Effect of upper gastrointestinal disease on the pharmacokinetics of oral semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate whether upper gastrointestinal (GI) disease has any effect on the exposure of oral semaglutide, an important consideration given that its absorption occurs primarily in the stomach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open-label, parallel-group trial (NCT02877355), subjects aged 18-80 years with type 2 diabetes with mild-to-moderate upper GI disease (N = 36; chronic gastritis [n = 5], gastroesophageal reflux disease [n = 8], and both [n = 23]) or without upper GI disease (N = 19) received oral semaglutide 3 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 7 mg for 5 days. The primary and key supportive endpoints were the area under the semaglutide plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to 24 hours after last trial product administration on day 10 (AUC0-24h,day10 ) and the maximum semaglutide plasma concentration (Cmax,day10 ), respectively. RESULTS: Semaglutide exposure was not statistically significantly different between subjects with and without upper GI disease. Estimated group ratios (subjects with/without upper GI disease) were 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80, 1.75) for AUC0-24h,day10 and 1.16 (95% CI, 0.77, 1.76) for Cmax . Time to Cmax and semaglutide half-life were similar in subjects with and without upper GI disease. Oral semaglutide was well tolerated; all adverse events were mild-to-moderate, with no withdrawals because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in exposure to oral semaglutide in subjects with or without upper GI disease, hence no dose adjustment is required.

Novel hepato-preferential basal insulin peglispro (BIL) does not differentially affect insulin sensitivity compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel PEGylated basal insulin with a flat pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic profile and reduced peripheral effects, which results in a hepato-preferential action. In Phase 3 trials, patients with T1DM treated with BIL had lower prandial insulin requirements, yet improved prandial glucose control, relative to insulin glargine (GL). We hypothesized that this may be because of an enhanced sensitivity to prandial insulin with BIL resulting from lower chronic peripheral insulin action. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover clinical studies were conducted in 28 patients with T1DM and 24 patients with T2DM. In each study period, patients received once-daily, individualized, stable, subcutaneous doses of BIL or GL for 5 weeks before a euglycaemic 2-step hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure (with [6,6- 2 H2 ]-glucose in 12 of the patients with T1DM). M-values were derived from the clamp procedure for all patients, with rate of glucose appearance (Ra) and disappearance (Rd) and insulin sensitivity index (SI) determined from the clamps with [6,6- 2 H2 ]-glucose. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between BIL and GL in key measures of hepatic (% Ra suppression during the low-dose insulin infusion; 78.7% with BIL, 81.8% with GL) or peripheral (M-value and M/I during the high-dose insulin infusion, Rd and SI) insulin sensitivity in patients with T1DM or T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: The need to reduce prandial insulin observed with BIL during phase 3 trials cannot be explained by the differential effects of BIL and GL on sensitivity to prandial insulin in either T1DM or T2DM.