Effects of Tirzepatide vs Semaglutide on ß-cell Function, Insulin Sensitivity, and Glucose Control During a Meal Test.

CONTEXT: In a clinical study, tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GIP/GLP-1RA), provided superior glycemic control vs the GLP-1RA semaglutide. The physiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment effects by model-based analyses of mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) data. DESIGN: A 28-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Two clinical research centers in Germany. PATIENTS: Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin. INTERVENTIONS: Tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycemic control, model-derived ß-cell function indices including insulin secretion rate (ISR) at 7.2-mmol/L glucose (ISR7.2), ß-cell glucose (ß-CG) sensitivity, insulin sensitivity, and estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio. RESULTS: Tirzepatide significantly reduced fasting glucose and MMTT total glucose area under the curve (AUC) vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). Incremental glucose AUC did not differ significantly between treatments; therefore, greater total glucose AUC reduction with tirzepatide was mainly attributable to greater suppression of fasting glucose. A greater reduction in total ISR AUC was achieved with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01), in the context of greater improvement in insulin sensitivity with tirzepatide (P < 0.01). ISR7.2 was significantly increased with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.05), showing improved ß-CG responsiveness. MMTT-derived ß-CG sensitivity was increased but not significantly different between treatments. Both treatments reduced fasting glucagon and total glucagon AUC, with glucagon AUC significantly reduced with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). The estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio did not change substantially with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the greater glycemic control observed for tirzepatide manifests as improved fasting glucose and glucose excursion control, due to improvements in ISR, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon suppression.

Early-Onset Type 2 Diabetes and Tirzepatide Treatment: A Post Hoc Analysis From the SURPASS Clinical Trial Program.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated baseline characteristics of participants with early-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SURPASS program and tirzepatide's effects on glycemic control, body weight (BW), and cardiometabolic markers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis compared baseline characteristics and changes in mean HbA1c, BW, waist circumference (WC), lipids, and blood pressure (BP) in 3,792 participants with early-onset versus later-onset T2D at week 40 (A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Not Controlled With Diet and Exercise Alone [SURPASS-1] and A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] Versus Semaglutide Once Weekly as Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes [SURPASS-2]) or week 52 (A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] Versus Insulin Degludec in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes [SURPASS-3]). Analyses were performed by study on data from participants while on assigned treatment without rescue medication in case of persistent hyperglycemia. RESULTS: At baseline in SURPASS-2, participants with early-onset versus later-onset T2D were younger with longer diabetes duration (9 vs. 7 years, P < 0.001) higher glycemic levels (8.5% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001), higher BW (97 vs. 93 kg, P < 0.001) and BMI (35 vs. 34 kg/m2, P < 0.001), and a similarly abnormal lipid profile (e.g., triglycerides 167 vs. 156 mg/dL). At week 40, similar improvements in HbA1c (-2.6% vs. -2.4%), BW (-14 vs. -13 kg), WC (-10 vs. -10 cm), triglycerides (-26% vs. -24%), HDL (7% vs. 7%), and systolic BP (-6 vs. -7 mmHg) were observed in both subgroups with tirzepatide. CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age, participants with early-onset T2D from the SURPASS program had higher glycemic levels and worse overall metabolic health at baseline versus those with later-onset T2D. In this post hoc analysis, similar improvements in HbA1c, BW, and cardiometabolic markers were observed with tirzepatide, irrespective of age at T2D diagnosis. Future studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes of tirzepatide in early-onset T2D.

Safety and efficacy analyses across age and body mass index subgroups in East Asian participants with type 2 diabetes in the phase 3 tirzepatide studies (SURPASS programme).

