Pharmacology of orismilast, a potent and selective PDE4 inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: There remains an unmet need for oral medications that are safe and efficacious for long-term management of chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISD). Inhibition of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) can modulate a broad range of pro-inflammatory cytokines that play a major role in CISD pathogenesis. Orismilast is a second generation PDE4 inhibitor in clinical development for CISD treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the PDE4 enzymatic activity and anti-inflammatory effects of orismilast in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo. METHODS: The PDE1-11 enzymatic activity of orismilast was tested in vitro using a single concentration of 308 nM orismilast. The PDE4 selectivity and inhibitory potency was further examined in a radiometric assay. Orismilast was tested on human whole blood and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) to determine effects on its cytokine secretion and inhibition profile ex vivo. Orismilast was orally administered in a murine model of chronic oxazolone-induced ear skin inflammation. Ear thickness, a marker of inflammation, and inflammatory cytokines were analysed. RESULTS: Orismilast selectively inhibited PDE4 and demonstrated potent inhibition of PDE4B and PDE4D subtype splice variants in vitro. Orismilast inhibited whole blood and PBMC production of tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα), and the secretion of T-helper (Th)1 (TNFα and IFNγ), Th17 (IL-22 and IL-23), and Th2 (IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13) related cytokines in PBMC. In vivo, 10 and 30 mg/kg doses of orismilast significantly reduced ear thickness and inflammation markers (p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Orismilast displayed selective and potent PDE4 inhibition and broad-spectrum anti-inflammatory activity in several pre-clinical models. The results of the study support clinical development of oral orismilast as a novel treatment option for CISD including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Oral orismilast: Efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe psoriasis and development of modified release tablets.

BACKGROUND: Orismilast is a high-potency phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor with enhanced selectivity for the PDE4B and PDE4D subtypes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this phase 2a trial was to examine the efficacy and safety of orismilast for psoriasis using a first-generation immediate-release (IR) formulation. The objective of the subsequent phase 1 trial was to test new formulations designed to minimize the gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse events (AEs) observed with the first-generation IR formulation. We examined the following: (1) pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of orismilast modified release (MR) and IR, (2) food effects on PK properties of orismilast MR or IR, (3) safety of orismilast MR compared to placebo. METHODS: In a phase 2a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomized to receive 30 mg oral orismilast IR or placebo over 16 weeks. The single-site phase 1 trial consisted of three parts: (1) participants received a single 30 mg dose of orismilast MR and IR (open-label), (2) participants received 30 mg orismilast MR or IR under either fasting condition, following a high-fat meal or low-fat meal (open-label) and (3) participants received up to 60 mg orismilast MR twice-daily or a placebo for 17 days (double-blind). RESULTS: In the phase 2a trial, treatment with orismilast IR significantly improved the mean Psoriasis Area Severity Index score at week 16 compared to placebo. The phase 1 trial revealed comparable PK properties of the orismilast MR and IR formulations, with participants in the orismilast MR group experiencing fewer GI-related AEs than those receiving orismilast IR (16.7% vs. 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Orismilast IR displayed higher efficacy compared to placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis at week 16. Orismilast MR had similar PK properties and fewer GI disorders compared to the IR formulation in healthy participants. Future development of orismilast will be based on the MR formulation.

Redefining Hypoglycemia in Clinical Trials: Validation of Definitions Recently Adopted by the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the International Hypoglycaemia Study Group (IHSG) level 2 low glucose definition can identify clinically relevant hypoglycemia in clinical trials and offer value as an end point for future trials. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed of the SWITCH (SWITCH 1: n = 501, type 1 diabetes; SWITCH 2: n = 721, type 2 diabetes) and DEVOTE (n = 7,637, type 2 diabetes) trials utilizing the IHSG low glucose definitions. Patients in all trials were randomized to either insulin degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL. In the main analysis, the following definitions were compared: 1) American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2005 (plasma glucose [PG] confirmed ≤3.9 mmol/L with symptoms); and 2) IHSG level 2 (PG confirmed <3.0 mmol/L, independent of symptoms). RESULTS: In SWITCH 2, the estimated rate ratios of hypoglycemic events indicated increasing differences between treatments with decreasing PG levels until 3.0 mmol/L, following which no additional treatment differences were observed. Similar results were observed for the SWITCH 1 trial. In SWITCH 2, the IHSG level 2 definition produced a rate ratio that was lower than the ADA 2005 definition. CONCLUSIONS: The IHSG level 2 definition was validated in a series of clinical trials, demonstrating its ability to discriminate between basal insulins. This definition is therefore recommended to be uniformly adopted by regulatory bodies and used in future clinical trials.

