Development of Fulminant Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in the Course of Treatment with Atezolizumab for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

A 71-year-old woman with recurring stage IV hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was admitted to our hospital while being treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab and complained of fatigue, vomiting, and appetite loss. The following were noted on admission: serum glucose level, 633 mg/dL; metabolic acidemia (HCO3- of 19.5 mmol/L); remarkably low serum and urinary C-peptide levels (0.16 ng/mL and ≤1.5 µg/day, respectively); and urinary ketone body level, 4,197 µmol/L. She was diagnosed with atezolizumab-induced fulminant type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and insulin therapy improved the symptoms. To our knowledge, this a novel report of atezolizumab-induced fulminant T1DM in an HCC patient.

Tirzepatide: A Novel, Once-weekly Dual GIP and GLP-1 Receptor Agonist for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes.

Gastrointestinal hormones are currently used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Incretin preparations with gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) activity or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) provide new means for controlling blood glucose levels, body weight, and lipid metabolism. GIP, an incretin, has not been used due to lack of promising action against diabetes. However, recent studies have shown that GIP has an important effect on glucagon and insulin secretion under normoglycaemic conditions. Co-existence of GIP with GLP-1 and glucagon signalling leads to a stronger effect than that of GLP-1 stimulation alone. The development of a GIP/GLP-1R unimolecular dual agonist with affinity for both GIP and GLP-1 receptors is under investigation, and the drug is expected to be clinically available in the near future. Tirzepatide, a GIP/GLP-1R unimolecular dual agonist, regulates metabolism via both peripheral organs and the central nervous system. The SURPASS phase III clinical trials conducted for tirzepatide comprise 10 clinical trials, including five global trials and the global SURPASS-CVOT trial, with >13,000 patients with T2D (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255433). The clinical application of tirzepatide as a therapy for T2D may provide new insights into diabetic conditions and help clarify the role of GIP in its pathogenesis.

Novel approaches to pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Newly developed anti-diabetic medications have had multiple activities, beyond a blood glucose-lowering effect. Current drugs for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are based on the use of gastrointestinal hormones. Representative incretin preparations, such as those with glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 or gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) activity, aim to provide new means of controlling blood glucose levels, body weight, and lipid metabolism.In this manuscript, the pathophysiology of T2DM and the activities and characteristics of novel diabetic drugs are reviewed in the context of the Japanese population. This review also highlights the need for novel medicines to overcome the accompanying challenges. Finally, the author provides the reader with their expert perspectives.The incidence of T2DM has been increasing in the aging of Japanese society. In older people, medical development should focus on safety, easier self-administration, and the relief of caregiver burden in terms of continuous administration. In the young, the focus should be on effectiveness, with a particular emphasis on the protection of organs, increasing the ease of adherence, and safety. Novel medicines will need to push the envelope in these areas.

