Effects of Semaglutide on Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease are at high risk for kidney failure, cardiovascular events, and death. Whether treatment with semaglutide would mitigate these risks is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 50 to 75 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams] of >300 and <5000 or an eGFR of 25 to <50 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of >100 and <5000) to receive subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg weekly or placebo. The primary outcome was major kidney disease events, a composite of the onset of kidney failure (dialysis, transplantation, or an eGFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), at least a 50% reduction in the eGFR from baseline, or death from kidney-related or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified confirmatory secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS: Among the 3533 participants who underwent randomization (1767 in the semaglutide group and 1766 in the placebo group), median follow-up was 3.4 years, after early trial cessation was recommended at a prespecified interim analysis. The risk of a primary-outcome event was 24% lower in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (331 vs. 410 first events; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.88; P = 0.0003). Results were similar for a composite of the kidney-specific components of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.94) and for death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.89). The results for all confirmatory secondary outcomes favored semaglutide: the mean annual eGFR slope was less steep (indicating a slower decrease) by 1.16 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the semaglutide group (P<0.001), the risk of major cardiovascular events 18% lower (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.029), and the risk of death from any cause 20% lower (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in a lower percentage of participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (49.6% vs. 53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide reduced the risk of clinically important kidney outcomes and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; FLOW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03819153.).

Fibroblast growth factor-21 regulates PPARγ activity and the antidiabetic actions of thiazolidinediones.

Fibroblast growth factor-21 (FGF21) is a circulating hepatokine that beneficially affects carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. Here, we report that FGF21 is also an inducible, fed-state autocrine factor in adipose tissue that functions in a feed-forward loop to regulate the activity of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ), a master transcriptional regulator of adipogenesis. FGF21 knockout (KO) mice display defects in PPARγ signaling including decreased body fat and attenuation of PPARγ-dependent gene expression. Moreover, FGF21-KO mice are refractory to both the beneficial insulin-sensitizing effects and the detrimental weight gain and edema side effects of the PPARγ agonist rosiglitazone. This loss of function in FGF21-KO mice is coincident with a marked increase in the sumoylation of PPARγ, which reduces its transcriptional activity. Adding back FGF21 prevents sumoylation and restores PPARγ activity. Collectively, these results reveal FGF21 as a key mediator of the physiologic and pharmacologic actions of PPARγ.

Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop control systems of insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of initiating a closed-loop system virtually are unclear. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, children who were at least 2 years of age but younger than 6 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with a closed-loop system of insulin delivery or standard care that included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin plus a continuous glucose monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter or below 70 mg per deciliter, the mean glucose level, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 102 children underwent randomization (68 to the closed-loop group and 34 to the standard-care group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.2 to 11.5%. Initiation of the closed-loop system was virtual in 55 patients (81%). The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased from 56.7±18.0% at baseline to 69.3±11.1% during the 13-week follow-up period in the closed-loop group and from 54.9±14.7% to 55.9±12.6% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 12.4 percentage points [equivalent to approximately 3 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 9.5 to 15.3; P<0.001). We observed similar treatment effects (favoring the closed-loop system) on the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter, on the mean glucose level, and on the glycated hemoglobin level, with no significant between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter. There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one case in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving young children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with a closed-loop system than with standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; PEDAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796779.).

Automated Insulin Delivery in Women with Pregnancy Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events. RESULTS: A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; P<0.001). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program; AiDAPT ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN56898625.).

