus patients not previously treated with these regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In DUAL II, patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and metformin ± SU/glinides were randomized to insulin degludec or IDegLira (both capped at 50 U). In DUAL IX, patients were randomized to insulin glargine U100 (no maximum dose) or IDegLira, as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors ± oral antidiabetic drugs. In this post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to pretrial use of SU (DUAL II) or DPP4i (DUAL IX). RESULTS: Regardless of pretrial SU/DPP4i use, IDegLira was favourable versus insulin comparators with respect to change in HbA1c and body weight. Lower hypoglycaemia rates and comparable end-of-trial daily insulin dose were achieved with IDegLira, regardless of pretrial regimen. There was no clinically relevant increase in mean self-measured blood glucose in the early weeks after IDegLira initiation. There was no statistically significant interaction between the randomized treatments and previous SU/DPP4i use. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira was more favourable compared with degludec or glargine U100 in terms of change in HbA1c and body weight, regardless of antecedent treatment. Clinicians should be aware of a potential transient rise in self-measured blood glucose when transitioning therapy in patients. This shows that SUs/DPP4is can be safely discontinued, without deterioration in glycaemic control when initiating IDegLira, allowing a simplified treatment regimen.

Efficacy and tolerability of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in patients with type 2 diabetes: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate different dose-escalation regimens.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of tirzepatide treatment using three different dose-escalation regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or placebo. The tirzepatide dose groups and dose-escalation regimens were: 12 mg (4 mg weeks 0-3; 8 mg weeks 4-7; 12 mg weeks 8-11), 15 mg-1 (2.5 mg weeks 0-1; 5 mg weeks 2-3; 10 mg weeks 4-7; 15 mg weeks 8-11) and 15 mg-2 (2.5 mg weeks 0-3; 7.5 mg weeks 4-7; 15 mg weeks 8-11). The primary objective was to compare tirzepatide with placebo in HbA1c change from baseline at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 111 patients were randomized: placebo, 26; tirzepatide 12 mg, 29; tirzepatide 15 mg-1, 28; tirzepatide 15 mg-2, 28. The mean age was 57.4 years, HbA1c 8.4% and body mass index 31.9 kg/m2 . At week 12, absolute HbA1c change from baseline (SE) was greater in the tirzepatide treatment groups compared with placebo (placebo, +0.2% [0.21]; 12 mg, -1.7% [0.19]; 15 mg-1, -2.0% [0.20]; 15 mg-2, -1.8% [0.19]). The incidence of nausea was: placebo, 7.7%; 12 mg group, 24.1%; 15 mg-1 group, 39.3%; 15 mg-2 group, 35.7%. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse events, one from each of the placebo, 12 mg and 15 mg-1 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide treatment for 12 weeks resulted in clinically significant reductions in HbA1c. This suggests that lower starting doses and smaller dose increments are associated with a more favourable side effect profile.

Impact of baseline characteristics and beta-cell function on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide: A patient-level, pooled analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of relevant patient-level characteristics on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous, once-weekly semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exploratory post hoc analyses of pooled SUSTAIN 1-5 (phase 3a) randomized, controlled trials examined the change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportions of subjects achieving the composite endpoint (HbA1c < 7.0% [53 mmol/mol]), without weight gain or severe/blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia at week 30 with semaglutide (0.5/1.0 mg) across clinically relevant patient subgroups: baseline HbA1c (≤7.5%, >7.5%-8.0%, >8.0%-8.5%, >8.5%-9.0% and > 9.0%), background medications, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (% point) reductions increased from lowest to highest HbA1c subgroups (-0.9%, -1.2%,-1.5%, -1.7% and -2.3% [effect of subgroup within treatment: P = 0.247] for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and -1.1%, -1.4%, -1.9%, -2.1% and -2.7% [P = 0.045] for semaglutide 1.0 mg), with mean HbA1c ranges at week 30 of 6.3%-7.3% and 6.1%-6.9%, respectively. The corresponding BW reductions generally decreased with increasing baseline HbA1c (-4.4, -3.9, -3.9, -3.3 and -2.9 kg [P = 0.004], and -6.4, -5.9, -5.2, -4.5 and -4.8 kg [P < 0.001], respectively). HbA1c and BW reductions were consistently greater for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus 0.5 mg across background medication, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function subgroups. Adverse events with semaglutide were consistent with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class, with gastrointestinal events the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was consistently efficacious across the continuum of diabetes care in a broad spectrum of patient subgroups with a range of clinical characteristics.

Randomised, phase 1, dose-finding study of MEDI4166, a PCSK9 antibody and GLP-1 analogue fusion molecule, in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. MEDI4166 is a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) antibody and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue fusion molecule designed to treat patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for cardiovascular disease. In this completed, first-in-human study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of single or multiple doses of MEDI4166 in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 1 study that was conducted across 11 clinics in the USA, eligible adults had type 2 diabetes, a BMI of ≥25 kg/m2 to ≤42 kg/m2, and LDL-cholesterol levels ≥1.81 mmol/l. Participants were randomised 3:1 to receive MEDI4166 or placebo using an interactive voice/web response system, which blinded all participants, investigators and study site personnel to the study drug administered. In 'Part A' of the study, five cohorts of participants received a single s.c. injection of MEDI4166 at 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg or 400 mg, or placebo. 'Part B' of the study consisted of three cohorts of participants who received an s.c. dose of MEDI4166 once weekly for 5 weeks at 50 mg, 200 mg or 400 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint in Part A was safety. The co-primary endpoints in Part B were change in LDL-cholesterol levels and area under the plasma glucose concentration-time curve (AUC0-4h) post-mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) from baseline to day 36. The pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of MEDI4166 were also evaluated. RESULTS: MEDI4166 or placebo was administered to n = 30 or n = 10 participants, respectively, in Part A of the study, and n = 48 or n = 15 participants, respectively, in Part B. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between MEDI4166 and placebo in both Part A (60% vs 50%) and Part B (79% vs 87%) of the study. Common TEAEs with MEDI4166 included injection-site reactions, diarrhoea and headache; there was no evidence for dose-related increases in TEAEs. In Part B of the study, at all tested doses of MEDI4166, there was a significant decrease in LDL-cholesterol levels vs placebo (least squares mean [95% CI]; MEDI4166 50 mg, -1.25 [-1.66, -0.84]; MEDI4166 200 mg, -1.97 [-2.26, -1.68]; MEDI4166 400 mg, -1.96 [-2.23, -1.70]; placebo, -0.03 [-0.35, 0.28]; all p < 0.0001). However, there were no clinically relevant reductions or significant differences between MEDI4166 vs placebo in glucose AUC0-4h post-MMTT (least squares mean [95% CI]; MEDI4166 50 mg, -10.86 [-17.69, -4.02]; MEDI4166 200 mg, -4.23 [-8.73, 0.28]; MEDI4166 400 mg, -2.59 [-7.14, 1.95]; placebo, -4.84 [-9.95, 0.28]; all p > 0.05). MEDI4166 was associated with a pharmacokinetic profile supportive of weekly dosing and an overall treatment-induced anti-drug antibody-positive rate of 22%. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: MEDI4166 was associated with an acceptable tolerability profile and significantly decreased LDL-cholesterol levels in a dose-dependent manner in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes. However, there were no significant reductions in postprandial glucose levels at any dose of MEDI4166. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524782 FUNDING: This study was funded by MedImmune LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

Long-term efficacy and safety of combined insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 therapy: Evidence from the LEADER trial.

AIM: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and insulin combination therapy is an effective treatment option for type 2 diabetes, but long-term data are lacking. The aim was to assess the long-term efficacy of the GLP-1RA liraglutide in subgroups by insulin use in the LEADER trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEADER assessed cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of liraglutide (1.8 mg) versus placebo (plus standard of care therapy) in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of CV disease, for up to 5 years. We analyzed CV events, metabolic parameters and hypoglycaemia post hoc in three subgroups by baseline insulin use (basal-only insulin, other insulin or no insulin). Insulin was a non-random treatment allocation as part of standard of care therapy. RESULTS: At baseline, 5171 (55%) patients were not receiving insulin, 3159 (34%) were receiving basal-only insulin and 1010 (11%) other insulins. Insulin users had a longer diabetes duration and slightly worse glycaemic control (HbA1c) than the no-insulin subgroup. Liraglutide reduced HbA1c and weight versus placebo in all three subgroups (P < .001), and severe hypoglycaemia rate in the basal-only insulin subgroup. The need for insulin was less with liraglutide. CV risk reduction with liraglutide was similar to the main trial results in the basal-only and no-insulin subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on insulin, liraglutide improved glycaemic control, weight and need for insulin versus placebo, for at least 36 months with no increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia, while maintaining CV safety/efficacy, supporting the combination of liraglutide and insulin for management of type 2 diabetes.

Improved treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly semaglutide in the SUSTAIN trials.

AIM: To investigate treatment satisfaction with semaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus placebo/active comparators in the SUSTAIN clinical trial programme. METHODS: In SUSTAIN 2-5 and 7, the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire was used to evaluate patient-perceived treatment satisfaction, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. Post hoc subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the effects of gastrointestinal adverse events (GI AEs), weight loss (≥5%) or achieving glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%) targets on treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall treatment satisfaction increased from baseline to end of treatment with all treatments across trials. Improvements were significantly greater with semaglutide versus comparators/placebo in SUSTAIN 2-5 (all P < 0.05), and generally greater in patients who achieved versus did not achieve weight loss and glycaemic targets, often with greater improvements with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus comparator/placebo in both weight loss groups. In SUSTAIN 7, improvements in overall treatment satisfaction were generally similar between semaglutide and dulaglutide, irrespective of weight loss or glycaemic control. In SUSTAIN 7, changes in overall treatment satisfaction score were generally lower in patients with versus without GI AEs at week 16 (except dulaglutide 0.75 mg), but similar by week 40. Perceived hyperglycaemia was significantly reduced from baseline to end of treatment with semaglutide versus all comparators/placebo (all P < 0.05). No differences between treatments were observed for perceived hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was associated with significantly greater (SUSTAIN 2-5) or similar (SUSTAIN 7) improvements in overall treatment satisfaction versus comparators/placebo. Improvements in overall treatment satisfaction were generally greater in patients achieving versus not achieving treatment targets. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2), NCT01885208 (SUSTAIN 3), NCT02128932 (SUSTAIN 4), NCT02305381 (SUSTAIN 5) and NCT02648204 (SUSTAIN 7). EudraCT: 2012-004827-19 (SUSTAIN 2), 2012-004826-92 (SUSTAIN 3), 2013-004392-12 (SUSTAIN 4), 2013-004502-26 (SUSTAIN 5) and 2014-005375-91 (SUSTAIN 7).

Evolution of pharmacological obesity treatments: focus on adverse side-effect profiles.

Pharmacotherapy directed toward reducing body weight may provide benefits for both curbing obesity and lowering the risk of obesity-associated comorbidities; however, many weight loss medications have been withdrawn from the market because of serious adverse effects. Examples include pulmonary hypertension (aminorex), cardiovascular toxicity, e.g. flenfluramine-induced valvopathy, stroke [phenylpropanolamine (PPA)], excess non-fatal cardiovascular events (sibutramine), and neuro-psychiatric issues (rimonabant; approved in Europe, but not in the USA). This negative experience has helped mould the current drug development and approval process for new anti-obesity drugs. Differences between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency, however, in perceptions of risk-benefit considerations for individual drugs have resulted in discrepancies in approval and/or withdrawal of weight-reducing medications. Thus, two drugs recently approved by the FDA, i.e. lorcaserin and phentermine + topiramate extended release, are not available in Europe. In contrast, naltrexone sustained release (SR)/bupropion SR received FDA approval, and liraglutide 3.0 mg was recently approved in both the USA and Europe. Regulatory strategies adopted by the FDA to manage the potential for uncommon but potentially serious post-marketing toxicity include: (i) risk evaluation and mitigation strategy programmes; (ii) stipulating post-marketing safety trials; (iii) considering responder rates and limiting cumulative exposure by discontinuation if weight loss is not attained within a reasonable timeframe; and (iv) requiring large cardiovascular outcome trials before or after approval. We chronicle the adverse effects of anti-obesity pharmacotherapy and consider how the history of high-profile toxicity issues has shaped the current regulatory landscape for new and future weight-reducing drugs.

Efficacy and safety of liraglutide 3.0 mg for weight management are similar across races: subgroup analysis across the SCALE and phase II randomized trials.

The efficacy and safety of liraglutide 3.0 mg versus placebo, as adjunct to diet and exercise, was evaluated in racial subgroups. This post hoc analysis of pooled data from five double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trials was conducted in 5325 adults with either a body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m(2) plus ≥1 comorbidity or a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2). Statistical interaction tests evaluated possible treatment effect differences between racial subgroups: white (4496, 84.4%), black/African-American (550, 10.3%), Asian (168, 3.2%) and other (111, 2.1%). Effects of liraglutide 3.0 mg on weight loss, associated metabolic effects and safety profile were generally consistent across racial subgroups. All achieved statistically significant mean weight loss at end-of-treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg versus placebo: white 7.7% versus 2.3%, black/African-American 6.3% versus 1.4%, Asian 6.3% versus 2.5%, other 7.3% versus 0.49%. Treatment effects on weight and cardiovascular risk markers generally showed no dependence on race (interaction test p > 0.05). Adverse events were similar across racial subgroups.