Cost analysis of insulin degludec in comparison with insulin detemir in treatment of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the UK.

Objective: With healthcare systems under increasing financial pressure from costs associated with diabetes care, it is important to assess which treatments provide clinical benefits and represent best value. This study evaluated the annual costs of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin detemir (IDet) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK. Research design and methods: Using data from a randomized, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial-BEGIN YOUNG 1-annual costs with degludec versus IDet in children and adolescents aged 1-17 years with T1D were estimated, as costs of these insulins and hyperglycemia with ketosis events. Analyses by age group (1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years) and scenario (no ketosis benefit, no dose benefit, hyperglycemia with ketones >0.6 and >3.0 mmol/L and the additional costs of twice-daily IDet in 64% of patients) were also performed. Results: The mean annual cost per patient was estimated as £235.16 for degludec vs £382.91 for IDet, resulting in an annual saving of £147.75 per patient. These substantial cost savings were driven by relative reductions in the frequency of hyperglycemia with ketosis and basal insulin dose with degludec versus IDet. Annual savings in favor of degludec were observed across each age group (£122.63, £140.59 and £172.50 for 1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years age groups, respectively). Five scenario analyses further demonstrated the robustness of the results, which included no ketosis or dose benefits in favor of degludec. Conclusions: Degludec provides appreciable annual cost savings compared with IDet in children and adolescents with T1D in a UK setting. While a cost-effectiveness analysis could incorporate the health impact of treatment complications better than the present cost analysis, the strong generalizability of the data from this study suggests that degludec can help healthcare providers to maximize health outcomes despite increasingly stringent budgets.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in basal-bolus regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk based on the DEVOTE CV outcomes trial. METHODS: A microsimulation model, informed by clinical outcomes from the subgroup of patients using basal-bolus insulin therapy in DEVOTE (NCT01959529) and by the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 risk equations, was used to model direct costs (2018 GBP) and effectiveness outcomes [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec versus glargine U100 over a 40-year time horizon. The model captured the development of eight diabetes-related complications, death, severe hypoglycemia and insulin dosing. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England. RESULTS: Treatment with degludec versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a higher cost per patient [incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER): £14,956 GBP/QALY]. Degludec remained cost effective versus glargine U100 in all exploratory sensitivity analyses, with ICERs below the widely accepted willingness-to-pay threshold, although the result was most sensitive to assumptions regarding the persistence of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term modeling analysis suggested that degludec was cost effective (from the perspective of NHS England) versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens for patients with T2D at high CV risk. Our findings raise important questions regarding how to model the health economics of diabetes therapies.

Short-term cost-utility of degludec versus glargine U100 for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular events: A Canadian setting (DEVOTE 9).

AIMS: To evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate costs (2017 Canadian dollars [CAD]) and clinical outcomes (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) with degludec vs glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon. The model captured first major adverse cardiovascular event, death, severe hypoglycaemia and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by a post hoc subgroup analysis of the DEVOTE trial (NCT01959529), which compared the cardiovascular safety of degludec and glargine U100 in patients with T2D who are at high cardiovascular risk. High hypoglycaemia risk was defined as the top quartile of patients (n = 1887) based on an index of baseline hypoglycaemia risk factors. RESULTS: In patients at high hypoglycaemia risk, degludec was associated with mean cost savings (CAD 129 per patient) relative to glargine U100, driven by a lower incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and severe hypoglycaemia, which offset the slightly higher cost of treatment with degludec. A reduced risk of cardiovascular death and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+0.0132 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U100. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Over a 2-year period, degludec improved clinical outcomes at a lower cost as compared to glargine U100 in patients with T2D at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia.

The rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis with insulin degludec-based treatment compared with insulin detemir in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: An analysis of data from two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Historically, data on the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis have not been collected in clinical trials. However, it is clinically important to assess the rate of these events in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This question was addressed in two pediatric trials using insulin degludec (degludec). OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis in two-phase 3b trials investigating degludec (Study 1) and degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp [Study 2]) vs insulin detemir (IDet). SUBJECTS: Patients (aged 1-17 years inclusive) with T1D treated with insulin for ≥3 months. METHODS: Study 1: patients were randomized to degludec once daily (OD) or IDet OD/twice daily (BID) for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week extension phase. Study 2: patients were randomized to IDegAsp OD or IDet OD/BID for 16 weeks. Bolus mealtime IAsp was included in both studies. In Study 1, hyperglycemia was recorded if plasma glucose (PG) was >11.1 mmol/L, with ketone measurement required with significant hyperglycemia (>14.0 mmol/L). In Study 2, hyperglycemia was recorded with PG >14.0 mmol/L where the subject looked/felt ill, with ketone measurement also required in these hyperglycemic patients. In this post hoc analysis, the hyperglycemia threshold was 14.0 mmol/L for uniformity. RESULTS: Despite similar rates of hyperglycemia with degludec/IDegAsp compared with IDet, the rates of ketosis were lower with degludec/IDegAsp. CONCLUSIONS: These trials, the first to systematically collect data on ketosis in pediatric patients with T1D, demonstrate the potential of degludec/IDegAsp to reduce rates of metabolic decompensation, compared with IDet.

Clinical inertia in basal insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes - Results from a retrospective database study in Japan (JDDM 43).

AIMS: This retrospective cohort study investigated whether clinical inertia, the failure to intensify treatment when required, exists in Japanese clinical practice, using the CoDiC® database. How and when patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin received treatment intensification was also described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated basal insulin between 2004 and 2011 were eligible for inclusion. Patients with an HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53.0 mmol/mol) after 180 days of basal insulin titration were eligible for intensification, and their treatment was followed for up to 1.5 years. Endpoints were time to intensification, changes in HbA1c, and insulin dose. RESULTS: Overall, 2351 patients initiated basal insulin treatment (mean HbA1c 9.4% [79.2 mmol/mol]), and 1279 patients were eligible for treatment intensification (HbA1c ≥7.0% [≥53.0 mmol/mol]) after the 180-day titration period. During the 1.5-year follow-up period (beyond the 180-day titration period), 270 (21%) of these patients received treatment intensification. In patients receiving treatment intensification, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.6 to 8.2% (70.5 to 66.1 mmol/mol) at end of follow-up. Treatment was intensified using bolus insulin in 126 (47%) patients and with premixed insulin in 144 (53%) patients. The estimated probability of intensifying treatment during the 12 months after recording HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53.0 mmol/mol) was 22.8%, and 27.5% after 17 months. Mean end-of-follow-up daily insulin dose was 35.11 units for basal-bolus compared with 20.70 units for premix therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests clinical inertia exists in basal insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan. Strategies are needed to increase the number of patients undergoing therapy intensification and to reduce the delay in intensification in Japan.

DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal-Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal-bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal-bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. RESULTS: Degludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs. CONCLUSION: The present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal-bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories. RESULTS: We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Ketosis Events in Pediatric and Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Ketosis is a metabolic state associated with insulin deficiency. Untreated, it develops into diabetic ketoacidosis, a significant contributor to mortality and morbidity in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Little is understood about how patients utilize healthcare resources during ketosis events. This study aimed to identify and quantify healthcare resource utilization and provide estimates of associated costs of ketosis events in T1DM, treated unaided or with healthcare professional (HCP) assistance in the UK. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with adult patients, pediatric carers, and HCPs identified resources used by patients/carers during ketosis events. An online quantitative survey was then used to quantify patients/carers resource use during their/their child's most recent ketosis event, and HCPs estimated patient resource uptake to corroborate the findings. Associated costs estimated from UK data sources were applied to the survey results to calculate the cost of ketosis events in adults and children. RESULTS: Quantitative survey responses from 93 adults, 76 carers, and 52 HCPs were analyzed. Patients and carers monitored ketosis during and following the event with ketone strips and additional glucose strips, and administered treatment comprising insulin and pump set changes where appropriate. Additionally, patients/carers accessed phone services and many received follow-up medical appointments. In total, 70% (n = 65) of adult and 66% (n = 50) of pediatric ketosis events were managed at home, for which resource use costs per event were £23.87 and £38.00 respectively. Remaining events were treated in NHS facilities costing £217.57 per adult and £352.92 per child. Weighted averages identified that ketosis events cost £81.98 per adult and £142.97 per child. Indirect costs from work productivity loss increase these figures to £225.11 per adult and £256.88 per child. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare resource use for ketosis events is high in adults and children with T1DM and imposes an underappreciated economic burden for the NHS. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.