AIM: To assess the safety and efficacy of tirzepatide in people of East Asian descent based on age and body mass index (BMI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of participants enrolled in East Asian countries in the SURPASS-1, -3, -4, -5, J-mono and J-combo phase 3 clinical trials were included. Participants with type 2 diabetes with a baseline HbA1c of 7.0% up to 11.0% and a BMI of 23 kg/m2 or greater or 25 kg/m2 or greater were included. Participants treated with tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg were evaluated to assess the safety and efficacy of tirzepatide in people of East Asian descent (94% from Japan) based on age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years) and BMI (< 25 and ≥ 25 kg/m2 ). Key safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, 73% of East Asian participants had a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or greater and 74% were younger than 65 years. At week 52, tirzepatide induced a similar dose-dependent reduction in HbA1c, waist circumference and BMI across subgroups. Across all BMI and age subgroups, mean absolute HbA1c reductions across the three doses ranged from 2.3% to 3.0%, and mean waist circumference reductions ranged from 4.3 to 9.8 cm. Improvements in absolute insulin sensitivity, assessed by homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance, were greater in those with a baseline BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m2 . Improvements in lipid profiles were similar across subgroups. While the safety profile of tirzepatide was broadly similar across BMI and age subgroups, drug discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in participants with a baseline age of ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis showed that once-weekly tirzepatide had a similar safety and efficacy profile across BMI and age subgroups in East Asian participants.

Tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk (SURPASS-4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess efficacy and safety, with a special focus on cardiovascular safety, of the novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide versus insulin glargine in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study was done in 187 sites in 14 countries on five continents. Eligible participants, aged 18 years or older, had type 2 diabetes treated with any combination of metformin, sulfonylurea, or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, a baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·5-10·5% (58-91 mmol/mol), body-mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, and established cardiovascular disease or a high risk of cardiovascular events. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:3) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injection of either once-per-week tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or glargine (100 U/mL), titrated to reach fasting blood glucose of less than 100 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (0·3% non-inferiority boundary) of tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus glargine in HbA1c change from baseline to 52 weeks. All participants were treated for at least 52 weeks, with treatment continued for a maximum of 104 weeks or until study completion to collect and adjudicate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Safety measures were assessed over the full study period. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03730662. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Nov 20, 2018, and Dec 30, 2019. 3045 participants were screened, with 2002 participants randomly assigned to tirzepatide or glargine. 1995 received at least one dose of tirzepatide 5 mg (n=329, 17%), 10 mg (n=328, 16%), or 15 mg (n=338, 17%), or glargine (n=1000, 50%), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. At 52 weeks, mean HbA1c changes with tirzepatide were -2·43% (SD 0·05) with 10 mg and -2·58% (0·05) with 15 mg, versus -1·44% (0·03) with glargine. The estimated treatment difference versus glargine was -0·99% (multiplicity adjusted 97·5% CI -1·13 to -0·86) for tirzepatide 10 mg and -1·14% (-1·28 to -1·00) for 15 mg, and the non-inferiority margin of 0·3% was met for both doses. Nausea (12-23%), diarrhoea (13-22%), decreased appetite (9-11%), and vomiting (5-9%) were more frequent with tirzepatide than glargine (nausea 2%, diarrhoea 4%, decreased appetite <1%, and vomiting 2%, respectively); most cases were mild to moderate and occurred during the dose-escalation phase. The percentage of participants with hypoglycaemia (glucose <54 mg/dL or severe) was lower with tirzepatide (6-9%) versus glargine (19%), particularly in participants not on sulfonylureas (tirzepatide 1-3% vs glargine 16%). Adjudicated MACE-4 events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalisation for unstable angina) occurred in 109 participants and were not increased on tirzepatide compared with glargine (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·51-1·08). 60 deaths (n=25 [3%] tirzepatide; n=35 [4%] glargine) occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, tirzepatide, compared with glargine, demonstrated greater and clinically meaningful HbA1c reduction with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia at week 52. Tirzepatide treatment was not associated with excess cardiovascular risk. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Risk Factors Associated with COVID-19 Hospitalization and Mortality: A Large Claims-Based Analysis Among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes has been identified as a high-risk comorbidity for COVID-19 hospitalization. We evaluated additional risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and in-hospital mortality in a nationwide US database. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database (January 1, 2019-July 15, 2020) containing de-identified nationwide administrative claims, SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results, and COVID-19 inpatient admissions data. Logistic regression was used to understand risk factors for hospitalization and in-hospital mortality among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and in the overall population. Robustness of associations was further confirmed by subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the T2D population. RESULTS: A total of 36,364 people were identified who were either SARS-CoV-2+ or hospitalized for COVID-19. T2D was associated with increased COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. Factors associated with increased hospitalization risk were largely consistent in the overall population and the T2D subgroup, including age, male sex, and these top five comorbidities: dementia, metastatic tumor, congestive heart failure, paraplegia, and metabolic disease. Biguanides (mainly metformin) were consistently associated with lower odds of hospitalization, whereas sulfonylureas and insulins were associated with greater odds of hospitalization among people with T2D. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide US analysis, T2D was identified as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 complications. Many factors conferred similar risk of hospitalization across both populations; however, particular diabetes medications may be markers for differential risk. The insights on comorbidities and medications may inform population health initiatives, including prevention efforts for high-risk patient populations such as those with T2D.

Evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people with diabetes: Lessons from the IMPERIUM trial.

Understanding the benefits and risks of treatments to be used by older individuals (≥65 years old) is critical for informed therapeutic decisions. Glucose-lowering therapy for older patients with diabetes should be tailored to suit their clinical condition, comorbidities and impaired functional status, including varying degrees of frailty. However, despite the rapidly growing population of older adults with diabetes, there are few dedicated clinical trials evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people. Conducting clinical trials in the older population poses multiple significant challenges. Despite the general agreement that individualizing treatment goals and avoiding hypoglycaemia is paramount for the therapy of older people with diabetes, there are conflicting perspectives on specific glycaemic targets that should be adopted and on use of specific drugs and treatment strategies. Assessment of functional status, frailty and comorbidities is not routinely performed in diabetes trials, contributing to insufficient characterization of older study participants. Moreover, significant operational barriers and problems make successful enrolment and completion of such studies difficult. In this review paper, we summarize the current guidelines and literature on conducting such trials, as well as the learnings from our own clinical trial (IMPERIUM) that assessed different glucose-lowering strategies in older people with type 2 diabetes. We discuss the importance of strategies to improve study design, enrolment and attrition. Apart from summarizing some practical advice to facilitate the successful conduct of studies, we highlight key gaps and needs that warrant further research.

Reduced Glucose Variability With Glucose-Dependent Versus Glucose-Independent Therapies Despite Similar Glucose Control and Hypoglycemia Rates in a Randomized, Controlled Study of Older Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not using injectable therapy. CGM is useful for investigating hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, which is associated with complications in T2DM. METHODS: A CGM substudy of Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER patIents in a randomized trial in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM)) was conducted. Patients were vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) older (≥65 years) individuals with suboptimally controlled T2DM. Strategy A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (n = 26) with a nonsulfonylurea oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (n = 21) with sulfonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. Primary endpoints were duration and percentage of time spent with blood glucose (BG) ≤70 mg/dL over 24 hours at week 24. RESULTS: Duration and percentage of time spent with hypoglycemia at ≤70 mg/dL were similar for Strategy A and Strategy B; glycemic control improved similarly in both arms (LSM change in HbA1c at week 24; A = -1.2%, B = -1.4%). Duration and percentage time spent with euglycemia and hyperglycemia were also similar in both arms. However, Strategy A was associated with lower within-day (21.1 ± 1.2 vs 25.1 ± 1.4, P = .046) and between-day (5.4 ± 1.0 vs 9.1 ± 1.3, P = .038) BG variability (coefficient of variance [LSM ± SE]) at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: This CGM substudy in older patients with T2DM showed lower within- and between-day BG variability with glucose-dependent therapies but similar HbA1c reductions and hypoglycemia duration with glucose-independent strategies.

Glycaemic outcomes of an Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER vulnerable patIents: A randomized, controlled stUdy in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM).