Efficacy and safety of a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-1): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in care, many people with type 2 diabetes do not meet treatment goals; thus, development of new therapies is needed. We aimed to assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide monotherapy versus placebo in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet and exercise alone. METHODS: We did a 40-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SURPASS-1), at 52 medical research centres and hospitals in India, Japan, Mexico, and the USA. Adult participants (≥18 years) were included if they had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet and exercise alone and if they were naive to injectable diabetes therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via computer-generated random sequence to once a week tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg), or placebo. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at 40 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03954834. FINDINGS: From June 3, 2019, to Oct 28, 2020, of 705 individuals assessed for eligibility, 478 (mean baseline HbA1c 7·9% [63 mmol/mol], age 54·1 years [SD 11·9], 231 [48%] women, diabetes duration 4·7 years, and body-mass index 31·9 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to tirzepatide 5 mg (n=121 [25%]), tirzepatide 10 mg (n=121 [25%]), tirzepatide 15 mg (n=121 [25%]), or placebo (n=115 [24%]). 66 (14%) participants discontinued the study drug and 50 (10%) discontinued the study prematurely. At 40 weeks, all tirzepatide doses were superior to placebo for changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, bodyweight, and HbA1c targets of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) and less than 5·7% (<39 mmol/mol). Mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 1·87% (20 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 5 mg, 1·89% (21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 10 mg, and 2·07% (23 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 15 mg versus +0·04% with placebo (+0·4 mmol/mol), resulting in estimated treatment differences versus placebo of -1·91% (-21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 5 mg, -1·93% (-21 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 10 mg, and -2·11% (-23 mmol/mol) with tirzepatide 15 mg (all p<0·0001). More participants on tirzepatide than on placebo met HbA1c targets of less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol; 87-92% vs 20%) and 6·5% or less (≤48 mmol/mol; 81-86% vs 10%) and 31-52% of patients on tirzepatide versus 1% on placebo reached an HbA1c of less than 5·7% (<39 mmol/mol). Tirzepatide induced a dose-dependent bodyweight loss ranging from 7·0 to 9·5 kg. The most frequent adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate and transient gastrointestinal events, including nausea (12-18% vs 6%), diarrhoea (12-14% vs 8%), and vomiting (2-6% vs 2%). No clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycaemia were reported with tirzepatide. One death occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Tirzepatide showed robust improvements in glycaemic control and bodyweight, without increased risk of hypoglycaemia. The safety profile was consistent with GLP-1 receptor agonists, indicating a potential monotherapy use of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes treatment. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Efficacy and safety of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide by baseline glycated hemoglobin, body mass index and age in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of two phase III trials.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes across different baseline characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from two randomized controlled trials were used: DUAL I Japan (n = 819 insulin-naïve participants) and DUAL II Japan (n = 210 insulin-experienced participants). Outcomes were assessed according to baseline glycated hemoglobin ( HbA1c ; <8.0%, ≥8.0-<9.0%, ≥9.0%), body mass index (<25, ≥25-<30, ≥30 kg/m2 ) and age (<65, ≥65 years). RESULTS: In DUAL I Japan, reductions in HbA1c with IDegLira versus degludec and liraglutide were observed across all subgroups (treatment differences: -0.48% to -0.72% vs degludec, -0.29% to -0.73% vs liraglutide). Results were similar with IDegLira versus degludec in DUAL II Japan (treatment differences: -0.82% to -1.61%). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions were significant for IDegLira versus liraglutide for baseline HbA1c and age in DUAL I Japan, and for IDegLira versus degludec for baseline HbA1c in DUAL II Japan. In DUAL I Japan, IDegLira was associated with less weight gain than degludec in most subgroups. In DUAL II Japan, IDegLira was associated with a small mean weight loss (except for baseline HbA1c ≥9.0%) versus a small gain for degludec (except for age ≥65 years subgroup); treatment-by-subgroup interactions were not significant. Total daily insulin dose was lower with IDegLira versus degludec across all categories, except for age >65 years in DUAL II Japan. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira reduced HbA1c in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes across baseline HbA1c , body mass index and age categories, without unexpected safety issues.

A Japanese Study Assessing Glycemic Control with Use of IDegAsp Co-formulation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice: The JAGUAR Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the glycemic control and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world clinical setting, including elderly patients (aged > 75 years). METHODS: Patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with T2D, previously treated with insulin were included from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Baseline data were taken at the index date, defined as the first IDegAsp prescription claim. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 12 months was estimated using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA1c < 8.0% without experiencing hypoglycemia (identified by International Classification of Disease codes) was calculated at 12 months (365 ± 90 days) after baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 10,798 patients were included, 3940 were aged > 75 years, and 913 had baseline HbA1c values available. Switching to IDegAsp was associated with significantly improved HbA1c values at 12 months (- 1.23% [- 1.43, - 1.02]95%CI, p < 0.001) versus baseline. Moreover, relative to baseline, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved HbA1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months, relative rate (RR) 1.30 [1.15, 1.45]95%CI, p < 0.001. Results were similar for patients aged ≤ 75 years and aged > 75 years; 66% and 64% of patients, respectively, achieved HbA1c < 8.0% without hypoglycemia at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Switching from insulin to IDegAsp co-formulation was associated with significantly improved glycemic control and a reduction in hypoglycemia rate during 12 months of follow-up in Japanese patients with T2D, including those aged > 75 years.

