A look at duodenal mucosal resurfacing: Rationale for targeting the duodenum in type 2 diabetes.

Affecting 5%-10% of the world population, type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is firmly established as one of the major health burdens of modern society. People with T2DM require long-term therapies to reduce blood glucose, an approach that can mitigate the vascular complications. However, fewer than half of those living with T2DM reach their glycaemic targets despite the availability of multiple oral and injectable medications. Adherence and access to medications are major barriers contributing to suboptimal diabetes treatment. The gastrointestinal tract has recently emerged as a target for treating T2DM and altering the underlying disease course. Preclinical and clinical analyses have elucidated changes in the mucosal layer of the duodenum potentially caused by dietary excess and obesity, which seem to be prevalent among individuals with metabolic disease. Supporting these findings, gastric bypass, a surgical procedure which removes the duodenum from the intestinal nutrient flow, has remarkable effects that improve, and often cause remission of, diabetes. From this perspective, we explore the rationale for targeting the duodenum with duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR). We examine the underlying physiology of the duodenum and its emerging role in T2DM pathogenesis, the rationale for targeting the duodenum by DMR as a potential treatment for T2DM, and current data surrounding DMR. Importantly, DMR has been demonstrated to change mucosal abnormalities common in those with obesity and diabetes. Given the multifactorial aetiology of T2DM, understanding proximate contributors to disease pathogenesis opens the door to rethinking therapeutic approaches to T2DM, from symptom management toward disease modification.

Contemporary Clinical Perspectives on Targeting Remission of Type 2 Diabetes.

It has long been known that some patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) can experience sustained metabolic improvement to near-normal levels of glycemia either spontaneously or after medical intervention. Now recognized as remission of diabetes, this intriguing state is currently more feasible than ever before due to profound advances in metabolic surgery, pharmacologic therapy, and regimens of lifestyle modification. This enhanced capacity to induce remission has revealed new pathophysiologic insights, including the presence of a reversible component of the pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction that otherwise drives the chronic progressive nature of T2DM. In doing so, it has changed the therapeutic landscape by offering new potential management objectives and considerations for patients and providers. However, the excitement around these developments must also be tempered by the sobering realities of our current understanding of remission, including the recognition that this condition may not be permanent (resulting in glycemic relapse over time) and that beta-cell function may not be normalized in the setting of remission. These limitations highlight both the many gaps in our current understanding of remission and the caution with which clinical discussions must be handled for clear patient-directed communication of the pros and cons of targeting this outcome in practice. In this mini-review, we consider this rapidly growing literature, including its implications and its limitations, and thereby seek to provide objective balanced perspectives on targeting remission of T2DM in current clinical care.

Glycemic and metabolic sub-classification of prediabetes and risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the D2d cohort.

Objectives: Prediabetes represents a spectrum of metabolic abnormalities, including insulin resistance and secretory impairment, that carries increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. It is unclear whether specific glycemic and metabolic sub-classifications are associated with CVD risk. This cross-sectional analysis of 3946 participants from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study cohort aimed to determine the associations between various baseline CVD risk factors, glycemic sub-classifications of prediabetes (FPG, 2hPG, and HbA1c), and measures of insulin sensitivity and secretion from an OGTT. Methods: The metabolic syndrome and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk scores were determined for tertiles of insulin sensitivity (HOMA2S) and insulinogenic index (IGI). Unadjusted analyses showed elevated CVD risk factors in the lowest tertile for both IGI and HOMA2S. Results: After adjustment for age, gender, race, obesity, and smoking status, the association remained between HOMA2S and ASCVD score (r = -0.11, p< 0.001) but not for IGI. Those who met at least 2 diagnosic criteria for prediabetes had the largest proportion (> 40%) of participants with high ASCVD risk score >20. A higher percentage of individuals that met all 3 criteria for prediabetes had metabolic syndrome and ASCVD risk score >20 (87.2% and 15.3%, respectively) than those who only met 1 prediabetes criterion (51.6% and 7.1%, respectively). Conclusions: In conclusion, multiple metabolic (HOMA2S, IGI) and glycemic criteria of prediabetes (FPG, 2hPG, & HbA1c) are needed to fully recognize the elevated CVD risk profile that can manifest in prediabetes.

Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, semaglutide 50 mg, taken once per day versus placebo for the treatment of overweight or obesity in adults without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, superiority trial enrolled adults with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with bodyweight-related complications and comorbidities, without type 2 diabetes. The trial was done at 50 outpatient clinics in nine countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) via an interactive web-response system to oral semaglutide escalated to 50 mg, or visually matching placebo, once per day for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention. Group assignment was masked for participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes. Coprimary endpoints were the percentage change in bodyweight and whether participants reached a bodyweight reduction of at least 5% at week 68 for oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo, assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of other bodyweight-lowering therapies (an intention-to-treat analysis). Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05035095), is now complete. FINDINGS: From Sept 13 to Nov 22, 2021, 709 participants were screened, of whom 667 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 50 mg (n=334) or placebo (n=333). The estimated mean bodyweight change from baseline to week 68 was -15·1% (SE 0·5) with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus -2·4% (0·5) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -12·7 percentage points, 95% CI -14·2 to -11·3; p<0·0001). More participants reached bodyweight reductions of at least 5% (269 [85%] of 317 vs 76 [26%] of 295; odds ratio [OR] 12·6, 95% CI 8·5 to 18·7; p<0·0001), 10% (220 [69%] vs 35 [12%]; OR 14·7, 9·6 to 22·6), 15% (170 [54%] vs 17 [6%]; OR 17·9, 10·4 to 30·7), and 20% (107 [34%] vs 8 [3%]; OR 18·5, 8·8 to 38·9) at week 68 with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo. Adverse events were more frequent with oral semaglutide 50 mg (307 [92%] of 334) than with placebo (285 [86%] of 333). Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild to moderate) were reported in 268 (80%) participants with oral semaglutide 50 mg and 154 (46%) with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide 50 mg once per day led to a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg compared with 14 mg in adults with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER PLUS): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Once-daily oral semaglutide is an effective type 2 diabetes treatment. We aimed to investigate a new formulation of oral semaglutide at higher investigational doses versus the approved 14 mg dose in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This global, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3b trial, carried out at 177 sites in 14 countries, enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8·0-10·5% (64-91 mmol/mol), a BMI of 25·0 kg/m2 or greater, receiving stable daily doses of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), by means of an interactive web response system, to once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg for 68 weeks. Investigators, site personnel, trial participants, and trial sponsor staff were masked to dose assignment throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52, evaluated with a treatment policy estimand in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04707469, and the European Clinical Trials register, EudraCT 2020-000299-39, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15 and Sept 29, 2021, of 2294 people screened, 1606 (n=936 [58·3%] male; n=670 [41·7%] female; mean [SD] age 58·2 [10·8] years) received oral semaglutide 14 mg (n=536), 25 mg (n=535), or 50 mg (n=535). At baseline, mean (SD) HbA1c was 9·0% (0·8; 74·4 mmol/L [SD 8·3]) and mean bodyweight was 96·4 kg (21·6). Mean changes (SE) in HbA1c at week 52 were -1·5 percentage points (SE 0·05) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, -1·8 percentage points (0·06) with 25 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·27, 95% CI -0·42 to -0·12; p=0·0006), and -2·0 percentage points (0·06) with 50 mg (ETD -0·53, -0·68 to -0·38; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by 404 (76%) participants in the oral semaglutide 14 mg group, 422 (79%) in the 25 mg group, and 428 (80%) in the 50 mg group. Gastrointestinal disorders, which were mostly mild to moderate, occurred more frequently with oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg than with 14 mg. Ten deaths occurred during the trial; none were judged to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg were superior to 14 mg in reducing HbA1c and bodyweight in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. No new safety concerns were identified. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly efpeglenatide in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: The AMPLITUDE-D, AMPLITUDE-L and AMPLITUDE-S randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly (QW) efpeglenatide in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral glucose-lowering drugs and/or basal insulin (BI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three phase 3, multicentre, randomized controlled trials compared the efficacy and safety of QW efpeglenatide versus dulaglutide when added to metformin (AMPLITUDE-D), efpeglenatide versus placebo when added to BI ± oral glucose-lowering drugs (AMPLITUDE-L) or metformin ± sulphonylurea (AMPLITUDE-S). All trials were terminated early by the sponsor because of funding rather than safety or efficacy concerns. RESULTS: In AMPLITUDE-D, non-inferiority of efpeglenatide to dulaglutide 1.5 mg was shown in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 56, least squares mean treatment difference (95% CI): 4 mg, -0.03% (-0.20%, 0.14%)/-0.35 mmol/mol (-2.20, 1.49); 6 mg, -0.08% (-0.25%, 0.09%)/-0.90 mmol/mol (-2.76, 0.96). The reductions in body weight (approximately 3 kg) from baseline to week 56 were similar across all treatment groups. In AMPLITUDE-L and AMPLITUDE-S, numerically greater reduction in HbA1c and body weight were observed at all doses of efpeglenatide than placebo. American Diabetes Association level 2 hypoglycaemia (< 54 mg/dL [< 3.0 mmol/L]) was reported in few participants across all treatment groups (AMPLITUDE-D, ≤ 1%; AMPLITUDE-L, ≤ 10%; and AMPLITUDE-S, ≤ 4%). The adverse events profile was consistent with other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs); gastrointestinal adverse events were most frequent in all three studies. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2D suboptimally controlled with oral glucose-lowering drugs and/or BI, QW efpeglenatide was non-inferior to dulaglutide in terms of HbA1c reduction and showed numerically greater improvements than placebo in glycaemic control and body weight, with safety consistent with the GLP-1 RA class.