AIMS: To compare the glycaemic outcomes of 2 glucose-lowering treatment strategies in vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes whose individual HbA1c targets were not met with diet/exercise and/or oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications (OAMs). METHODS: The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of achieving/maintaining individualized HbA1c targets without "clinically significant" hypoglycaemia (severe hypoglycaemia or repeated hypoglycaemia causing interruption of patients' activities or blood glucose <54 mg/dL). Strategy-A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (n = 99) with a non-sulphonylurea OAM and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy-B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (n = 93) with sulphonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Strategy-A and Strategy-B in percentages of patients achieving the primary endpoint (64.5% vs 54.9%; P = .190). Mean incidences (A vs B) of total (10.2% vs 53.8%), documented symptomatic (5.1% vs 36.6%), and asymptomatic (8.2% vs 32.3%) hypoglycaemia were lower for Strategy-A (P < .001 each). Proportions of patients achieving/maintaining HbA1c target (A, 63.3% vs B, 55.9%) were similar. CONCLUSION: Similar proportions of older, vulnerable aged ≥65 years patients with type 2 diabetes achieved/maintained glycaemic treatment goals without clinically significant hypoglycaemia with Strategies A or B. However, Strategy-A resulted in lower risk of total, documented symptomatic, and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. These results identify an approach of potential clinical benefit in this age group and will inform future clinical research in older patients with type 2 diabetes.

Perspectives on Some Controversies in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment in the Pharmaceutical Development of Glucose-Lowering Medications.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance on requirements to assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk with drugs being developed for approval for clinical use. The guidance was triggered by a meta-analysis published by Nissen and Wolski that suggested an increased risk for myocardial infarction with the use of rosiglitazone. This article discusses controversies around CVD trials in diabetes beginning with the University Group Diabetes Program. This is followed by a brief description of the FDA guidance for evaluating CVD risk with glucose-lowering medications. Limitations of meta-analyses of data from phase 2 and 3 (phase 2/3) trials to inform CVD risk are highlighted. These include the differences between patient characteristics in phase 2/3 trials and those in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and the relatively short exposure time in phase 2/3 trials. The differences may partly explain the observed disparity between phase 2/3 meta-analyses and the results of completed CVOTs. Approaches to understanding CVD risk with a new medication should get to the answer about risk as efficiently as possible to minimize any potential harm to patients. In that context, we discuss options for clinical trial design and an alternative approach for statistical analyses.

Exenatide improves ß-cell function up to 3 years of treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonist treatment improves ß-cell function. In this study, we investigated whether the improvements are sustained during a 3-year treatment period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty-nine metformin-treated type 2 diabetes patients were randomised to the GLP1 receptor agonist, exenatide (EXE) twice daily (BID) or to insulin glargine (GLAR). ß-cell function parameters were derived using the Mari model from standardised breakfast and lunch meals that were administered before treatment, and after 1 and 3 years of treatment. EXE was administered before breakfast. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (EXE: n = 30; GLAR: n = 29) and thirty-six (EXE: n = 16; GLAR: n = 20) patients completed the meal at 1- and 3-year treatment respectively. After 3 years, groups had comparable glycaemic control (HbA1c: EXE 6.6 ± 0.2% and GLAR 6.9 ± 0.2%; P = 0.216). Compared with GLAR, at 1 and 3 years, EXE induced a stronger reduction in post-breakfast glucose concentrations (P < 0.001), with lower C-peptide levels (P < 0.001). Compared with GLAR, EXE increased insulin secretion at 8 mmol/L glucose throughout the study period (P < 0.01). Both treatments improved ß-cell glucose sensitivity after 1-year treatment. However, only EXE treatment sustained this improvement for 3 years. No consistent changes in other ß-cell parameters including rate sensitivity and potentiation were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with GLAR, EXE improved the parameters of ß-cell function, especially insulin secretion at 8 mmol/L glucose and ß-cell glucose sensitivity, which was sustained during the 3-year treatment period.

