[Consensus on the use of iSGLT2 in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus]. / Documento de consenso sobre el uso de los iSGLT2 en el tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

Although in recent years in Mexico the quality of diabetes mellitus (DM) care has improved and access to health services and medications has increased, there is a lack of adherence to the recommendations of the clinical guidelines, which could explain the poor glycemic control in many of the patients with DM. Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (iSGLT2) inhibitors have been the last class of antidiabetic agents to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and COFEPRIS (Mexico). In order to improve the use of SGLT2i in clinical practice in Mexico, this paper presents the recommendations issued by a panel of eleven Mexican experts based on the new published evidence for the treatment of patients with DM2.

Aunque en los últimos años en México ha mejorado la calidad de la atención de la diabetes mellitus (DM) y ha aumentado el acceso a servicios de salud y medicamentos, existe una falta de apego a las recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica, que podría explicar la falta de un control glucémico adecuado en muchos de los pacientes con DM. Los inhibidores del cotransportador de sodio-glucosa tipo 2 (iSGLT2) han sido la última clase de agentes antidiabéticos en recibir la aprobación de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) y de la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios de México (COFEPRIS). Con el fin de mejorar el uso de los iSGLT2 en la práctica clínica en México, en este documento se presentan las recomendaciones emitidas por un panel de 11 expertos mexicanos con base en las nuevas evidencias publicadas para el tratamiento de los pacientes con DM2.

Documento de consenso sobre el uso de los iSGLT2 en el tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 / Consensus on the use of iSGLT2 in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Resumen Aunque en los últimos años en México ha mejorado la calidad de la atención de la diabetes mellitus (DM) y ha aumentado el acceso a servicios de salud y medicamentos, existe una falta de apego a las recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica, que podría explicar la falta de un control glucémico adecuado en muchos de los pacientes con DM. Los inhibidores del cotransportador de sodio-glucosa tipo 2 (iSGLT2) han sido la última clase de agentes antidiabéticos en recibir la aprobación de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) y de la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios de México (COFEPRIS). Con el fin de mejorar el uso de los iSGLT2 en la práctica clínica en México, en este documento se presentan las recomendaciones emitidas por un panel de 11 expertos mexicanos con base en las nuevas evidencias publicadas para el tratamiento de los pacientes con DM2.

Abstract Although in recent years in Mexico the quality of diabetes mellitus (DM) care has improved and access to health services and medications has increased, there is a lack of adherence to the recommendations of the clinical guidelines, which could explain the poor glycemic control in many of the patients with DM. Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (iSGLT2) inhibitors have been the last class of antidiabetic agents to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and COFEPRIS (Mexico). In order to improve the use of SGLT2i in clinical practice in Mexico, this paper presents the recommendations issued by a panel of eleven Mexican experts based on the new published evidence for the treatment of patients with DM2.

Mexican population sub-analysis of the lixilan clinical program with the fixed ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in the LixiLan clinical trials and compare results with the rest of the patients. METHODS: Data was collected for Mexican patients who participated in either of three studies: phase 2 trial LixiLan-POC, that compared iGlarLixi vs insulin glargine (iGlar) on inadequately controlled patients with metformin; phase 3 trial LixiLan-O, comparing iGlarLixi vs iGlar and lixisenatide on inadequately controlled patients with oral antidiabetic agents; and finally the phase 3 trial LixiLan-L, comparing iGlarLixi vs iGlar on inadequately controlled patients with basal insulin. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment. RESULTS: In the Mexican population, treatment with iGlarLixi significantly improved HbA1c compared with each component alone achieving an average of 6.5%; (6.17%, 6.63% and 6.73% for the LixiLan-POC, O and L studies respectively) and an average HbA1c reduction from baseline of 1.6%, for the three studies at end of treatment period. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety profile of iGlarLixi demonstrate a fair or better composite endpoint of HbA1c without hypoglycemia and no weight gain compared to overall trial population, which could help improve Mexican patients' outcomes.

Clinical use of the co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart.