Safety and tolerability of semaglutide across the SUSTAIN and PIONEER phase IIIa clinical trial programmes.

AIM: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists improve glycaemic control: some are now available as oral and subcutaneous formulations, and some have indications for reducing cardiovascular risk. The expanded scope for these therapies warrants comprehensive safety evaluations. We report the safety/tolerability of subcutaneous and oral semaglutide from the SUSTAIN and PIONEER clinical trial programmes, respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adverse events (AEs) from 16 randomized placebo- or active-controlled phase IIIa trials in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 11 159) including once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (n = 3150; SUSTAIN trials) or once-daily oral semaglutide (n = 4116; PIONEER trials) were analysed. Data pools were analysed for each programme, with separate analyses of cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs; n = 6480). RESULTS: In the phase IIIa pools, gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 41.9%/39.1% of patients with subcutaneous/oral semaglutide, respectively (most prevalent during initiation/escalation) versus 22.0%/24.8% with comparators. Rates of kidney disorders, acute pancreatitis, malignant neoplasms, hypoglycaemia, diabetic retinopathy, heart failure and other cardiovascular events were similar for semaglutide versus comparators. Cholelithiasis incidence was higher with subcutaneous and oral semaglutide versus placebo. Diabetic retinopathy incidence was higher with subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo in SUSTAIN 6. Small pulse rate increases occurred with both formulations; there was no increased rate of arrhythmias. Fatal AE incidence was similar between semaglutide and comparators. Versus placebo, CVOTs showed a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events with subcutaneous semaglutide and non-inferiority criteria were met with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: The most common AEs with semaglutide were gastrointestinal disorders, which decreased with continued therapy. These comprehensive safety/tolerability data may better inform patient selection and guidance in care.