Benefit of Early Add-on of Linagliptin to Insulin in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Randomized-Controlled Open-Label Trial (TRUST2).

INTRODUCTION: This trial was conducted to assess the long-term safety, efficacy, and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This trial enrolled 246 subjects. The subjects were randomized to the linagliptin group or the control group and were observed for 156 weeks. After week 16, subjects in the control group were also allowed to add linagliptin to evaluate the benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin. The primary end point was a change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included fasting plasma glucose, daily insulin dose, and frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels significantly decreased from baseline to week 16 in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The significant improvement in HbA1c continued until week 52. The daily insulin dose significantly decreased in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The frequency of hypoglycemia and adverse events was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on of linagliptin to insulin was tolerated, improved glycemic control, and reduced the daily insulin dose. This study demonstrates the long-term safety, efficacy and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in Japanese T2DM patients.

Superior HbA1c control with the fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with a maximum dose of 50 units of insulin degludec in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes in a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with 50 U insulin degludec (degludec) or less in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, Japanese individuals with T2D that was uncontrolled with basal or pre-mix insulin (20-50 units) were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegLira or degludec, both with metformin. The maximum dose was 50 dose steps (IDegLira) or 50 units (degludec). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c with IDegLira vs degludec after 26 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: In total, 210 Japanese individuals were randomized to IDegLira or degludec and completion rates were 100% and 93%, respectively. IDegLira was superior to degludec with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) (95% confidence interval), -13.98 mmol/Mol (-16.41; -11.55); P < 0.0001. The change in mean HbA1c was from 70.6 by -21.3 mmol/Mol with IDegLira and from 70.1 by -7.1 mmol/Mol with degludec. Mean change in body weight was -0.7 kg with IDegLira and 0.7 kg with degludec: ETD (95% CI) -1.41 kg (-2.26; -0.56); P = 0.0012. Mean daily total insulin dose was significantly lower with IDegLira (37.6 U) as compared to that with degludec (41.2 U) at Week 26. Overall rates of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia and adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira provided superior reductions in HbA1c compared with ≤50 U degludec, with weight loss and similar hypoglycaemia rates and no unexpected safety or tolerability issues. These results suggest that this treatment could be an attractive intensification option for Japanese subjects with T2D that was uncontrolled with basal or pre-mixed insulin.

GLP1 Receptor Agonist Liraglutide Is an Effective Therapeutic Option for Perioperative Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are multimodal perioperative care pathways designed to achieve early recovery after surgical procedures by maintaining preoperative organ function and reducing profound stress responses following surgery [Wilmore and Kehlet: BMJ 2001; 322(7284): 473-6]. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAgs), such as liraglutide, have recently been widely used as antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) because they maintain blood glucose at an ideal level throughout the day, including during postprandial periods, thereby improving hypoglycemia and body weight more than insulin therapies. Additionally, the administration of liraglutide may exert cardiovascular, renal, and cerebral protective effects in T2D patients. The use of GLP-1RAgs for perioperative glycemic control is sometimes considered to be controversial. METHODS: The efficacy and safety of liraglutide therapy during perioperative glycemic control in elective surgery patients within ERAS protocols were compared with those of insulin therapy. Ninety adult T2D patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery within ERAS protocols were randomized and analyzed. Forty-nine subjects were prescribed liraglutide and 41 insulin therapy. Procedures comprised orthopedic, thoracic, urological, otolaryngological, hepatic resection, and gynecological breast surgeries. RESULTS: Liraglutide was shown to be a more effective option than insulin therapy because (1) glycemic levels were more stable; (2) the number of patients requiring additional insulin according to the insulin sliding scale was significantly smaller (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.005); (3) the insulin dosage required on the day of surgery was significantly smaller (Fisher's exact, p = 0.004); (4) the additional insulin volume required was significantly less for patients throughout the perioperative period (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.001); and (5) while lean body mass remained the same, body fat measurements, particularly visceral fat, tended to decrease. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the present study and a recent large-scale clinical study showing cardiovascular and renal protective effects in T2D patients, we consider the administration of liraglutide within ERAS protocols for T2D patients to represent a more comprehensive suite of patient protection measures as a perioperative non-insulin agent, particularly in patients with limited exercise ability and those at risk of hypoglycemia.

Efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide to existing insulin regimens in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A post-hoc analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To determine the efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide to three different insulin regimens in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis, results from a 36-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial are reported. Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus were stratified according to their pre-trial insulin regimen (basal, basal-bolus and premix). The primary objective was to determine whether adding liraglutide (0.9 mg/day) to fixed-dose insulin therapy was superior vs fixed-dose insulin monotherapy, assessed by the effect on glycemic control after 16 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The treatment effect on glycated hemoglobin reduction was independent of the pre-trial insulin regimen. Comparing liraglutide with a placebo, liraglutide was associated with glycated hemoglobin reduction in all insulin regimens, with placebo-corrected reductions at 16 weeks ranging from -1.45 to -1.17%, and maintained at 36 weeks. Liraglutide resulted in a greater reduction in mean plasma glucose obtained from seven-point self-monitoring, and greater proportions of patients achieved target glycated hemoglobin. With liraglutide, slightly higher proportions of patients receiving basal and basal-bolus insulin reported confirmed hypoglycemia from 0 to 16 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide to insulin therapy was confirmed, regardless of pre-trial insulin regimen.

Safety and efficacy of semaglutide once weekly vs sitagliptin once daily, both as monotherapy in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide vs sitagliptin in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: In this phase IIIa randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled, multicentre trial, Japanese adults with T2D treated with diet and exercise only or oral antidiabetic drug monotherapy (washed out during the run-in period) received once-weekly s.c. semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after 30 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 308 participants were randomized and exposed to treatment, with similar baseline characteristics across the groups. In total, 2.9% of participants in both the semaglutide 0.5 mg and the sitagliptin group prematurely discontinued treatment, compared with 14.7% in the semaglutide 1.0 mg group. The majority of discontinuations in the semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg groups were attributable to adverse events (AEs). More TEAEs were reported in semaglutide- vs sitagliptin-treated participants (74.8%, 71.6% and 66.0% in the semaglutide 0.5 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin groups, respectively). AEs were mainly mild to moderate. Gastrointestinal AEs, most frequently reported with semaglutide, diminished in frequency over time. The mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c [baseline 8.1%]) decreased by 1.9% and 2.2% with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs 0.7% with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference [ETD] vs sitagliptin -1.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.32; -0.94, and -1.44%, 95% CI -1.63; -1.24; both P < .0001). Body weight (baseline 69.3 kg) was reduced by 2.2 and 3.9 kg with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively (ETD -2.22 kg, 95% CI -3.02; -1.42 and -3.88 kg, 95% CI -4.70; -3.07; both P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese people with T2D, more TEAEs were reported with semaglutide than with sitagliptin; however, the semaglutide safety profile was similar to that of other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight compared with sitagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of subgroup analysis stratified by baseline HbA1c in a Japanese phase 3 study of dulaglutide 0.75 mg compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg (dulaglutide) compared with once-daily insulin glargine (glargine) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes were evaluated according to subgroups stratified by baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (≤8.5% or >8.5%). This exploratory analysis of a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 361 patients. In both HbA1c subgroups (patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8.5% or >8.5%), a statistically significantly greater reduction in HbA1c was observed in dulaglutide-treated patients compared with glargine-treated patients after 26 weeks of treatment (HbA1c ≤8.5%: dulaglutide, -1.27%; glargine, -0.72%; HbA1c >8.5%: dulaglutide, -2.04%; glargine, -1.47%; p < 0.001 for both). Mean body weight was decreased from baseline in both subgroups of the dulaglutide group and increased in both subgroups of the glargine group; there were statistically significant differences between the treatment groups in both subgroups (p < 0.05 for both). In both subgroups, similar reductions in fasting blood glucose were observed for dulaglutide- and glargine-treated patients, and a greater reduction in postprandial blood glucose was observed for dulaglutide-treated patients compared with glargine-treated patients. Although dulaglutide increased gastrointestinal adverse events compared with glargine in both subgroups, all gastrointestinal events of diarrhea, nausea, constipation, and vomiting in dulaglutide-treated patients were mild in intensity and well tolerated. In both subgroups, there was a lower incidence of hypoglycemia with dulaglutide than with glargine. Dulaglutide demonstrated significantly greater HbA1c reduction compared with glargine, with an acceptable safety profile, regardless of baseline HbA1c.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily in insulin-experienced Japanese subjects with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: Subgroup analysis of a Pan-Asian, treat-to-target Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The present study was a subgroup analysis of a Pan-Asian Phase 3 open-label randomized treat-to-target trial evaluating insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on insulin. METHODS: Eligible subjects (n = 178) were randomized (2: 1) to twice-daily (b.i.d.) IDegAsp or BIAsp 30 with or without metformin for 26 weeks, titrated to a blood glucose target of between 3.9 and <5.0 mmol/L. Changes in HbA1c , the proportion of responders reaching the HbA1c target, and changes in fasting plasma glucose, nine-point self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, and body weight were assessed. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, the decrease in HbA1c was similar in both groups. Fasting plasma glucose was lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (estimated treatment difference -1.50 mmol/L; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -1.98, -1.01). Overall confirmed hypoglycemia rates were similar; the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was lower with IDegAsp than BIAsp 30 (estimated rate ratio 0.44; 95 % CI 0.20, 0.99). No severe hypoglycemic episodes were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that IDegAsp b.i.d. improves glycemic control and, compared with BIAsp 30, lowers the rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia.

Combination therapy with liraglutide and insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 36-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To assess efficacy and safety of liraglutide in combination with insulin compared with insulin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 36-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, where patients on stable insulin therapy (basal/premixed/basal-bolus) were randomized 1:1 to additional liraglutide 0.9 mg/day (n = 127) or placebo (n = 130). The insulin dose was fixed for 16 weeks, and titrated based on self-measured plasma glucose thereafter. The primary end-point was change in glycosylated hemoglobin after 16 weeks. RESULTS: Superiority of liraglutide plus insulin versus insulin monotherapy was confirmed based on estimated mean difference in glycosylated hemoglobin after 16 weeks of -1.30% (-14 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval -1.47 to -1.13 [-16, -12]; P < 0.0001). Statistical significance was maintained to week 36. More patients on liraglutide achieved a glycosylated hemoglobin target of <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 16 (estimated odds ratio 50.57; 95% confidence interval 16.59 to 154.16; P < 0.0001). Improvements in seven-point self-measured plasma glucose and fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with liraglutide than the placebo at week 16. Insulin dose after 36 weeks was lower with liraglutide than the placebo (estimated treatment ratio: 0.82 [95% confidence interval 0.76-0.90; P < 0.0001]). Occurrence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (85.8 and 81.5%, respectively); most were mild in severity. There were no significant differences in the number of hypoglycemic episodes during the 36 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Adding liraglutide to insulin results in superior glycemic control compared with insulin alone in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally well tolerated.