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa versus once-daily insulin degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes (QWINT-5): a phase 3 randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and prevalent heart failure: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with overweight or obesity, but the effects of this drug on outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure are unknown. We report a prespecified analysis of the effect of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg on ischaemic and heart failure cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to investigate if semaglutide was beneficial in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with a history of heart failure compared with placebo; if there was a difference in outcome in patients designated as having heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; and if the efficacy and safety of semaglutide in patients with heart failure was related to baseline characteristics or subtype of heart failure. METHODS: The SELECT trial was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, event-driven phase 3 trial in 41 countries. Adults aged 45 years and older, with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or greater and established cardiovascular disease were eligible for the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a block size of four using an interactive web response system in a double-blind manner to escalating doses of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide over 16 weeks to a target dose of 2·4 mg, or placebo. In a prespecified analysis, we examined the effect of semaglutide compared with placebo in patients with and without a history of heart failure at enrolment, subclassified as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, or unclassified heart failure. Endpoints comprised MACE (a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular death); a composite heart failure outcome (cardiovascular death or hospitalisation or urgent hospital visit for heart failure); cardiovascular death; and all-cause death. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03574597. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018, and March 31, 2021, 17 604 patients with a mean age of 61·6 years (SD 8·9) and a mean BMI of 33·4 kg/m2 (5·0) were randomly assigned to receive semaglutide (8803 [50·0%] patients) or placebo (8801 [50·0%] patients). 4286 (24·3%) of 17 604 patients had a history of investigator-defined heart failure at enrolment: 2273 (53·0%) of 4286 patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, 1347 (31·4%) had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 666 (15·5%) had unclassified heart failure. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with and without heart failure. Patients with heart failure had a higher incidence of clinical events. Semaglutide improved all outcome measures in patients with heart failure at random assignment compared with those without heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·60-0·87 for MACE; 0·79, 0·64-0·98 for the heart failure composite endpoint; 0·76, 0·59-0·97 for cardiovascular death; and 0·81, 0·66-1·00 for all-cause death; all pinteraction>0·19). Treatment with semaglutide resulted in improved outcomes in both the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HR 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·87 for MACE; 0·79, 0·58-1·08 for the composite heart failure endpoint) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction groups (0·69, 0·51-0·91 for MACE; 0·75, 0·52-1·07 for the composite heart failure endpoint), although patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had higher absolute event rates than those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. For MACE and the heart failure composite, there were no significant differences in benefits across baseline age, sex, BMI, New York Heart Association status, and diuretic use. Serious adverse events were less frequent with semaglutide versus placebo, regardless of heart failure subtype. INTERPRETATION: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diease and overweight or obesity, treatment with semaglutide 2·4 mg reduced MACE and composite heart failure endpoints compared with placebo in those with and without clinical heart failure, regardless of heart failure subtype. Our findings could facilitate prescribing and result in improved clinical outcomes for this patient group. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Glycemic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. METHODS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%. RESULTS: A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

In T2DM, periconceptional, noninsulin, second-line antidiabetes medications were not linked to major congenital malformations vs. insulin.

SOURCE CITATION: Cesta CE, Rotem R, Bateman BT, et al. Safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists and other second-line antidiabetics in early pregnancy. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184:144-152. 38079178.

Paternal Use of Metformin During the Sperm Development Period Preceding Conception and Risk for Major Congenital Malformations in Newborns.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the most used oral antidiabetic medication. Despite its established safety profile, it has known antiandrogenic and epigenetic modifying effects. This raised concerns about possible adverse developmental effects caused by genomic alterations related to paternal use of metformin during the spermatogenesis period preceding conception. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential adverse intergenerational effect of metformin by examining the association between paternal metformin use during spermatogenesis and major congenital malformations (MCMs) in newborns. DESIGN: Nationally representative cohort study. SETTING: A large Israeli health fund. PARTICIPANTS: 383 851 live births linked to fathers and mothers that occurred in 1999 to 2020. MEASUREMENTS: MCMs and parental cardiometabolic conditions were ascertained using clinical diagnoses, medication dispensing information, and laboratory test results. The effect of metformin use on MCMs was estimated using general estimating equations, accounting for concurrent use of other antidiabetic medications and parental cardiometabolic morbidity. RESULTS: Compared with unexposed fathers, the prevalence of cardiometabolic morbidity was substantially higher among fathers who used metformin during spermatogenesis, and their spouses. Whereas the crude odds ratio (OR) for paternal metformin exposure in all formulations and MCMs was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.64), the adjusted OR was 1.00 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31). Within specific treatment regimens, the adjusted OR was 0.86 (CI, 0.60 to 1.23) for metformin in monotherapy and 1.36 (CI, 1.00 to 1.85) for metformin in polytherapy, a treatment that was more common in patients with more poorly controlled diabetes. LIMITATION: Laboratory test results for hemoglobin A1c to assess underlying diabetes severity were available only for a subset of the cohort. CONCLUSION: Paternal use of metformin in monotherapy does not increase the risk for MCMs. Association for metformin in polytherapy could potentially be explained by worse underlying parental cardiometabolic risk profile. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Metformin Use in the First Trimester of Pregnancy and Risk for Nonlive Birth and Congenital Malformations: Emulating a Target Trial Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a first-line pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, but there is limited evidence about its safety in early pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the teratogenicity of metformin use in the first trimester of pregnancy. DESIGN: In an observational cohort of pregnant women with pregestational type 2 diabetes receiving metformin monotherapy before the last menstrual period (LMP), a target trial with 2 treatment strategies was emulated: insulin monotherapy (discontinue metformin treatment and initiate insulin within 90 days of LMP) or insulin plus metformin (continue metformin and initiate insulin within 90 days of LMP). SETTING: U.S. Medicaid health care administration database (2000 to 2018). PARTICIPANTS: 12 489 pregnant women who met the eligibility criteria. MEASUREMENTS: The risk and risk ratio of nonlive births, live births with congenital malformations, and congenital malformations among live births were estimated using standardization to adjust for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 850 women were in the insulin monotherapy group and 1557 in the insulin plus metformin group. The estimated risk for nonlive birth was 32.7% under insulin monotherapy (reference) and 34.3% under insulin plus metformin (risk ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]). The estimated risk for live birth with congenital malformations was 8.0% (CI, 5.7% to 10.2%) under insulin monotherapy and 5.7% (CI, 4.5% to 7.3%) under insulin plus metformin (risk ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.51 to 1.09]). LIMITATION: Possible residual confounding by glycemic control and body mass index. CONCLUSION: Compared with switching to insulin monotherapy, continuing metformin and adding insulin in early pregnancy resulted in little to no increased risk for nonlive birth among women receiving metformin before pregnancy. Under conventional statistical criteria, anything between a 49% decrease and a 9% increase in risk for congenital malformations was highly compatible with our data. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Risk for Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors in U.S. Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: A major concern has recently emerged about a potential link between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors based on International Classification of Diseases codes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between GLP-1 RAs, compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), and risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). DESIGN: Two target trial emulation studies comparing propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts for GLP-1 RAs versus SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs versus DPP4is. SETTING: U.S. national Medicare administrative data from January 2017 to December 2020. PATIENTS: Older adults (≥66 years) with T2D; no record of suicidal ideation or behaviors; and a first prescription for a GLP-1 RA, SGLT2i, or DPP4i. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was a composite of suicidal ideation and behaviors. New GLP-1 RA users were matched 1:1 on PS to new users of an SGLT2i or DPP4i in each pairwise comparison. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CIs within matched groups. RESULTS: This study included 21 807 pairs of patients treated with a GLP-1 RA versus an SGLT2i and 21 402 pairs of patients treated with a GLP-1 RA versus a DPP4i. The HR of suicidal ideation and behaviors associated with GLP-1 RAs relative to SGLT2is was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.45; rate difference, 0.16 [CI, -0.53 to 0.86] per 1000 person-years); the HR relative to DPP4is was 0.94 (CI, 0.71 to 1.24; rate difference, -0.18 [CI, -0.92 to 0.57] per 1000 person-years). LIMITATIONS: Low event rate; imprecise estimates; unmeasured confounders, such as body mass index; and potential misclassification of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries with T2D, this study found no clear increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors with GLP-1 RAs, although estimates were imprecise and a modest adverse risk could not be ruled out. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation, National Institute on Aging, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

