Endothelial-protective effects of a G-protein-biased sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor-1 agonist, SAR247799, in type-2 diabetes rats and a randomized placebo-controlled patient trial.

AIMS: SAR247799 is a G-protein-biased sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor-1 (S1P1 ) agonist designed to activate endothelial S1P1 and provide endothelial-protective properties, while limiting S1P1 desensitization and consequent lymphocyte-count reduction associated with higher doses. The aim was to show whether S1P1 activation can promote endothelial effects in patients and, if so, select SAR247799 doses for further clinical investigation. METHODS: Type-2 diabetes patients, enriched for endothelial dysfunction (flow-mediated dilation, FMD <7%; n = 54), were randomized, in 2 sequential cohorts, to 28-day once-daily treatment with SAR247799 (1 or 5 mg in ascending cohorts), placebo or 50 mg sildenafil (positive control) in a 5:2:2 ratio per cohort. Endothelial function was assessed by brachial artery FMD. Renal function, biomarkers and lymphocytes were measured following 5-week SAR247799 treatment (3 doses) to Zucker diabetic fatty rats and the data used to select the doses for human testing. RESULTS: The maximum FMD change from baseline vs placebo for all treatments was reached on day 35; mean differences vs placebo were 0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.34 to 1.53%; P = .203) for 1 mg SAR247799, 1.07% (95% CI 0.13 to 2.01%; P = .026) for 5 mg SAR247799 and 0.88% (95% CI -0.15 to 1.91%; P = .093) for 50 mg sildenafil. Both doses of SAR247799 were well tolerated, did not affect blood pressure, and were associated with minimal-to-no lymphocyte reduction and small-to-moderate heart rate decrease. CONCLUSION: These data provide the first human evidence suggesting endothelial-protective properties of S1P1 activation, with SAR247799 being as effective as the clinical benchmark, sildenafil. Further clinical testing of SAR247799, at sub-lymphocyte-reducing doses (≤5 mg), is warranted in vascular diseases associated with endothelial dysfunction.

Injecting without pressing a button: An exploratory study of a shield-triggered injection mechanism.

AIMS: To evaluate the injection success and user perception of a shield-triggered pen-injector mechanism. METHODS: The trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02627287) was an exploratory, two-centre, one-visit, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in Germany in 150 injection-experienced individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants self-administered subcutaneous injections of a placebo solution using a prototype shield-triggered pen-injector, DV3316 (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), and FlexPen (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). Injection success was evaluated on a yes/no basis by the investigator. Participant confidence, leakage of fluid and pain were evaluated after each injection. Pain and device experience were assessed after completion of all injections with each pen-injector. Overall preference was assessed after completion of all injections with both pen-injectors. RESULTS: Injection success was high with both pen-injectors (97.0%, DV3316 vs 99.7%, FlexPen). Participant confidence in dose delivery was similar for the two devices (88% of injections with DV3316 vs 81% with FlexPen were scored as "extremely confident"). The median injection pain score on a visual analogue scale (0-100) was 3 with DV3316 vs 4 with FlexPen after each injection, and 4 with DV3316 vs 5 with FlexPen after all injections with each device. After all injections were completed, 55% of participants reported an overall preference for DV3316 vs 21% for FlexPen. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that injection-experienced individuals can achieve a high injection success rate with a shield-triggered pen-injector, with similar patient confidence and injection pain compared with FlexPen.

Mim8, a novel factor VIIIa mimetic bispecific antibody, shows favorable safety and pharmacokinetics in healthy adults.

Background: Mim8 (denecimig) is a novel activated coagulation factor VIII-mimetic bispecific antibody that assembles with activated coagulation FIX and FX on the platelet membrane surface. Objectives: The FRONTIER1 (NCT04204408, NN7769-4513) single ascending dose and the 4882 pharmacokinetic (PK) studies (NCT05127473, NN7769-4882) examined the safety, tolerability, PK, and pharmacodynamics (PD) of Mim8 in healthy adult males. Methods: The FRONTIER1 single ascending dose study consisted of 6 cohorts, each with 6 participants who received a single subcutaneous (s.c.) dose of Mim8 and 2 participants who received a placebo. The 4882 PK study had 11 arms, each with 6 participants who received a single s.c. dose of Mim8. The primary endpoint for both studies was treatment-emergent adverse events. Other safety assessments included relative changes in D-dimer, prothrombin fragments 1 and 2, fibrinogen, and platelets. The PK and PD were assessed using Mim8 plasma concentration and activated partial thromboplastin clotting time and thrombin generation, respectively. Results: Mim8 was well tolerated, and there were no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. The PK properties of Mim8 in both studies were consistent with dose-proportionality. The terminal half-life of Mim8 after a single dose was approximately 1 month, and maximum plasma concentration was reached after 10 days. Conclusion: The PK and PD profiles suggest that Mim8 is suitable as a long-acting FVIIIa-mimetic bispecific antibody for hemophilia A prophylaxis.