Effect of diabetes on caregiver burden in an observational study of individuals with Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: The burden on caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with the patient's functional status and may also be influenced by chronic comorbid medical conditions, such as diabetes. This post-hoc exploratory analysis assessed whether comorbid diabetes in patients with AD affects caregiver burden, and whether caregivers with diabetes experience greater burden than caregivers without diabetes. Caregiver and patient healthcare resource use (HCRU) were also assessed. METHODS: Baseline data from the GERAS observational study of patients with AD and their caregivers (both n = 1495) in France, Germany and the UK were analyzed. Caregiver burden was assessed using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Caregiver time on activities of daily living (ADL: basic ADL; instrumental ADL, iADL) and supervision (hours/month), and caregiver and patient HCRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, nights hospitalized) were assessed using the Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument for the month before the baseline visit. Regression analyses were adjusted for relevant covariates. Time on supervision and basic ADL was analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Caregivers of patients with diabetes (n = 188) were younger and more likely to be female (both p < 0.05), compared with caregivers of patients without diabetes (n = 1307). Analyses showed caregivers of patients with diabetes spent significantly more time on iADL (+16 %; p = 0.03; increases were also observed for basic ADL and total caregiver time but did not reach statistical significance) and had a trend towards increased ZBI score. Patients with diabetes had a 63 % increase in the odds of requiring supervision versus those without diabetes (p = 0.01). Caregiver and patient HCRU did not differ according to patient diabetes. Caregivers with diabetes (n = 127) did not differ from those without diabetes (n = 1367) regarding burden/time, but caregivers with diabetes had a 91 % increase in the odds of having outpatient visits (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional analysis found caregiver time on iADL and supervision was higher for caregivers of patients with AD and diabetes versus without diabetes, while HCRU was unaffected by patient diabetes. Longitudinal analyses assessing change in caregiver burden over time by patient diabetes status may help clarify the cumulative impact of diabetes and AD dementia on caregiver burden.

Time to insulin initiation and long-term effects of initiating insulin in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Hoorn Diabetes Care System Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the time to insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated with oral glucose-lowering agents and to determine the baseline characteristics associated with time to insulin initiation. This was evaluated in T2DM patients with HbA1c levels consistently ≥7.0% during total follow up and in those with fluctuating HbA1c levels around 7.0%. DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective, observational study was performed, comprising 2418 persons with T2DM aged ≥40 years who entered the Diabetes Care System between 1998 and 2012 with a minimum follow up of at least 3 years, following the first HbA1c level ≥7.0%. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the determinants of time to insulin initiation. Data related to long-term effects of insulin initiation were studied at baseline and at the end of follow up using descriptive summary statistics. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the patients initiated insulin during follow up. The time to insulin varied from 1.2 years (range 0.3-3.1) in patients with HbA1c levels consistently ≥7.0% to 5.4 years (range 3.0-7.5) in patients with fluctuating HbA1c levels around 7.0%. Longer diabetes duration (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04 95% CI 1.03-1.05) and lower age (HR 1.00 95% CI 0.99-1.00) at baseline were associated with a shorter time to initiation. More insulin initiators had retinopathy compared with patients that remained on oral glucose-lowering agents during follow up. CONCLUSION: The time to insulin initiation was short, and most of the patients with HbA1c levels consistently ≥7.0% were initiating insulin. Longer diabetes duration and younger age shortened the time to insulin.

Associations Between Glycemic Control, Depressed Mood, Clinical Depression, and Diabetes Distress Before and After Insulin Initiation: An Exploratory, Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although depression is often associated with poor glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), this observation has been inconsistent. This exploratory, post hoc analysis investigated associations between depression parameters and glycemic control using data from a 24-month, prospective, observational, non-interventional study evaluating glycemic response following insulin initiation for T2DM. METHODS: We analyzed data from a 24-month, prospective, observational study that evaluated glycemic response in patients with T2DM who initiated insulin therapy (N = 985) in 5 European countries. Secondary measures included patient-reported diagnosis of depression at baseline, severity of depressed/anxious mood (EuroQol (EQ)-5D item) and diabetes-related distress (Psychological Distress domain of the Diabetes Health Profile, DHP-18). The latter two measures were assessed at baseline and 5 time points throughout the study. Glycemic control was measured by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at these same time points. Analyses employed t tests to assess the unadjusted baseline difference in HbA1c between patients with and without the respective depression parameter. The potential effect of demographic and clinical confounding variables was controlled through a linear model structure. Patient HbA1c levels were analyzed by presence/absence of a history of diagnosed depression, depressed mood, and diabetes-related distress. RESULTS: Patients with higher depression parameters or distress at baseline had significantly higher rates of microvascular complications at baseline. Patients with a history of diagnosed depression or high diabetes-related distress had higher HbA1c than patients without. HbA1c of patients with or without depressed mood was not significantly different at baseline. The proportion of patients with depressed mood declined after insulin initiation, whereas the proportion of patients with high diabetes-related distress did not significantly change. HbA1c improved following insulin initiation, regardless of presence/absence of studied depression/distress parameters at baseline. CONCLUSION: History of diagnosed depression, diabetes-related distress, and depressed mood were associated with a higher rate of microvascular complications. Diagnosed depression and diabetes-related distress also showed higher HbA1c at baseline when insulin was initiated. Insulin therapy improved glycemic control, while preexisting depressed mood declined and diabetes-related distress remained unchanged.