In type 2 diabetes, the effectiveness and side effects of GLP-1 RAs vary.

SOURCE CITATION: Yao H, Zhang A, Li D, et al. Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;384:e076410. 38286487.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline to update recommendations on newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes. This clinical guideline is based on the best available evidence for effectiveness, comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and costs. METHODS: This clinical guideline is based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and harms of newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, a GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins, used either as monotherapy or in combination with other medications. The Clinical Guidelines Committee prioritized the following outcomes, which were evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progression of chronic kidney disease, serious adverse events, and severe hypoglycemia. Weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis and were not rated with GRADE. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this clinical guideline is physicians and other clinicians. The population is nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). • Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure. • Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against adding a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors, Dulaglutide, and Risk for Dementia : A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Both sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) may have neuroprotective effects in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, their comparative effectiveness in preventing dementia remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk for dementia between SGLT2 inhibitors and dulaglutide (a GLP-1 RA). DESIGN: Target trial emulation study. SETTING: Nationwide health care data of South Korea obtained from the National Health Insurance Service between 2010 and 2022. PATIENTS: Patients aged 60 years or older who have T2D and are initiating treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors or dulaglutide. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the presumed clinical onset of dementia. The date of onset was defined as the year before the date of dementia diagnosis, assuming that the time between the onset of dementia and diagnosis was 1 year. The 5-year risk ratios and risk differences comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with dulaglutide were estimated in a 1:2 propensity score-matched cohort adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 12 489 patients initiating SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (51.9% dapagliflozin and 48.1% empagliflozin) and 1075 patients initiating dulaglutide treatment were included. In the matched cohort, over a median follow-up of 4.4 years, the primary outcome event occurred in 69 participants in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and 43 in the dulaglutide group. The estimated risk difference was -0.91 percentage point (95% CI, -2.45 to 0.63 percentage point), and the estimated risk ratio was 0.81 (CI, 0.56 to 1.16). LIMITATION: Residual confounding is possible; there was no adjustment for hemoglobin A1c levels or duration of diabetes; the study is not representative of newer drugs, including more effective GLP-1 RAs; and the onset of dementia was not measured directly. CONCLUSION: Under conventional statistical criteria, a risk for dementia between 2.5 percentage points lower and 0.6 percentage point greater for SGLT2 inhibitors than for dulaglutide was estimated to be highly compatible with the data from this study. However, whether these findings generalize to newer GLP-1 RAs is uncertain. Thus, further studies incorporating newer drugs within these drug classes and better addressing residual confounding are required. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea.

