RESULTS OF A 24-WEEK TRIAL OF TECHNOSPHERE INSULIN VERSUS INSULIN ASPART IN TYPE 2 DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: To compare glycemic efficacy of Technosphere insulin (TI) versus that of insulin aspart (IA), each added to basal insulin, in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomized, 24-week trial included subjects aged from 18 to 80 years who were treated with subcutaneous insulin for 3 months and had glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels of 7.0% to 11.5%. After receiving stabilized insulin glargine doses during a 4-week lead in, the subjects were randomized to TI or IA. The primary end point was an HbA1C change from baseline, with the differences analyzed by equivalence analyses. RESULTS: In the overall cohort (N = 309; males, 23.3%), mean (SD) age was 58.5 (8.4) years, body mass index was 30.8 (4.7) kg/m2, weight was 82.2 (13.6) kg, and duration of diabetes was 12.2 (7.1) years. An intention-to-treat cohort had 150 subjects randomized to TI (mean [SD] HbA1C: 8.9% [1.1%]) and 154 randomized to IA (mean [SD] HbA1C: 9.0% [1.3%]). At 24 weeks, mean (SD) HbA1C value declined to 7.9% (1.3%) and 7.7% (1.1%) in the TI and IA cohorts, respectively. A treatment difference of 0.26% was not statistically significant, but the predefined equivalency margin was not met. Subjects receiving TI lost 0.78 kg compared to baseline; subjects receiving IA gained 0.23 kg (P =.0007). The incidence of mild/moderate hypoglycemia was lower for the TI cohort, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Both TI and IA resulted in significant and clinically meaningful HbA1C reductions. TI also resulted in significant and clinically meaningful weight reductions. These data support the use of inhaled insulin as a treatment option for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

A multinational observational study assessing insulin use: Understanding the determinants associated with progression of therapy.

AIMS: To describe global patterns of insulin treatment and to assess the impact of patient, provider, health system and economic influences on treatment decisions for patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This prospective cohort study of insulin-treated patients with T2D was conducted across 18 countries categorized as high, upper-middle or lower-middle income regions. Information collected from patients included knowledge of diabetes, experiences and interactions with their healthcare provider. Physician information included specialty, practice size, availability of diabetes support services, volume of diabetes patients treated and time spent per patient. Physicians determined an individualized haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target for each patient by the start of the study. Changes in T2D therapies and HbA1c were recorded for 2 years. RESULTS: Complete treatment data were available for 2528 patients. Median age was 61 years and median duration of diabetes was 11.4 years. Changes to treatment regimen occurred in 90.0% of patients, but changes were less common in countries with a higher economic status (P < 0.001). Most treatment changes involved insulin, with changes in dose the most common. Overall predictors of change in insulin therapy included younger age, use of any insulin regimen other than basal only, higher mean baseline HbA1c and longer duration of T2D. HbA1c levels remained constant regardless of regional economic status. At baseline, 20.6% of patients were at their HbA1c target; at 2 years this was 26.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Among insulin-treated patients with T2D, treatment changes were common; however, only approximately one-fourth of individuals achieved their HbA1c target.

Effect of diabetes on caregiver burden in an observational study of individuals with Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: The burden on caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with the patient's functional status and may also be influenced by chronic comorbid medical conditions, such as diabetes. This post-hoc exploratory analysis assessed whether comorbid diabetes in patients with AD affects caregiver burden, and whether caregivers with diabetes experience greater burden than caregivers without diabetes. Caregiver and patient healthcare resource use (HCRU) were also assessed. METHODS: Baseline data from the GERAS observational study of patients with AD and their caregivers (both n = 1495) in France, Germany and the UK were analyzed. Caregiver burden was assessed using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Caregiver time on activities of daily living (ADL: basic ADL; instrumental ADL, iADL) and supervision (hours/month), and caregiver and patient HCRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, nights hospitalized) were assessed using the Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument for the month before the baseline visit. Regression analyses were adjusted for relevant covariates. Time on supervision and basic ADL was analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Caregivers of patients with diabetes (n = 188) were younger and more likely to be female (both p < 0.05), compared with caregivers of patients without diabetes (n = 1307). Analyses showed caregivers of patients with diabetes spent significantly more time on iADL (+16 %; p = 0.03; increases were also observed for basic ADL and total caregiver time but did not reach statistical significance) and had a trend towards increased ZBI score. Patients with diabetes had a 63 % increase in the odds of requiring supervision versus those without diabetes (p = 0.01). Caregiver and patient HCRU did not differ according to patient diabetes. Caregivers with diabetes (n = 127) did not differ from those without diabetes (n = 1367) regarding burden/time, but caregivers with diabetes had a 91 % increase in the odds of having outpatient visits (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional analysis found caregiver time on iADL and supervision was higher for caregivers of patients with AD and diabetes versus without diabetes, while HCRU was unaffected by patient diabetes. Longitudinal analyses assessing change in caregiver burden over time by patient diabetes status may help clarify the cumulative impact of diabetes and AD dementia on caregiver burden.

Dasiglucagon for the Treatment of Congenital Hyperinsulinism: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Infants and Children.

CONTEXT: Congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI) is characterized by dysregulated insulin secretion causing hypoglycemia and consequent brain damage. Dasiglucagon is a glucagon analogue under investigation to treat CHI. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dasiglucagon delivered via continuous subcutaneous infusion to children with CHI and persistent hypoglycemia as add-on to standard of care (SoC). METHODS: In this open-label trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to SoC or SoC + dasiglucagon (10-70 µg/h) for 4 weeks. In the following 4 weeks, all patients received dasiglucagon + SoC. Hypoglycemia was assessed by self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Primary endpoint was average number of SMPG-detected hypoglycemia episodes/week (SMPG <3.9 mmol/L) during Weeks 2 to 4. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (0.6-10.9 years) were randomly assigned to dasiglucagon + SoC (n = 16) or SoC (n = 16). The rate of SMPG-detected hypoglycemia decreased from baseline in both groups, but with no statistically significant difference during Weeks 2 to 4 (event rate ratio: 0.85 [0.54; 1.36], P = .5028). However, dasiglucagon administration resulted in a 43% reduction in CGM-detected hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) vs SoC alone during Weeks 2 to 4 (post hoc analysis; event rate ratio: 0.57 [0.39; 0.83], P = .0029). Dasiglucagon enabled reductions (of 37% to 61%) in all other measures of hypoglycemia assessed by CGM vs SoC alone including extent and percent time in hypoglycemia (post hoc analyses). Dasiglucagon appeared safe and well tolerated. Skin and gastrointestinal events were more frequent with dasiglucagon + SoC than SoC only. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful reductions in all CGM-recorded measures of hypoglycemia support using dasiglucagon as a potential treatment for CHI.

Dasiglucagon demonstrates reduced costs in the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in a budget impact model.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 7.3 million people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D/T2D) are treated with insulin, placing them at higher risk of severe hypoglycemia (SH). SH requires assistance of another individual and often necessitates the prompt administration of intravenous glucose, injectable glucagon, or both. Untreated, SH can progress to unconsciousness, seizures, coma, or death. Before 2018, all glucagon rescue treatments required reconstitution. The complexity of reconstitution is often a barrier to successful administration during a severe hypoglycemic event. Studies suggest successful administration of glucagon emergency kits range from 6%-56% of the time. Second-generation glucagon treatments and glucagon analogs do not require reconstitution and have caregiver administration success rates ranging from 94%-100%. Dasiglucagon is a glucagon analog administered via autoinjector or prefilled syringe and has been shown to result in rapid hypoglycemia recovery. Moreover, the autoinjector can be administered successfully 94% of the time by trained caregivers. Previous evaluation of costs in budget impact models (BIMs) demonstrated the potential for second-generation glucagon treatments to reduce the cost of SH events (SHEs). The current model expands on those findings with a treatment pathway and accompanying assumptions reflecting important aspects of real-world SHE treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic impact of dasiglucagon compared with available glucagon treatments for SHE management, considering direct cost of treatment and health care resource utilization. METHODS: A 1-year BIM with a hypothetical US commercial health plan of 1 million lives was developed with a target population of individuals with diabetes at risk of SHE. The treatment pathway model included initial and secondary treatment attempts, treatment administration success and failure, plasma glucose (PG) recovery within 15 minutes, emergency medical services, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the sensitivity of the model to changes in parameter values. RESULTS: In a 1 million-covered lives population, it was estimated that 12,006 SHEs would occur annually. The higher rate of initial treatment success and PG recovery within 15 minutes associated with dasiglucagon treatment resulted in lower total health care costs. Total SHE treatment costs with dasiglucagon were estimated at $13.4 million, compared with $16.7 million for injectable native glucagon, $20.7 million for nasal glucagon, $35.3 million for reconstituted glucagon, and $43.8 million for untreated individuals. Compared with untreated people, the number needed to treat (NNT) with dasiglucagon was 6 individuals to avoid 1 hospitalization. NNT for this same comparison was 59 for injectable native glucagon and 27 for nasal glucagon. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of SH with dasiglucagon decreased total direct medical costs by reducing health care resource utilization (emergency calls, emergency transports, ED visits, and hospitalizations) and accompanying costs associated with the treatment of SH. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Zealand Pharma. Bromley, Hinahara, and Goss are employed by Boston Healthcare Associates, Inc., which received funding from Zealand Pharma for development of the health economic model and the manuscript. Kendall and Hammer are employed by Zealand Pharma. Weinzimer has received consulting fees from Zealand Pharma.

