Urinary C-peptide analysis in an intervention study: experience from the DEFEND-2 otelixizumab trial.

AIMS: To demonstrate that analysis of urinary C-peptide across multiple study sites in the context of an intervention trial (DEFEND-2) is a viable alternative to mixed meal testing and delivers results that correlate to mixed meal testing estimation of endogenous insulin production. METHODS: Second morning void urine was collected for analysis and was available from 161 subjects at baseline (55 placebo, 106 otelixizumab), and 146 subjects (47 placebo, 99 otelixizumab) at month 12. Urinary C-peptide concentration was corrected for urinary creatinine [urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (UCPCR)] and serum C-peptide from the mixed meal tolerance test was calculated using area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) normalized over 120 min. The correlation between mixed meal stimulated C-peptide AUC (mmol/l/min) and UCPCR (nmol/mmol), as well as the correlation between insulin use (IU/kg), and HbA1c (%) with UCPCR, was determined. RESULTS: UCPCR and mixed meal testing C-peptide AUC were correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.4172. UCPCR was not correlated with exogenous insulin use (r = -0.089) or with HbA1c (r = -0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary C-peptide estimation should be considered as a measure of endogenous insulin production in future Type 1 diabetes mellitus outcome trials. A change in the timing for urine collection (to 120 min post standard meal) may provide a tighter correlation to C-peptide measured via a traditional mixed meal test.

Open-label randomized non-inferiority trial of a fixed-dose combination of glimepiride and atorvastatin for the treatment of people whose Type 2 diabetes is uncontrolled on metformin.

AIMS: To evaluate, in a randomized, open-label study, the non-inferiority of a bioequivalent fixed-dose combination of glimepiride and atorvastatin vs. separately co-administered tablets in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Participants with HbA1c ≥ 53 to < 80 mmol/mol (≥ 7.0 to < 9.5%), average fasting blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/l, who were on metformin for ≥ 3 months, were randomized to combination (n = 215) or co-administered glimepiride and atorvastatin (n = 212) once daily for 20 weeks. Up-titration of glimepiride (1-4 mg) and atorvastatin (10-20 mg) were based on average fasting blood glucose and LDL cholesterol, respectively. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to week 20 in HbA1c and LDL cholesterol. RESULTS: Non-inferiority was demonstrated for both co-primary endpoints: the upper limits of 95% CIs for differences (combination-reference) were less than the prespecified margins of 3.3 mmol/mol (0.3%) for change from baseline in HbA1c [difference 0.1 mmol/mol (95% CI -1.6, 1.9); 0.01% (95% CI -0.15, 0.17)] and 6% for percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol [difference 0.87% (95% CI -2.47, 4.21)]. Similar proportions of participants on combination and reference had treatment-emergent adverse events (64 vs. 61%). More participants on combination had hypoglycaemia (21 vs. 13%); most events were considered by the treating physician to be unrelated to study drug. CONCLUSIONS: The combination was non-inferior to separately co-administered tablets and the safety profile was consistent with the known profiles of glimepiride and atorvastatin. The observed increase in hypoglycaemia on the combination cannot be explained, but may be attributable to non-systematic collectiof glucose readings and may have been influenced by reporting bias in this open-label trial.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose otelixizumab anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody in preserving C-peptide secretion in adolescent type 1 diabetes: DEFEND-2, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-centre study.

AIMS: Phase III DEFEND-2 investigated whether otelixizumab (3.1 mg over 8 days) preserved C-peptide secretion in patients with new-onset Type 1 diabetes, focusing on adolescents (12-17 years). METHODS: One hundred and seventy-nine patients (54 adolescents) were randomized to otelixizumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in 2-h mixed-meal-stimulated C-peptide area under the curve at month 12. Enrolment was suspended in April 2011 following negative efficacy results from DEFEND-1. DEFEND-2 terminated early after 12 months' efficacy and safety follow-up. RESULTS: Change from baseline C-peptide was not significantly different [∆ = -0.09 nmol/l (95% CI -0.17 to 0; P = 0.051)]. No differential C-peptide effect was seen for otelixizumab in adolescents and more adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and tolerability of otelixizumab was similar to DEFEND-1. The 3.1-mg dose was non-efficacious in adults and adolescents. Further investigation of the mechanism of action seen at higher doses and therapeutic window is required. Clinical Trials Registry No: NCT 00763451.

A randomized, parallel group, double-blind, multicentre study comparing the efficacy and safety of Avandamet (rosiglitazone/metformin) and metformin on long-term glycaemic control and bone mineral density after 80 weeks of treatment in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if superior glycaemic control could be achieved with Avandamet® (rosiglitazone/metformin/AVM) compared with metformin (MET) monotherapy, and if glycaemic effects attained with AVM are durable over 18 months of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD) and bone biomarkers were evaluated in a subgroup of patients. METHODS: This was a phase IV, randomized, double-blind, multi-centre study in 688, drug naÏve, male and female patients who had an established clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio either to AVM or MET. RESULTS: As initial therapy in patients with T2DM, AVM was superior to MET in achieving statistically significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.0001) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (p < 0.001), with more patients reaching recommended HbA1c and FPG targets for intensive glycaemic control. The glycaemic effects attained with AVM compared to MET monotherapy were durable over 18 months of treatment. In the bone substudy, AVM was associated with a significantly lower BMD in comparison with MET at week 80 in the lumbar spine and total hip (p < 0.0012 and p = 0.0005, respectively). Between-treatment differences were not statistically significant for distal one-third of radius BMD, femoral neck BMD or total BMD. CONCLUSION: Superior glycaemic control was achieved with AVM compared with MET monotherapy. The superior glycaemic effects were shown to be durable over 18 months of treatment. AVM was associated with a significantly reduced BMD in comparison with MET at week 80 in the lumbar spine and total hip.

Subcutaneous Administration of Otelixizumab is Limited by Injection Site Reactions: Results of an Exploratory Study in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Patients.

Targeting CD3 antigens on human T lymphocytes with monoclonal antibodies has been shown to reduce the rate of decline of C-peptides in recent-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus patients. However, effective doses are associated with infusion reactions typical of "cytokine release syndrome" and appear to be dose-limiting when administered as short-duration infusions. A possible alternative approach, which may reduce the rate of T cell activation and consequent systemic cytokine release, is to inject subcutaneously. We investigated single- and repeat-dose subcutaneous administration of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody otelixizumab in small cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes. Transient reductions in free or unbound CD3 antigen on CD4+ and CD8+ cells and absolute lymphocyte count were observed in the blood of these patients during treatment, consistent with the known mechanism of action of otelixizumab and other anti-CD3 monoclonal antibodies. This was despite the very low systemic exposure of antibodies measured during the same time period. With the exception of sporadic headaches, other symptoms associated with cytokine release syndrome, such as fever, nausea, vomiting, myalgia, and arthralgia, were absent in treated patients. However, treatment-related injection site reactions were consistently observed. The reactions were erythematous and their sizes were dose-dependent; in some cases, reactions persisted for up to 2 weeks following the start of treatment. While patients responded well to topical corticosteroid treatment and prophylaxis reduced the intensity of injection site reactions, the reactions were considered dose-limiting and higher doses were not investigated.

Variation in general practice medical admission rates for elderly people.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical admissions are rising, particularly in the elderly. Variation in admission rates between general practices has received little attention, and requires explanation. METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out of emergency medical admissions to the District General Hospital (DGH) and the Community Hospitals (CHs) in West Gloucestershire in subjects over 75 years of age during 3 years. A survey of general practitioner (GP) attitudes to emergency admissions was carried out. RESULTS: A five-fold spread in DGH and CH admission rates for elderly medical emergencies was found, and a three-fold spread of overall admission rates. Rates were consistent within a practice each year. The spreads of practice mortality rates and myocardial infarction admission rates were smaller. The variation between practices was not explained by the Jarman Index or by attitudes identified in GPs. Practices with high admission rates had slighter higher annual hospital mortality rates, but lower episode fatality rates. CONCLUSION: Admission rates show considerable variation between practices, which is only partly explained by morbidity rates, and consistency over 3 years.