Shorter-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are associated with increased development of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and its complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-level retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Shorter half-life glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) delay gastric emptying (DGE) more than GLP-1 RAs with longer half-lives. DGE is a known risk factor for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and its complications. AIM: To determine whether short-acting or long-acting GLP-1 RAs are associated with an increased risk of new GERD or GERD-related complications DESIGN: We used the TriNetX global database to identify adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and generated two cohorts totalling 1 543 351 patients on (1) GLP-1 RA or (2) other second-line diabetes medication. Using propensity-score matching, Kaplan-Meier Analysis and Cox-proportional hazards ratio (HR), we analysed outcomes and separately examined outcomes in patients starting short-acting (≤1 day) and long-acting (≥5 days) GLP-1 RAs. RESULTS: 177 666 patients were in each propensity-matched cohort. GLP-1 RA exposure was associated with an increased risk (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.22) of erosive reflux disease (ERD). However, this was solely due to short-acting (HR 1.215; 95% CI 1.111 to 1.328), but not long-acting (HR 0.994; 95% CI 0.924 to 1.069) GLP-1 RA exposure. Short-acting GLP-1 RAs were also associated with increased risk of oesophageal stricture (HR 1.284; 95% CI 1.135 to 1.453), Barrett's without dysplasia (HR 1.372; 95% CI 1.217 to 1.546) and Barrett's with dysplasia (HR 1.505; 95% CI 1.164 to 1.946) whereas long-acting GLP-1 RAs were not. This association persisted in sensitivity analyses, and when individually examining the short-acting GLP-1 RAs liraglutide, lixisenatide and exenatide. CONCLUSION: Starting shorter-acting GLP-1 RAs is associated with increased risks of GERD and its complications.

Dose-response effects on HbA1c and bodyweight reduction of survodutide, a dual glucagon/GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo and open-label semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response effects of the subcutaneous glucagon receptor/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor dual agonist survodutide (BI 456906) on HbA1c levels and bodyweight reduction. METHODS: This Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, conducted in clinical research centres, assessed survodutide in participants aged 18-75 years with type 2 diabetes, an HbA1c level of 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%) and a BMI of 25-50 kg/m2 on a background of metformin therapy. Participants were randomised via interactive response technology to receive survodutide (up to 0.3, 0.9, 1.8 or 2.7 mg once weekly [qw; dose group (DG) 1-4, respectively] or 1.2 or 1.8 mg twice weekly [DG 5 and 6, respectively]), placebo or semaglutide (up to 1.0 mg qw). Participants and all those involved in the trial conduct/analysis were blinded; the semaglutide arm was open-label. The primary endpoint was absolute change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks' treatment. The key secondary endpoint was relative change from baseline in bodyweight after 16 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: A total of 413 participants were randomised (DG1, n=50; DG2, n=50; DG3, n=52; DG4, n=50; DG5, n=51; DG6, n=50; semaglutide, n=50; placebo, n=60). The full analysis set comprised 411 treated participants (DG6, n=49; placebo, n=59). Adjusted mean (95% CI) HbA1c decreased from baseline (mean ± SD 64.7±9.2 mmol/mol [8.07±0.84%] after 16 weeks' treatment: DG1 (n=41), -9.92 mmol/mol (-12.27, -7.56; -0.91% [-1.12, -0.69]); DG2 (n=46), -15.95 mmol/mol (-18.27, -13.63; -1.46% [-1.67, -1.25]); DG3 (n=36), -18.72 mmol/mol (-21.15, -16.29; -1.71% [-1.94, -1.49]); DG4 (n=33), -17.01 mmol/mol (-19.59, -14.43; -1.56% [-1.79, -1.32]); DG5 (n=44), -17.84 mmol/mol (-20.18, -15.51; -1.63% [-1.85, -1.42]); DG6 (n=36), -18.38 mmol/mol (-20.90, -15.87; -1.68% [-1.91, -1.45]). The mean reduction in HbA1c was similar with low-dose survodutide (DG2: -15.95 mmol/mol [-1.46%]; n=46) and semaglutide (-16.07 mmol/mol [-1.47%]; n=45). Mean (95% CI) bodyweight decreased dose-dependently up to -8.7% (-10.1, -7.3; DG6, n=37); survodutide ≥1.8 mg qw produced greater bodyweight reductions than semaglutide (-5.3% [-6.6, -4.1]; n=45). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 77.8% of survodutide-treated participants (mainly gastrointestinal), 52.5% receiving placebo and 52.0% receiving semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Survodutide reduced HbA1c levels and bodyweight after 16 weeks' treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes. Dose-related gastrointestinal AEs could be mitigated with slower dose escalations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153929 and EudraCT 2019-002390-60. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany.