Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in SUSTAIN China: A 30-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomized trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a multiregional clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the 30-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator SUSTAIN China trial, 868 adults with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin (HbA1c 7.0%-10.5%) were randomized to receive once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg (n = 288), semaglutide 1.0 mg (n = 290) or once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 290). The primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 30 in HbA1c and body weight, respectively. RESULTS: The trial enrolled ~70% (605/868) of the patients in China, and the remaining patients from four other countries, including the Republic of Korea. Both doses of semaglutide were superior to sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c and body weight after 30 weeks of treatment. The odds of achieving target HbA1c of less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), weight loss of 5% or higher, or 10% or higher, and the composite endpoint of HbA1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia no weight gain, were all significantly higher with both semaglutide doses compared with sitagliptin. The safety profile for semaglutide was consistent with the known class effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists (RAs). Consistent efficacy and safety findings were seen in the Chinese subpopulation. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to sitagliptin in improving glycaemic control and reducing body weight in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin. The safety and tolerability profiles were consistent with those of semaglutide and other GLP-1 RAs. Semaglutide is an effective once-weekly treatment option for the Chinese population.

Efficacy of Liraglutide for Weight Loss Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SCALE Diabetes Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Weight loss of 5% to 10% can improve type 2 diabetes and related comorbidities. Few safe, effective weight-management drugs are currently available. OBJECTIVE: To investigate efficacy and safety of liraglutide vs placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six-week randomized (2:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with 12-week observational off-drug follow-up period. The study was conducted at 126 sites in 9 countries between June 2011 and January 2013. Of 1361 participants assessed for eligibility, 846 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were body mass index of 27.0 or greater, age 18 years or older, taking 0 to 3 oral hypoglycemic agents (metformin, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea) with stable body weight, and glycated hemoglobin level 7.0% to 10.0%. INTERVENTIONS: Once-daily, subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) (n = 423), liraglutide (1.8 mg) (n = 211), or placebo (n = 212), all as adjunct to 500 kcal/d dietary deficit and increased physical activity (≥150 min/wk). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Three coprimary end points: relative change in weight, proportion of participants losing 5% or more, or more than 10%, of baseline weight at week 56. RESULTS: Baseline weight was 105.7 kg with liraglutide (3.0-mg dose), 105.8 kg with liraglutide (1.8-mg dose), and 106.5 kg with placebo. Weight loss was 6.0% (6.4 kg) with liraglutide (3.0-mg dose), 4.7% (5.0 kg) with liraglutide (1.8-mg dose), and 2.0% (2.2 kg) with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, -4.00% [95% CI, -5.10% to -2.90%]; liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, -2.71% [95% CI, -4.00% to -1.42%]; P < .001 for both). Weight loss of 5% or greater occurred in 54.3% with liraglutide (3.0 mg) and 40.4% with liraglutide (1.8 mg) vs 21.4% with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, 32.9% [95% CI, 24.6% to 41.2%]; for liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, 19.0% [95% CI, 9.1% to 28.8%]; P < .001 for both). Weight loss greater than 10% occurred in 25.2% with liraglutide (3.0 mg) and 15.9% with liraglutide (1.8 mg) vs 6.7% with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, 18.5% [95% CI, 12.7% to 24.4%], P < .001; for liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, 9.3% [95% CI, 2.7% to 15.8%], P = .006). More gastrointestinal disorders were reported with liraglutide (3.0 mg) vs liraglutide (1.8 mg) and placebo. No pancreatitis was reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes, use of subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) daily, compared with placebo, resulted in weight loss over 56 weeks. Further studies are needed to evaluate longer-term efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01272232.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability of Once-Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide in Healthy Chinese Subjects: A Double-Blind, Phase 1, Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly (OW) subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide is an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This trial was designed to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of OW s.c. semaglutide in healthy Chinese subjects. METHODS: In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 36 healthy subjects were randomised to OW s.c. semaglutide 0.5 mg (n = 12), 1.0 mg (n = 12), or placebo (n = 12). Treatment (semaglutide or placebo) was blinded for the subjects, investigators and sponsor. The primary endpoint was steady-state semaglutide exposure, defined as the area under the curve over a dosing interval at steady state (AUC0-168 h,SS). RESULTS: In total, 34 subjects completed the trial. The steady-state exposure of semaglutide was higher for subjects treated with 1.0 mg semaglutide (AUC0-168 h,ss: 7961 nmol h/l and Cmax,ss: 55.9 nmol/l) compared to 0.5 mg semaglutide (AUC0-168 h,ss: 4000 nmol h/l and Cmax,ss: 28.8 nmol/l). The total exposure of semaglutide increased in a dose-proportional manner in healthy Chinese subjects; the treatment ratio (1.0 mg/0.5 mg) [95% confidence interval] for AUC0-168 h,SS was 1.99 [1.78; 2.23]. Treatment with OW s.c. semaglutide was well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects. As expected for the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, and no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of OW s.c. semaglutide in healthy Chinese subjects were consistent with previous clinical pharmacology trials of OW s.c. semaglutide in other populations. The results suggest that no dose adjustment is necessary for semaglutide in Chinese patients with T2D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03288740.