A new era for oral peptides: SNAC and the development of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) were first introduced for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in 2005. Despite the high efficacy and other benefits of GLP-1RAs, their uptake was initially limited by the fact that they could only be administered by injection. Semaglutide is a human GLP-1 analog that has been shown to significantly improve glycemic control and reduce body weight, in addition to improving cardiovascular outcomes, in patients with T2D. First approved as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, semaglutide was considered an ideal peptide candidate for oral delivery with a permeation enhancer on account of its low molecular weight, long half-life, and high potency. An oral formulation of semaglutide was therefore developed by co-formulating semaglutide with sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino)caprylate, a well-characterized transcellular permeation enhancer, to produce the first orally administered GLP-1RA. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that stable steady-state concentrations could be achieved with once-daily dosing owing to the long half-life of oral semaglutide. Upper gastrointestinal disease and renal and hepatic impairment did not affect the pharmacokinetic profile. In the phase III PIONEER clinical trial program, oral semaglutide was shown to reduce glycated hemoglobin and body weight compared with placebo and active comparators in patients with T2D, with no new safety signals reported. Cardiovascular efficacy and safety are currently being assessed in a dedicated outcomes trial. The development of an oral GLP-1RA represents a significant milestone in the management of T2D, providing an additional efficacious treatment option for patients.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide by subgroups of patient characteristics in the PIONEER phase 3 programme.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators by patient characteristic subgroups in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide 7 mg, oral semaglutide 14 mg, flexibly dosed oral semaglutide (flex) and comparators were assessed across baseline subgroups (age, race, ethnicity, diabetes duration, body mass index and HbA1c) from the PIONEER programme. Treatment differences were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements for continuous variables and a logistic regression model for the binary endpoint. Pooled safety data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Changes from baseline in HbA1c and body weight, and the odds of achieving HbA1c <7.0%, were greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (n = 1934) and higher or similar with oral semaglutide 7 mg (n = 823) versus comparators (n = 2077) across most subgroups. Changes in HbA1c with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex were greater for patients with higher baseline HbA1c (HbA1c >9.0%: -1.7% to -2.6%; HbA1c <8.0%: -0.7% to -1.2%). In some trials, Asian patients experienced greater HbA1c reductions with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (-1.5% to -1.8%) than other racial groups (-0.6% to -1.6%). The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) with oral semaglutide was similar to that with comparators and was consistent across subgroups. More gastrointestinal AEs were observed with oral semaglutide, versus comparators, across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide demonstrated consistently greater HbA1c and body weight reductions across a range of patient characteristics, with greater HbA1c reductions seen at higher baseline HbA1c levels.

Insights into the early use of oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice: The IGNITE study.

Oral semaglutide is the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and showed significant benefits in glycaemic control and weight reduction versus active comparators in the PIONEER phase 3a randomized controlled trial programme. In this retrospective study, we present early data on the use of oral semaglutide in clinical practice, from the US IBM Explorys electronic health record database. In 782 patients prescribed oral semaglutide, 54.5% were women, and the mean age (SD) was 57.8 years (11.3); 66.0% of patients received their prescription from a primary care practitioner. Although prescribing information recommends increasing the dose to 7 mg after 30 days, 37.0% of patients received a prescription only for the initial 3 mg dose. Mean body mass index was 36.2 kg/m2 (7.6); mean HbA1c was 8.4% (1.8%). Mean HbA1c change from baseline to approximately 6 months after oral semaglutide initiation was -0.9% (95% CI: -1.1%; -0.6%), with greater reductions in patients with higher baseline HbA1c. These data indicate prevalent early adoption of oral semaglutide in primary care, show real-world improvements in glycaemic control, and identify potential treatment gaps.

Switching to iGlarLixi versus continuation of a daily or weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) in insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: A LixiLan-G trial subgroup analysis by HbA1c and GLP-1 RA use at screening.

AIM: In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) requiring intensification beyond glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs), switching to iGlarLixi was shown to be efficacious and well-tolerated in the LixiLan-G trial. This exploratory analysis of LixiLan-G assessed the efficacy and safety of switching to iGlarLixi versus continuing GLP-1 RA therapy, stratified by screening HbA1c level (≥7.0 to ≤7.5 %; >7.5 to ≤8.0 %; >8.0 to ≤9.0 % [≥53 to ≤58 mmol/mol; >58 to ≤64 mmol/mol; >64 to ≤75 mmol/mol]) and previous GLP-1 RA regimen at screening (once/twice daily or once weekly). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Endpoints for all subgroups included: change in HbA1c, achievement of HbA1c <7 % and hypoglycaemia events. Adverse events and changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), 2-hour PPG excursion and weight were analysed according to previous GLP-1 RA regimen. RESULTS: Switching to iGlarLixi in all subgroups resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and proportions of participants reaching HbA1c <7 % (including with no documented hypoglycaemia) at Week 26 compared with continued GLP-1 RA treatment. Switching to iGlarLixi also led to significantly greater reductions in FPG, 2-hour PPG, and 2-hour PPG excursion, irrespective of previous GLP-1 RA regimen. Rates of hypoglycaemia were low, but slightly higher in those who switched to iGlarLixi for all subgroups. Modest weight gain was seen with iGlarLixi, irrespective of previous GLP-1 RA regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to iGlarLixi improved glycaemic control, regardless of screening HbA1c or previous GLP-1 RA type, offering a simple, efficacious and well-tolerated treatment intensification option for people with T2D inadequately controlled by GLP-1 RAs and OADs.

Gastrointestinal adverse events with insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis.

AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are the recommended first injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes. However, long-term persistence is suboptimal and partly attributable to gastrointestinal tolerability, particularly during initiation/escalation. Gradual titration of fixed-ratio combination GLP-1 RA/insulin therapies may improve GLP-1 RA gastrointestinal tolerability. We compared gastrointestinal adverse event (AE) rates for iGlarLixi versus GLP-1 RAs during the first 12 weeks of therapy, including a sensitivity analysis with IDegLira. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PICO framework was used to identify studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL searches using a proprietary, web-based, standardized tool with single data extraction. Gastrointestinal AEs were modelled using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), using fixed and random effects for each recommended dose (treatment-specific NMA) and class (drug-class NMA). RESULTS: Treatment-specific NMA included 17 trials (n = 9030; 3665 event-weeks). Nausea rates were significantly lower with iGlarLixi versus exenatide 10 µg twice daily (rate ratio: 0.32; 95% credible interval: 0.15, 0.66), once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg (0.35; 0.24, 0.50) and liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (0.48; 0.23, 0.98). Rates were numerically, but not statistically, lower versus once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg (0.60; 0.30, 1.23) and dulaglutide 1.5 mg (0.60; 0.29, 1.26), and numerically, but not statistically, higher versus once-weekly exenatide (1.91; 0.91, 4.03). Sensitivity analysis results were similar. In a naïve, pooled analysis, vomiting was lower with iGlarLixi versus other GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 12 weeks of treatment, iGlarLixi was generally associated with less nausea and vomiting than single-agent GLP-1 RAs. Enhanced gastrointestinal tolerability with fixed-ratio combinations may favour treatment persistence.

Impact of patient characteristics on efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide: SUSTAIN 7 post hoc analyses.

OBJECTIVE: In SUSTAIN 7, once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated superior glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight (BW) reductions versus once-weekly dulaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of clinically relevant subject characteristics on treatment effects of semaglutide versus dulaglutide. DESIGN: Analyses by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years), sex (male, female), diabetes duration (≤5, >5-10, >10 years), HbA1c (≤7.5, >7.5-8.5, >8.5% (≤58, >58-69, >69 mmol/mol)) and body mass index (BMI) (<30, 30-<35, ≥35 kg/m2). SETTING: 194 sites; 16 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with T2D (n=1199) exposed to treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Semaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (low-dose comparison); semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg (high-dose comparison), all subcutaneously once weekly. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in HbA1c (primary endpoint) and BW (confirmatory secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 40; proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c targets (<7%, ≤6.5% (<53, ≤48 mmol/mol)) and weight-loss responses (≥5%, ≥10%) at week 40; and safety. RESULTS: HbA1c and BW reductions (estimated treatment difference ranges: -0.22 to -0.70%-point; -1.76 to -3.84 kg) and proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses were statistically significantly greater for the majority of comparisons of semaglutide versus dulaglutide within each subgroup category and, excepting glycaemic control within the low-dose comparison in HbA1c subgroups, this was irrespective of subgroup or dose comparison. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common with both treatments, were reported by more women than men and, with semaglutide, decreased with increasing BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently greater improvements in HbA1c and BW with semaglutide versus dulaglutide, regardless of age, sex, diabetes duration, glycaemic control and BMI, support the efficacy of semaglutide across the continuum of care in a heterogeneous population with T2D. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02648204.

Clinical review of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes considered for injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy or currently on insulin therapy.

Injectable therapies such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and insulin are high-efficacy options for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who require treatment intensification. In addition to high glycemic efficacy, GLP-1RAs offer weight loss benefits, and some agents have been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk. This article summarizes data from two clinical studies with the first oral GLP-1RA, oral semaglutide, in situations where injectable therapy is often considered, and provides guidance on use in primary care. PIONEER 4 compared oral semaglutide 14 mg with an injectable GLP-1RA, liraglutide 1.8 mg, or placebo in patients uncontrolled on oral glucose-lowering therapies. PIONEER 8 compared oral semaglutide with placebo in patients with T2D already on insulin therapy. Treatment with oral semaglutide gave similar reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1 c) compared with liraglutide at 26 weeks, and significantly greater reductions at 52 weeks. Changes in body weight with oral semaglutide were significantly greater compared with liraglutide after 26 and 52 weeks. Adding oral semaglutide 7 or 14 mg to insulin resulted in significant reductions in HbA1 c and body weight at both 26 and 52 weeks compared with placebo, and facilitated a decrease in total daily insulin dosage. Oral semaglutide was associated with low proportions of patients experiencing severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia when added to oral glucose-lowering therapies, and did not increase the incidence of such events when added to insulin. The tolerability profile of oral semaglutide was consistent with that seen for injectable GLP-1RAs, with gastrointestinal side effects seen most frequently; most were transient and tended to occur during dose escalation. For patients requiring treatment intensification after oral therapy or as add-on to insulin, oral semaglutide provides effective glucose lowering and body weight loss, with low risk of hypoglycemia, thus broadening the range of therapeutic options for treatment of T2D in primary care.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegLira in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was -0.36 (95% credible intervals -0.58, -0.14) % [-3.9 (-6.3, -1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches.

Impact of disease duration and ß-cell reserve on the efficacy of switching to iGlarLixi in adults with type 2 diabetes on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy: Exploratory analyses from the LixiLan-G trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of iGlarLixi by C-peptide levels and duration of diabetes in an exploratory analysis of the LixiLan-G study. METHODS: LixiLan-G was a 26-week, randomized, open-label study in adults with type diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled while on a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), with metformin, with or without pioglitazone and/or a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor. This analysis investigated the efficacy of switching to iGlarLixi by fasting baseline quartile C-peptide levels and baseline quartile of duration of T2D compared with continued GLP-1 RA use. RESULTS: Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26 was significantly greater with iGlarLixi compared with continued GLP-1 RAs across all fasting C-peptide quartiles (-1.00% to -1.06% vs. -0.23% to -0.54% range, respectively) and irrespective of all T2D duration quartiles (-0.94% to -1.07% vs. -0.25% to -0.50% range). A significantly greater proportion of participants in the iGlarLixi arm achieved an HbA1c of <7% across all C-peptide quartiles (51%-73% range) than in the GLP-1 RA arm (19%-32% range). The greatest reductions in HbA1c in participants receiving iGlarLixi were observed in those with the shortest duration of disease, although consistently greater than reductions observed with continued GLP-1 RAs. Reductions in HbA1c were comparable across C-peptide quartiles within the iGlarLixi arm. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that iGlarLixi is an effective treatment option, irrespective of C-peptide levels or duration of diabetes, in adults with insufficiently controlled T2D receiving GLP-1 RAs.

Apolipoprotein J is a hepatokine regulating muscle glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity.

Crosstalk between liver and skeletal muscle is vital for glucose homeostasis. Hepatokines, liver-derived proteins that play an important role in regulating muscle metabolism, are important to this communication. Here we identify apolipoprotein J (ApoJ) as a novel hepatokine targeting muscle glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity through a low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein-2 (LRP2)-dependent mechanism, coupled with the insulin receptor (IR) signaling cascade. In muscle, LRP2 is necessary for insulin-dependent IR internalization, an initial trigger for insulin signaling, that is crucial in regulating downstream signaling and glucose uptake. Of physiologic significance, deletion of hepatic ApoJ or muscle LRP2 causes insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome and insulin resistance, pioglitazone-induced improvement of insulin action is associated with an increase in muscle ApoJ and LRP2 expression. Thus, the ApoJ-LRP2 axis is a novel endocrine circuit that is central to the maintenance of normal glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity.

Impact of baseline characteristics and beta-cell function on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide: A patient-level, pooled analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of relevant patient-level characteristics on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous, once-weekly semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exploratory post hoc analyses of pooled SUSTAIN 1-5 (phase 3a) randomized, controlled trials examined the change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportions of subjects achieving the composite endpoint (HbA1c < 7.0% [53 mmol/mol]), without weight gain or severe/blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia at week 30 with semaglutide (0.5/1.0 mg) across clinically relevant patient subgroups: baseline HbA1c (≤7.5%, >7.5%-8.0%, >8.0%-8.5%, >8.5%-9.0% and > 9.0%), background medications, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (% point) reductions increased from lowest to highest HbA1c subgroups (-0.9%, -1.2%,-1.5%, -1.7% and -2.3% [effect of subgroup within treatment: P = 0.247] for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and -1.1%, -1.4%, -1.9%, -2.1% and -2.7% [P = 0.045] for semaglutide 1.0 mg), with mean HbA1c ranges at week 30 of 6.3%-7.3% and 6.1%-6.9%, respectively. The corresponding BW reductions generally decreased with increasing baseline HbA1c (-4.4, -3.9, -3.9, -3.3 and -2.9 kg [P = 0.004], and -6.4, -5.9, -5.2, -4.5 and -4.8 kg [P < 0.001], respectively). HbA1c and BW reductions were consistently greater for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus 0.5 mg across background medication, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function subgroups. Adverse events with semaglutide were consistent with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class, with gastrointestinal events the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was consistently efficacious across the continuum of diabetes care in a broad spectrum of patient subgroups with a range of clinical characteristics.

Switching to iGlarLixi Versus Continuing Daily or Weekly GLP-1 RA in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled by GLP-1 RA and Oral Antihyperglycemic Therapy: The LixiLan-G Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) allow concomitant administration of two proven complementary injectable therapies for type 2 diabetes. This study investigated switching to a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving daily or weekly GLP-1 RA therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: LixiLan-G, a randomized, open-label, 26-week trial, compared switching to iGlarLixi versus continuing prior GLP-1 RA in patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c 7-9% (53-75 mmol/mol) taking maximum tolerated doses of a GLP-1 RA daily (60% on liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) or weekly (40% on dulaglutide, exenatide extended release, or albiglutide) with metformin with or without pioglitazone and with or without sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Adherence to randomized treatment was closely monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: iGlarLixi (n = 257) reduced HbA1c more than continued GLP-1 RA therapy (n = 257) from a baseline 7.8% (62 mmol/mol) in both to 6.7% (50 mmol/mol) and 7.4% (57 mmol/mol), respectively, at 26 weeks (least squares mean difference -0.6%; P < 0.0001). More iGlarLixi patients achieved HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) (62% vs. 26%; P < 0.0001) and the composite of HbA1c <7% without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL). Nausea and vomiting rates as well as numbers of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia events per patient-year were generally low but greater with iGlarLixi versus continued GLP-1 RA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to iGlarLixi improves glucose control for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on a maximum tolerated dose of a GLP-1 RA plus oral antihyperglycemic agents.