AIMS: To provide a review of the available data and practical use of insulin degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp). Premixed insulins provide basal and prandial glucose control; however, they have an intermediate-acting prandial insulin component and do not provide as effective basal coverage as true long-acting insulins, owing to the physicochemical incompatibility of their individual components, coupled with the inflexibility of adjustment. The molecular structure of the co-formulation of IDegAsp, a novel insulin preparation, allows these two molecules to coexist without affecting their individual pharmacodynamic profiles. METHODS: Clinical evidence in phase 2/3 trials of IDegAsp efficacy and safety in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) have been assessed and summarised. RESULTS: In people with T2DM, once- and twice-daily dosing provides similar overall glycaemic control (HbA1c ) to current modern insulins, but with lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. In prior insulin users, glycaemic control was achieved with lower or equal insulin doses vs. other basal+meal-time or premix insulin regimens. In insulin-naïve patients with T2DM, IDegAsp can be started once or twice-daily, based on individual need. People switching from more than once-daily basal or premix insulin therapy can be converted unit-to-unit to once-daily IDegAsp, although this strategy should be assessed by the physician on an individual basis. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp offers physicians and people with T2DM a simpler insulin regimen than other available basal-bolus or premix-based insulin regimens, with stable daytime basal coverage, a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and some flexibility in injection timing compared with premix insulins.

Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sulphonylurea: a randomised trial.

AIMS: Canagliflozin is a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin as an add-on to metformin plus sulphonylurea in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Patients (N = 469) received canagliflozin 100 or 300 mg or placebo once daily during a 26-week core period and a 26-week extension. Prespecified primary end-point was change in HbA1c at 26 weeks. Secondary end-points included change in HbA1c at week 52 as well as proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0%, change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and systolic blood pressure, and per cent change in body weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides (weeks 26 and 52). RESULTS: HbA1c was significantly reduced with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg vs. placebo at week 26 (-0.85%, -1.06%, and -0.13%; p < 0.001); these reductions were maintained at week 52 (-0.74%, -0.96%, and 0.01%). Both canagliflozin doses reduced FPG and body weight vs. placebo at week 26 (p < 0.001) and week 52. Overall adverse event (AE) rates were similar across groups over 52 weeks, with higher rates of genital mycotic infections and osmotic diuresis-related AEs seen with canagliflozin vs. placebo; these led to few discontinuations. Increased incidence of documented, but not severe, hypoglycaemia episodes was seen with canagliflozin vs. placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin improved glycaemic control, reduced body weight, and was generally well tolerated in T2DM patients on metformin plus sulphonylurea over 52 weeks.

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor PHX1149 improves blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of PHX1149, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study in patients with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal metabolic control. Patients with a baseline haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7.3 to 11.0% were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to receive once-daily oral therapy with either PHX1149 (100, 200 or 400 mg) or placebo; patients were on a constant background therapy of either metformin alone or metformin plus a glitazone. RESULTS: Treatment with 100, 200 or 400 mg of PHX1149 significantly decreased postprandial glucose area under the curve AUC(0-2 h) by approximately 20% (+0.11 +/- 0.50, -2.08 +/- 0.51, -1.73 +/- 0.49 and -1.88 +/- 0.48 mmol/l x h, respectively, for placebo and 100, 200 and 400 mg (p = 0.002, 0.008 and 0.004 vs. placebo). Postprandial AUC(0-2 h) of intact glucagon-like peptide-1, the principal mediator of the biological effects of DPP4 inhibitors, was increased by 3.90 +/- 2.83, 11.63 +/- 2.86, 16.42 +/- 2.72 and 15.75 +/- 2.71 pmol/l x h, respectively, for placebo and 100, 200 and 400 mg (p = 0.053, 0.001 and 0.002 vs. placebo). Mean HbA(1c) was lower in all dose groups; the placebo-corrected change in the groups receiving 400 mg PHX1149 was -0.28% (p = 0.02). DPP4 inhibition on day 28 was 53, 73 and 78% at 24 h postdose in the groups receiving 100, 200 and 400 mg PHX1149, respectively. There were no differences in adverse events between PHX1149-treated and placebo subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of the DPP4 inhibitor PHX1149 to a stable regimen of metformin or metformin plus a glitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes was well tolerated and improved blood glucose control.