Sitagliptin monotherapy has better effect on insulinogenic index than glimepiride monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 52-week, multicenter, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The 52-week monotherapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and the sulphonylurea glimepiride on early-phase insulin secretion in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is not known. METHODS: A randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial was conducted at 18 centers between February, 2011 and March, 2013. 171 outpatients with T2DM were recruited and randomly assigned to glimepiride or sitagliptin by minimization. Doses of glimepiride (0.25-1.0 mg/day) and sitagliptin (25-100 mg/day) were adjusted for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 6.9 %. Analyses were performed on full analysis set (FAS) of randomized subjects taking medications as allocated, and underwent 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTTs) before and after treatment. The primary outcome was insulinogenic index to quantify early-phase insulin secretion after treatment, which was evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Of 171 enrolled subjects, 68 in the sitagliptin group and 65 in the glimepiride group were included in the FAS (mean age, 64 years; baseline (HbA1c), 7.4 %). The primary outcome revealed a significantly higher insulinogenic index in the sitagliptin group than that in the glimepiride group (p = 0.036). Sitagliptin also reduced plasma glucose levels at 60 and 120 min during OGTT compared with glimepiride, while achieving a similar improvement in HbA1c during treatment. Body weight did not change in either of the two groups, and one case of hypoglycemia was observed in the glimepiride group. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin shows better effects on insulinogenic index after 52-week treatment compared with glimepiride in Japanese patients with T2DM. Trial registration University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry, No.00004791.

Liraglutide is effective and well tolerated in combination with an oral antidiabetic drug in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, 52-week, open-label, parallel-group trial.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of liraglutide in combination with an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) compared with combination of two OADs were assessed in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group trial in which patients whose type 2 diabetes was inadequately controlled with a single OAD (glinide, metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitor or thiazolidinedione) were randomized 2:1 to either pretrial OAD in combination with liraglutide 0.9 mg/day (liraglutide group; n = 240) or pretrial OAD in combination with an additional OAD (additional OAD group; n = 120). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, 86.3% of patients in the liraglutide group and 85.0% of patients in the additional OAD group experienced AEs; these were similar in nature and severity. Adverse event rates were 361 and 331 per 100 patient-years of exposure, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycemia was rare (seven episodes in two patients on liraglutide, and two in two patients on additional OAD). There were no reported pancreatitis events, and no unexpected safety signals were identified. Mean reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin were significantly greater in the liraglutide group than the additional OAD group [estimated mean treatment difference -0.27% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.09; P = 0.0026)]; reductions in mean fasting plasma glucose levels were also greater with liraglutide [estimated mean difference -5.47 mg/dL (-0.30 mmol/L; 95% CI: -10.83, -0.10; P = 0.0458)]. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was well tolerated and effective as combination therapy with an OAD in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal or pre-/self-mixed insulin: a 26-week, randomised, treat-to-target trial.

AIMS: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of IDeg and IAsp. This pan-Asian, 26-week trial investigated efficacy and safety of IDegAsp vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Asian adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), inadequately controlled on once- or twice-daily (BID) basal, premixed or self-mixed insulin. METHODS: Participants (mean age 59.8 years, HbA1c 8.4%, FPG 7.9 mmol/L, BMI 25.4 kg/m(2)) were randomised 2:1 to BID IDegAsp (n=282) or BIAsp 30 (n=142) and continued existing metformin treatment. Insulins were administered with breakfast and main evening meal, titrated to a pre-breakfast and pre-main evening meal self-measured plasma glucose target of 4-5 mmol/L. RESULTS: IDegAsp achieved the primary endpoint of non-inferiority to BIAsp 30 for mean change in HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] IDegAsp-BIAsp 30: 0.05% points [95% CI -0.10; 0.20]). IDegAsp was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (ETD -1.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.43; -0.70, p<0.001), and resulted in a lower final mean daily insulin dose (0.79 U/kg vs 0.99 U/kg, estimated rate ratio [RR] 0.79, 95% CI 0.73; 0.85, p<0.0001). Rates of overall confirmed and severe hypoglycaemia were similar between treatments, while rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was numerically (p=ns) lower with IDegAsp. During the maintenance period there was a trend (p=ns) towards lower hypoglycaemia rates for IDegAsp. CONCLUSION: In Asian adults with T2DM, IDegAsp BID effectively improves long-term glycaemic control, and compared to BIAsp 30, provides superior reductions in FPG with a lower dose, and numerically less nocturnal hypoglycaemia.