Improving the Assessment of Flow-Mediated Dilation Through Detection of Peak Time in Healthy Subjects and Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes.

The assessment of flow-mediated dilation (FMD) is widely used to quantify endothelial function. Historically, FMD was determined at 60 seconds post-cuff deflation. We investigated whether FMD would be more accurate if determined at maximum dilatory peak (MDP) than at 60 seconds in healthy subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We studied 95 healthy and 72 subjects with T2DM and assessed FMD at MDP, 60 and 90 seconds. Twenty-four healthy and 12 subjects with T2DM underwent a repeat FMD after 28 days. In healthy subjects, FMD at MDP was higher than at 60 and 90 seconds, with mean difference MDP versus 60 seconds 1.14% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7); P < .0001 and MDP versus 90 seconds 1.9% (95% CI: 1.3-2.5) with similar results in T2DM, that is, 1.0% (95% CI: 0.1-1.9) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3-3.2), respectively. Intraindividual variability was lowest with MDP compared with 60 and 90 seconds, that is, 15.0 versus 23.2% and 40.0%, respectively, resulting in a more than 2-fold reduction in necessary sample size. In healthy subjects and subjects with T2DM, assessment of FMD using MDP results in a more accurate and precise assessment leading to a substantial reduction in sample size.

Insulin Injection Into Lipohypertrophic Tissue: Blunted and More Variable Insulin Absorption and Action and Impaired Postprandial Glucose Control.

OBJECTIVE: Lipohypertrophy (LHT) is common in insulin-treated patients but its exact impact on insulin absorption and action is unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this crossover study, 13 patients with type 1 diabetes received subcutaneous abdominal injections of 0.15 units/kg insulin lispro into LHT (confirmed by examination and ultrasound) and normal adipose tissue (NAT). On one day, a euglycemic clamp was performed with two injections each into LHT and NAT, and on another day one injection per region was given before a standardized mixed meal (75 g carbohydrates), all in randomized order. RESULTS: Compared with NAT, LHT reduced insulin absorption (mean area under the insulin concentration curve [AUCINS0-4h] 131 vs. 165 h * mU/L [LHT vs. NAT]; Cmax 61 vs. 79 mU/L, P < 0.02, respectively) and effect (areas under glucose infusion rate [GIR] curves [AUCGIR0-4h 625 vs. 775 mg/kg, P < 0.05]) but increased intrasubject variability ([coefficient of variation] AUCINS0-4h 52 vs. 11%, Cmax 55 vs. 15%, AUCGIR0-4h 57 vs. 23%, all P < 0.01). Postprandial blood glucose (BG) concentrations were ≥26% higher with LHT (AUCBG0-5h 731 vs. 513 mg * h/dL, BGmax 199 vs. 157 mg/dL, 2-h BG 150 vs. 104 mg/dL, 5-h BG 145 vs. 81 mg/dL, all P < 0.05) and maximum concentrations occurred later. Hypoglycemia (BG ≤50 mg/dL) occurred numerically less frequently with LHT injection (two vs. six patients), whereas profound hyperglycemia (BG ≥300 mg/dL) only occurred with LHT injection (two patients). Tmax-INS did not differ between LHT and NAT in either study. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin absorption and action are blunted and considerably more variable with LHT injection, leading to profound deterioration in postprandial glucose control.

Steady state is reached within 2-3 days of once-daily administration of degludec, a basal insulin with an ultralong duration of action.

BACKGROUND: Various factors influence the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin analogs. The aim of the present study was to determine time to steady state of insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin analog with an ultralong duration of action, after once-daily subcutaneous administration in subjects of varying age, diabetes type, and ethnicity. METHODS: Time to steady state was analyzed in 195 subjects across five Phase I randomized single-center double-blind studies: three in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), including one in elderly subjects, and two in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including one with African American and Hispanic/Latino subpopulations. Subjects received once-daily IDeg (100 U/mL, s.c.) at doses of 0.4-0.8 U/kg for 6-12 days. Time to clinical steady state was measured from first dose until the serum IDeg trough concentration exceeded 90% of the final plateau level. The IDeg concentrations were log-transformed and analyzed using a mixed-effects model with time from first dose and dose level (where applicable) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. RESULTS: Steady state serum IDeg concentrations were reached after 2-3 days in all subjects. In trials with multiple dose levels, time to steady state was independent of dose level in T1DM (P = 0.51) and T2DM (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Serum IDeg concentrations reached steady state within 2-3 days of once-daily subcutaneous administration in all subjects with T1DM or T2DM, including elderly and African American and Hispanic/Latino subjects. At steady state, serum IDeg concentrations were unchanged from day to day.

Contrasting Effects of Lixisenatide and Liraglutide on Postprandial Glycemic Control, Gastric Emptying, and Safety Parameters in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Optimized Insulin Glargine With or Without Metformin: A Randomized, Open-Label Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This mechanistic trial compared the pharmacodynamics and safety of lixisenatide and liraglutide in combination with optimized insulin glargine with/without metformin in type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-arm trial comparing lixisenatide 20 µg and liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg once daily for 8 weeks in combination with insulin glargine after optimized titration. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 8 in incremental area under the postprandial plasma glucose curve for 4 h after a standardized solid breakfast (AUC PPG0030-0430 h). Changes from baseline in gastric emptying, 24-h plasma glucose profile, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 24-h ambulatory heart rate and blood pressure, amylase and lipase levels, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients were randomized and treated. Lixisenatide 20 µg achieved greater reductions of AUC PPG0030-0430 h compared with liraglutide (marginal mean [95% one-sided CI] treatment difference, -6.0 [-7.8] h ⋅ mmol/L [-108.3 (-140.0) h ⋅ mg/dL] vs. liraglutide 1.2 mg and -4.6 [-6.3] h ⋅ mmol/L [-83.0 (-114.2) h ⋅ mg/dL] vs. liraglutide 1.8 mg; P < 0.001 for both), and gastric emptying was delayed to a greater extent than with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg (P < 0.001 for treatment comparisons). FPG was unchanged in all treatment arms. At week 8, mean ± SD HbA1c was 6.2 ± 0.4% (44 ± 5 mmol/mol), 6.1 ± 0.3% (44 ± 4 mmol/mol), and 6.1 ± 0.3% (44 ± 4 mmol/mol) for lixisenatide 20 µg and liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg, respectively. At week 8, both liraglutide doses increased marginal mean ± SE 24-h heart rate from baseline by 9 ± 1 bpm vs. 3 ± 1 bpm with lixisenatide (P < 0.001). Occurrence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was higher with lixisenatide; gastrointestinal AEs were more common with liraglutide. Lipase levels were significantly increased from baseline with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg (marginal mean ± SE increase 21 ± 7 IU/L for both; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide and liraglutide improved glycemic control in optimized insulin glargine-treated T2D albeit with contrasting mechanisms of action and differing safety profiles.

Glucose-lowering effect of insulin degludec is independent of subcutaneous injection region.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with diabetes mellitus inject insulin in different regions of the body. This study investigated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg), a new-generation once-daily basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, after subcutaneous (SC) administration in different injection regions. METHODS: In this study, 20 healthy subjects received single SC doses of IDeg (0.4 U/kg; separated by 13-21 days) in the thigh, abdomen and deltoid in a randomised, open-label, single-centre, single-dose, complete crossover trial. Each dose was followed by a 24-h euglycaemic clamp and 120-h pharmacokinetic blood sampling. The obtained pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles were extrapolated to steady state by simulation using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. RESULTS: Total IDeg exposure [area under the IDeg serum concentration-time curve 0-120 h after a single dose (AUCIDeg,0-120h,SD)] and maximum serum concentration [maximum IDeg serum concentration after a single dose (C max,IDeg,SD)] were higher (6-7 and 23-27 %, respectively) following a single SC dose in the deltoid or abdomen, compared with the thigh, as also observed with other insulin preparations. No statistical difference was observed in these measures between deltoid and abdominal administration. No pronounced differences were observed in the glucose-lowering effect of IDeg [area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve 0-24 h after a single dose (AUCGIR,0-24h,SD) and maximum GIR after a single dose (GIRmax,SD)] when injected in the thigh, abdomen or deltoid (AUCGIR,0-24h,SD 2,572, 2,833 and 2,960 mg/kg, respectively). Simulated mean steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles supported a flat and stable IDeg exposure and effect regardless of injection region, with comparable total glucose-lowering effects [area under the GIR curve at steady state (AUCGIR,τ,SS)] between the thigh, abdomen and deltoid. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support administering IDeg SC in the thigh, upper arm or abdominal wall without affecting IDeg absorption or effect at steady state.