Early Weight Loss with Liraglutide 3.0 mg Predicts 1-Year Weight Loss and is Associated with Improvements in Clinical Markers.

OBJECTIVE: To identify an early response criterion for predicting ≥5% weight loss with liraglutide 3.0 mg at week 56 and to compare efficacy outcomes in early responders (ERs) and early nonresponders (ENRs). METHODS: Using pooled data from the SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes and SCALE Diabetes trials, weight loss of ≥4% at 16 weeks best predicted ≥5% weight loss after 56 weeks. Weight loss and changes in cardiometabolic risk factors and health-related quality of life were evaluated in ERs (≥4% weight loss at week 16) and ENRs (<4% weight loss at week 16) completing 56 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: Proportions of ERs/ENRs to liraglutide 3.0 mg were 77.3%/22.7% (individuals without type 2 diabetes, T2D) and 62.7%/37.3% (those with T2D). Greater mean weight loss was observed in ERs versus ENRs: 10.8% versus 3.0% (without T2D) and 8.5% versus 3.1% (T2D). In both trials, greater proportions of ERs versus ENRs achieved ≥5%, >10%, and >15% weight loss at week 56 with liraglutide 3.0 mg. Greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and health-related quality of life scores were observed in ERs versus ENRs. CONCLUSIONS: The early response criterion was clinically useful to identify individuals who would achieve clinically meaningful weight loss at 56 weeks.

Comparison of a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of insulin degludec (70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp, an alternative IDegAsp formulation (AF: containing 45% IAsp), and biphasic IAsp 30 (BIAsp 30). DESIGN: Sixteen-week, open-label, randomised, treat-to-target trial. METHODS: Insulin-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (18-75 years) and a HbA1c of 7-11% were randomised to twice-daily IDegAsp (n=61), AF (n=59) or BIAsp 30 (n=62), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered pre-breakfast and dinner (main evening meal) and titrated to pre-breakfast and pre-dinner plasma glucose (PG) targets of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c after 16 weeks was comparable for IDegAsp, AF and BIAsp 30 (6.7, 6.6 and 6.7% respectively). With IDegAsp, 67% of subjects achieved HbA1c 7.0% Without confirmed hypoglycaemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment compared with 53% (AF) and 40% (BIAsp 30). Mean fasting PG was significantly lower for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (treatment difference (TD): -0.99 mmol/l (95% confidence interval: -1.68; 0.29)) and AF vs BIAsp 30 (TD: -0.88 mmol/l (-1.58; -0.18)). A significant, 58% lower rate of confirmed hypoglycaemia was found for IDegAsp vs BIAsp 30 (rate ratio (RR): 0.42 (0.23; 0.75)); rates were similar for AF vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.92 (0.54; 1.57)). IDegAsp and AF had numerically lower rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia vs BIAsp 30 (RR: 0.33 (0.09; 1.14) and 0.66 (0.22; 1.93) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp provided comparable overall glycaemic control to BIAsp 30 with a significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemia.

Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetic pregnancy: role of preconception insulin aspart treatment in a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE A recent randomized trial compared prandial insulin aspart (IAsp) with human insulin in type 1 diabetic pregnancy. The aim of this exploratory analysis was to investigate the incidence of severe hypoglycemia during pregnancy and compare women enrolled preconception with women enrolled during early pregnancy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS IAsp administered immediately before each meal was compared with human insulin administered 30 min before each meal in 99 subjects (44 to IAsp and 55 to human insulin) randomly assigned preconception and in 223 subjects (113 for IAsp and 110 for human insulin) randomly assigned in early pregnancy (<10 weeks). NPH insulin was the basal insulin. Severe hypoglycemia (requiring third-party assistance) was recorded prospectively preconception (where possible), during pregnancy, and postpartum. Relative risk (RR) of severe hypoglycemia was evaluated with a gamma frailty model. RESULTS Of the patients, 23% experienced severe hypoglycemia during pregnancy with the peak incidence in early pregnancy. In the first half of pregnancy, the RR of severe hypoglycemia in women randomly assigned in early pregnancy/preconception was 1.70 (95% CI 0.91-3.18, P = 0.097); the RR in the second half of pregnancy was 1.35 (0.38-4.77, P = 0.640). In women randomly assigned preconception, severe hypoglycemia rates occurring before and during the first and second halves of pregnancy and postpartum for IAsp versus human insulin were 0.9 versus 2.4, 0.9 versus 2.4, 0.3 versus 1.2, and 0.2 versus 2.2 episodes per patient per year, respectively (NS). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that initiation of insulin analog treatment preconception rather than during early pregnancy may result in a lower risk of severe hypoglycemia in women with type 1 diabetes.