[Drug therapy of type-2-diabetes-is metformin dispensable now?] / Arzneitherapie des Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 ­ ist Metformin neuerdings verzichtbar?

Metformin has been recommended as first-line pharmacological therapy in type­2 diabetes (T2D) since 1998. It was the first medication that demonstrated cardiovascular benefits in obese subjects with T2D. Efficacy and safety of metformin have since been demonstrated in further studies and in real-world data on its use in practice. The recommendation of metformin as baseline therapy has reached wide acceptance internationally. During the period 2015-2021, large cardiovascular safety trials showed superiority for cardiovascular morbidity and partly also mortality outcomes for most substances of the novel antidiabetic substance classes of GLP­1 receptor agonists and SGLT­2 inhibitors in people with T2D and very high cardiovascular risk or preexisting cardiovascular disease. The evidence for these two substance classes is now broader than for metformin. Therefore, the question arises as to whether it is still justified to recommend metformin generally as first-line therapy in T2D. This article provides an overview of the study data as well as an overview of the evidence-based guidelines. The status and position of metformin in the treatment of T2D are discussed.

[Gastrointestinal hormones: their increasing pharmacotherapeutic relevance in metabolic diseases]. / Gastrointestinale Hormone ­ zunehmende arzneitherapeutische Bedeutung bei Stoffwechselerkrankungen.

Gastrointestinal hormones play an important role in the endocrine communication between the intestine, the pancreas, the liver and the brain. Glucagon-like peptide­1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are established therapeutic agents in the treatment of type­2 diabetes. Multiple agonists acting as ligands on various gastrointestinal hormone receptors are a novel pharmacological development. In addition to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), these multiple agonists also have glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and/or glucagon receptors as target structures for their pharmacological action. The multiple agonist action is designed to increase glycaemic effects as well as the effects on body weight. This article provides an overview of GLP-1RA and the multiple agonists. Among the dual agonists, the GIP/GLP-1-agonist tirzeptide has been approved for the treatment of type­2 diabetes, and clinical studies with tirzepatide as a treatment for obesity are ongoing. The currently available data on studies with GLP-1/glucagon agonists and triple agonists are also summarized.

Clinical perspectives on the use of the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide for the treatment of type-2 diabetes and obesity.

Incretin-based therapies with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are already established in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The development of novel dual- or triple-receptor agonists that bind to the receptors not only for GLP-1 but also to the receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and/or glucagon is intended to address different metabolic pathways for carbohydrate, lipid, and protein metabolism simultaneously. Dual- and triple-receptor agonists acting via different receptors and postreceptor pathways seem attractive in view of potentially additive or synergistic effects in the treatment of T2D and obesity. Recently, the first approval for a dual-receptor agonist marks an important step in this development. The GIP/GLP-1-receptor agonist tirzepatide was approved for the treatment of T2D by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA for once-weekly subcutaneous injections in May 2022 and has just received a positive opinion from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Tirzepatide dose-dependently leads to clinically significant reductions in glycemic parameters and body weight and has been shown to have stronger effects in reducing these parameters than standard antidiabetic therapy. This article summarizes the current clinical study program and the respective outcomes and highlights further potential indications for tirzepatide in the treatment of obesity and potentially other comorbidities of T2D.

Obesity and Impaired Metabolic Health Increase Risk of COVID-19-Related Mortality in Young and Middle-Aged Adults to the Level Observed in Older People: The LEOSS Registry.

Advanced age, followed by male sex, by far poses the greatest risk for severe COVID-19. An unresolved question is the extent to which modifiable comorbidities increase the risk of COVID-19-related mortality among younger patients, in whom COVID-19-related hospitalization strongly increased in 2021. A total of 3,163 patients with SARS-COV-2 diagnosis in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) cohort were studied. LEOSS is a European non-interventional multi-center cohort study established in March 2020 to investigate the epidemiology and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data from hospitalized patients and those who received ambulatory care, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, were included in the study. An additive effect of obesity, diabetes and hypertension on the risk of mortality was observed, which was particularly strong in young and middle-aged patients. Compared to young and middle-aged (18-55 years) patients without obesity, diabetes and hypertension (non-obese and metabolically healthy; n = 593), young and middle-aged adult patients with all three risk parameters (obese and metabolically unhealthy; n = 31) had a similar adjusted increased risk of mortality [OR 7.42 (95% CI 1.55-27.3)] as older (56-75 years) non-obese and metabolically healthy patients [n = 339; OR 8.21 (95% CI 4.10-18.3)]. Furthermore, increased CRP levels explained part of the elevated risk of COVID-19-related mortality with age, specifically in the absence of obesity and impaired metabolic health. In conclusion, the modifiable risk factors obesity, diabetes and hypertension increase the risk of COVID-19-related mortality in young and middle-aged patients to the level of risk observed in advanced age.

Considering Insulin Secretory Capacity as Measured by a Fasting C-Peptide/Glucose Ratio in Selecting Glucose-Lowering Medications.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease. Recently introduced new subclassifications promise more efficacious, tailored treatments which could complement current guidelines. In the differentiation of the new diabetes subphenotypes, assessment of insulin secretion is one of the essential components. Based on a large number of insulin secretion measurements, we propose fasting C-peptide/glucose ratio (CGR) as an adequate and practicable estimate of insulin secretion. CGR discriminates insulin deficiency from insulin hypersecretion. We suggest using insulin secretion, determined from CGR, as an essential input for therapeutic decisions at the beginning or modification of diabetes treatment. Furthermore, we propose 3 practical steps to guide decisions in the subtype-specific therapy of diabetes mellitus. The first step consists of detecting insulin deficiency indicated by a low CGR with the need for immediate insulin therapy. The second step is related to high CGR and aims at lowering cardiovascular risk associated with diabetes. The third step is the consideration of a de-escalation of glucose-lowering therapy in individuals with mild diabetes subphenotypes.

The incretin/glucagon system as a target for pharmacotherapy of obesity.

Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial, relapsing disease. Despite multicomponent lifestyle interventions, including pharmacotherapy, maintaining bodyweight loss is challenging for many people. The pathophysiology of obesity is complex, and currently approved pharmacotherapies only target a few of the many pathways involved; thus, single-targeting agents have limited efficacy. Proglucagon-derived peptides, glucagon, and the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), represent attractive targets for managing obesity and metabolic disorders because they may have direct roles in multiple mechanisms including satiety, energy homeostasis, and lipolytic activity. Unimolecular dual and triple agonists targeting glucagon and incretin hormone receptors have been shown to promote bodyweight loss, lower glucose levels, and reduce food intake in animal models of obesity. Multiple dual receptor agonists are in clinical development for the treatment of obesity, including GLP-1/GIP and GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonists. The extent to which glucagon contributes to treatment effects remains to be understood, but it may promote bodyweight loss by reducing food intake, while concomitant GLP-1 receptor agonism ensures normal glucose control. Further research is required to fully understand the molecular mechanisms of action and metabolic effects of both dual and triple receptor agonists.

Clinical Perspectives on the Use of Subcutaneous and Oral Formulations of Semaglutide.

Early and effective glycemic control can prevent or delay the complications associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are becoming increasingly recognized and they now feature prominently in international T2D treatment recommendations and guidelines across the disease continuum. However, despite providing effective glycemic control, weight loss, and a low risk of hypoglycemia, GLP-1RAs are currently underutilized in clinical practice. The long-acting GLP-1RA, semaglutide, is available for once-weekly injection and in a new once-daily oral formulation. Semaglutide is an advantageous choice for the treatment of T2D since it has greater efficacy in reducing glycated hemoglobin and body weight compared with other GLP-1RAs, has demonstrated benefits in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, and has a favorable profile in special populations (e.g., patients with hepatic impairment or renal impairment). The oral formulation represents a useful option to help improve acceptance and adherence compared with injectable formulations for patients with a preference for oral therapy, and may lead to earlier and broader use of GLP-1RAs in the T2D treatment trajectory. Oral semaglutide should be taken on an empty stomach, which may influence the choice of formulation. As with most GLP-1RAs, initial dose escalation of semaglutide is required for both formulations to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse events. There are also specific dose instructions to follow with oral semaglutide to ensure sufficient gastric absorption. The evidence base surrounding the clinical use of semaglutide is being further expanded with trials investigating effects on diabetic retinopathy, cardiovascular outcomes, and on the common T2D comorbidities of obesity, chronic kidney disease, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. These will provide further information about whether the benefits of semaglutide extend to these other indications.

Clinical Use of DPP-4 Inhibitors.

DPP-4 inhibitors were introduced for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2006. They stimulate insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion by elevating endogenous GLP-1 concentrations without an intrinsic hypoglycaemia risk. Their efficacy potential to lower HbA1c is in the range between 0.5 and 1.0% and their safety profile is favorable. DPP-4 inhibitors are body weight neutral and they have demonstrated cardiovascular safety. Most compounds can be used in impaired renal function. Guidelines suggest the additional use of DPP-4 inhibitors after metformin failure in patients that do not require antidiabetic therapy with proven cardiovascular benefit. Recently, DPP-4 inhibitors have increasingly replaced sulfonylureas as second line therapy after metformin failure and many metformin/DPP-4 inhibitor fixed dose combinations are available. In later stages of type 2 diabetes, DPP-4 inhibitors are also recommended in the guidelines in triple therapies with metformin and SGLT-2 inhibitors or with metformin and insulin. A treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors should be stopped when GLP-1 receptor agonists are used. DPP-4 inhibitors can be used as monotherapy when metformin is contraindicated or not tolerated. Some studies have shown value of initial metformin-DPP-4 inhibitor combination therapy in special populations. This article gives an overview on the clinical use of DPP-4 inhibitors.

The Cardiovascular Benefits Associated with the Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors - Real-World Data.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with numerous comorbidities that significantly reduce quality of life, increase mortality and complicate treatment decisions. In a recent cardiovascular outcomes trial, Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin was shown to reduce cardiovascular (CV) mortality and heart failure in high-risk patients with T2D with a previous CV event or with established CV disease (CVD). Recently published data from the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS-PROGRAM) study suggested that the cardiovascular benefits of empagliflozin are also seen with the SGLT2-inhibitor canagliflozin, indicating a class effect of SGLT2 inhibitors. Evidence for a class effect has also been shown by meta-analyses and real-world studies, including the Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors (CVD-REAL) and The Health Improvement Network (THIN) databases. These findings also suggest the results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME can be applied to patients with T2D with a broader CV risk profile, including people at low risk of CVD.

Efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in type 2 diabetes: A randomized, open-label clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla) and Lantus (Sa-Gla) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 24-week clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02059187) enrolled 531 participants with T2DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%) either eligible for or currently taking basal insulin (≥10 U/day). Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 263) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Titration of insulin was guided by a fasting plasma glucose (FPG)-based dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of change from baseline in HbA1c (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) with Mk-Gla versus Sa-Gla after 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was anti-insulin antibody development after 24 weeks. RESULTS: For Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla, the least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline (95% CI) was -1.28 (-1.41, -1.15)% (-14.0 [-15.4, -12.6] mmol/mol) and -1.30 (-1.43, -1.18)% (-14.2 [-15.6, -12.8] mmol/mol). The LS mean HbA1c difference (Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla) was 0.03 (-0.12, 0.18)% (0.3 [-1.4, 1.9] mmol/mol), meeting non-inferiority and equivalence (secondary objective) criteria. Insulin doses, FPG, and seven-point plasma glucose profiles were similar between groups. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins. The efficacy and safety of Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla were similar both in participants who were insulin-treated or insulin-naïve at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla demonstrated similar efficacy and safety over 24 weeks of treatment in people with T2DM.

Efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in type 1 diabetes: A randomized, open-label clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla; 100 U/mL) with originator insulin glargine, Lantus (Sa-Gla), in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 52-week study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02059161) enrolled 508 people with T1DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%; 97 mmol/mol) taking basal and prandial insulin. Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 245) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Dose titration of basal insulin was by a pre-breakfast plasma glucose dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was assessment of the non-inferiority of HbA1c change from baseline (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) for Mk-Gla compared with Sa-Gla over 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was assessment of anti-insulin antibody development over 24 weeks. RESULTS: The least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 24 was -0.62 (95% CI -0.79, -0.45)% (-6.8 [-8.7, -4.9] mmol/mol) and -0.66 (-0.82, -0.50)% (-7.2 [-9.0, -5.4] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla. The LS mean HbA1c difference was 0.04 (-0.11, 0.19)% (0.4 [-1.2, 2.0] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla, meeting the primary and secondary objective criteria for non-inferiority and equivalence. Week 24 mean insulin glargine dose for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla was 0.46 and 0.48 U/kg, respectively. Similarity of HbA1c response and basal insulin dose trajectory persisted over the 52 weeks. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins over the 52-week study duration. CONCLUSIONS: Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla exhibited similar efficacy and safety over 52 weeks in people with T1DM. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059161.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose in patient subpopulations by gender, duration of diabetes and baseline HbA1c.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes by subgroups of gender, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the dulaglutide clinical development programme (AWARD-1 to -6 and -8 clinical trials). METHODS: Change in HbA1c was analysed by gender, duration of diabetes (<5, ≥5 years and <10, ≥10 years), and baseline HbA1c (<8.5%, ≥8.5%) in pooled and individual studies. Changes from baseline in weight, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were evaluated for individual trials. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg at 6 months, the reductions in HbA1c from baseline were similar across gender (men: least squares [LS] mean -1.26% [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.36, -1.16]; women: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.24]) and among duration of diabetes subgroups (<5 years: LS mean -1.32% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥5 and <10 years: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥10 years: -1.24% [95% CI -1.35, -1.14]). Patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% had greater HbA1c reductions than patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5%, (≥8.5%: LS mean -1.86% [95% CI -1.97, -1.75]; <8.5%: LS mean -1.02% [95% CI -1.12, -0.93]). Reductions in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were consistent with HbA1c changes. Similar results were observed with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. In general, body weight changes were similar among duration of diabetes and in baseline HbA1c subgroups, respectively; women had a numerically greater weight loss or less weight gain than men with both dulaglutide doses. There was no clinically meaningful difference in hypoglycaemia trends by gender or duration of diabetes. Hypoglycaemia incidence and rate were generally lower in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% than in those with <8.5%, except for the AWARD-4 study (combination with mealtime insulin). CONCLUSIONS: Across the AWARD studies, dulaglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control irrespective of gender, duration of diabetes, or baseline HbA1c, with greater HbA1c and FBG reductions in patients with a higher baseline HbA1c. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

A safety evaluation of empagliflozin plus linagliptin for treating type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) and sodium-glucose-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycemic parameters and possess a very low intrinsic hypoglycemia risk and favorable cardiovascular data. Areas covered: An overview on the clinical studies investigating the combination therapy with the DPP-4i linagliptin and the SGLT-2i empagliflozin is given. The clinical evidence for the efficacy and safety of free combinations as well as for their fixed dose combinations is presented. Empagliflozin has recently proved to reduce cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular high risk situations. A fixed dose combination (FDC) of empagliflozin and linagliptin as add on therapy to metformin or as initial treatment lowered the HbA1c by approximately 1.1% and reduced the body weight by 2.0-3.0 kg. The hypoglycemia risk was not significantly increased. The relevant studies were identified by a search in Medline and in clinicaltrials.gov. Expert opinion/commentary: A DPP-4i/SGLT-2i FDC may be especially useful to simplify treatment, to reduce the tablet burden and to increase medication adherence. This FDC may be particularly beneficial for patients where the reduction of body weight, blood pressure and cardiovascular risk are important and in whom hypoglycemia should be avoided.

Oral glucose lowering with linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin alone as initial treatment in Asian patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic in Asia, yet clinical trials of glucose-lowering therapies often enroll predominantly Western populations. We explored the initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Asia with marked hyperglycemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of a multinational, parallel-group clinical trial in which 316 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5-12.0% were randomized to double-blind oral treatment with linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. The primary end-point was the change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. We evaluated data for the 125 participants from Asian countries. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, the mean ± standard error reduction from baseline in HbA1c (mean 10.0%) was -2.99 ± 0.18% with linagliptin/metformin and -1.84 ± 0.18% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -1.15% (95% confidence interval -1.65 to -0.66, P < 0.0001). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 60% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin. The mean bodyweight change after 24 weeks was -0.45 ± 0.41 kg and 1.33 ± 0.45 kg in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (treatment difference -1.78 kg [95% confidence interval -2.99 to -0.57, P = 0.0043]). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 9.7% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin and 4.8% of those receiving linagliptin. Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.5% and 4.8% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no severe episodes. Gastrointestinal disorders occurred in 12.9% and 12.7% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no associated treatment discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: In people from Asia with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and marked hyperglycemia, the initial combination of linagliptin and metformin substantially improved glycemic control without weight gain and with infrequent hypoglycemia. Initial oral combination therapy might be a viable treatment for such individuals.