Cognitive and Functional Decline in Patients With Mild Alzheimer Dementia With or Without Comorbid Diabetes.

PURPOSE: Although diabetes is recognized as a risk factor for the development of cognitive impairment and for accelerated progression to Alzheimer disease (AD), it is unclear whether patients with diabetes who have already progressed to AD have a different rate of cognitive and functional decline compared with that in those without diabetes. This post hoc exploratory analysis compared cognitive and functional decline over an 18-month period in patients with mild AD dementia with and without comorbid diabetes. Decline in quality of life was assessed as a secondary objective. METHODS: In a post hoc exploratory analysis, we analyzed data from the placebo groups of three 18-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of solanezumab and semagacestat in patients with AD. Data from patients with mild AD dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score, 20-26) and comorbid diabetes at baseline were compared with data from patients with mild AD dementia without diabetes at baseline. Cognition was assessed using the 14-item AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog14) and the MMSE. Functioning was assessed with the AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (instrumental subset) (ADCS-iADL). Quality of life was assessed using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions scale, proxy version (proxy utility score and visual analog scale score), and the Quality of Life in AD scale, self-report and proxy (caregiver) versions. Group comparisons of changes from baseline to 18 months in cognitive, functional, and quality-of-life measures employed a repeated-measures model adjusted for propensity score, study, baseline cognition score (functional or quality of life), age, sex, level of education, genotype of the apolipoprotein E gene, and concurrent use of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or memantine. FINDINGS: At baseline, patients with mild AD dementia with and without diabetes did not significantly differ on the cognitive measures, but those without diabetes were functioning at a significantly higher level. At 18 months, compared with patients without diabetes, those with diabetes showed a numerically but statistically nonsignificantly lesser cognitive decline (least squares mean between-group differences: ADAS-Cog14 score, 1.61 [P = 0.21]; MMSE score, -0.40 [P = 0.49]) and a statistically significantly lesser functional decline (least squares mean between-group difference in ADCS-iADL score, -3.07; P = 0.01). The 2 groups did not differ on declines in the quality-of-life measures. IMPLICATIONS: The present findings suggest that diabetes may influence the rate of functional decline among patients with mild AD dementia. These results require replication in studies that address the limitations of the present post hoc exploratory analysis and that explore the potential causes of the observed differences.

The CTRB1/2 locus affects diabetes susceptibility and treatment via the incretin pathway.

The incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) promotes glucose homeostasis and enhances ß-cell function. GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which inhibit the physiological inactivation of endogenous GLP-1, are used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Using the Metabochip, we identified three novel genetic loci with large effects (30-40%) on GLP-1-stimulated insulin secretion during hyperglycemic clamps in nondiabetic Caucasian individuals (TMEM114; CHST3 and CTRB1/2; n = 232; all P ≤ 8.8 × 10(-7)). rs7202877 near CTRB1/2, a known diabetes risk locus, also associated with an absolute 0.51 ± 0.16% (5.6 ± 1.7 mmol/mol) lower A1C response to DPP-4 inhibitor treatment in G-allele carriers, but there was no effect on GLP-1 RA treatment in type 2 diabetic patients (n = 527). Furthermore, in pancreatic tissue, we show that rs7202877 acts as expression quantitative trait locus for CTRB1 and CTRB2, encoding chymotrypsinogen, and increases fecal chymotrypsin activity in healthy carriers. Chymotrypsin is one of the most abundant digestive enzymes in the gut where it cleaves food proteins into smaller peptide fragments. Our data identify chymotrypsin in the regulation of the incretin pathway, development of diabetes, and response to DPP-4 inhibitor treatment.