A Comparative Study of Dasiglucagon Ready-to-Use Autoinjector and Glucagon Emergency Kit During Rescue from Simulated Severe Hypoglycemia.

Background: Severe hypoglycemic episodes are life-threatening events demanding rapid administration of glucagon by a caregiver or bystander. The glucagon analog dasiglucagon is stable in aqueous formulation and therefore suitable for delivery in a ready-to-use autoinjector, potentially increasing speed and ease of use compared with standard glucagon emergency kits (GEKs). Methods: In an open label, randomized, crossover, comparative device handling study, trained caregivers and untrained bystanders administered the dasiglucagon autoinjector or Eli Lilly GEK to manikins in a simulated emergency hypoglycemia situation. Results: In total, 54 participants were randomized (18 patient-caregiver pairs and 18 bystanders). Overall, 94% of trained caregivers were able to administer the dasiglucagon autoinjector successfully within 15 min, compared with 56% for the GEK (P < 0.05). A greater proportion of trained caregivers and untrained bystanders successfully prepared and administered the dasiglucagon autoinjector within 2 min compared with the GEK (P < 0.005 and P < 0.05, respectively). Time to successful completion was also significantly faster with the dasiglucagon autoinjector than with the GEK (P < 0.005 for both groups). Most study participants preferred the dasiglucagon autoinjector over the GEK (94%, P < 0.001) and rated it as easier (90%, P < 0.001) and less stressful to use (94%, P < 0.001) than the GEK. Conclusion: Dasiglucagon autoinjector was more rapidly and reliably administered, and users reported greater ease of use and usage satisfaction than with the GEK. Thus, dasiglucagon autoinjector has the potential to improve speed and ease of treatment in severe hypoglycemic events, providing a better usage experience for rescuing individuals and enabling faster recovery for patients.

Congenital hyperinsulinism in infancy and childhood: challenges, unmet needs and the perspective of patients and families.

BACKGROUND: Congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI) is the most common cause of persistent hypoglycemia in infants and children, and carries a considerable risk of neurological damage and developmental delays if diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Despite rapid advances in diagnosis and management, long-term developmental outcomes have not significantly improved in the past years. CHI remains a disease that is associated with significant morbidity, and psychosocial and financial burden for affected families, especially concerning the need for constant blood glucose monitoring throughout patients' lives. RESULTS: In this review, we discuss the key clinical challenges and unmet needs, and present insights on patients' and families' perspective on their daily life with CHI. Prevention of neurocognitive impairment and successful management of patients with CHI largely depend on early diagnosis and effective treatment by a multidisciplinary team of specialists with experience in the disease. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure the best outcomes for patients and their families, improvements in effective screening and treatment, and accelerated referral to specialized centers need to be implemented. There is a need to develop a wider range of centers of excellence and networks of specialized care to optimize the best outcomes both for patients and for clinicians. Awareness of the presentation and the risks of CHI has to be raised across all professions involved in the care of newborns and infants. For many patients, the limited treatment options currently available are insufficient to manage the disease effectively, and they are associated with a range of adverse events. New therapies would benefit all patients, even those that are relatively stable on current treatments, by reducing the need for constant blood glucose monitoring and facilitating a personalized approach to treatment.

Congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI) is a rare disease that causes newborn babies and children to have low blood sugar because of the abnormal release of insulin. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas that promotes the transfer of sugar from the blood into the body's cells. In a healthy person, insulin is released only after a meal when the level of blood sugar is high, but infants and children with CHI make insulin even if the blood sugar is low. This can lead to dangerously low blood sugar levels, which can cause brain damage if left untreated. Unfortunately, diagnosis and treatment are often delayed, resulting in avoidable brain damage and developmental delays in these children. CHI is associated with substantial stress and anxiety for the families, especially due to the need for frequent feeding and the fear of low blood sugars added to the constant need to measure blood sugar levels. This article discusses the most important challenges and unmet needs in this rare disease, including the limited treatment options, the side effects of available treatment options and the heavy psychological, social and financial burden on affected families. Effective screening of newborns for CHI needs to be improved, and quick referral to specialized treatment centers is necessary to ensure the best outcomes for patients and families. In addition, awareness of CHI has to be raised in all medical professions caring for newborns and infants, and new medications are urgently needed to ensure the best possible treatment for all patients with CHI.

Understanding inhaled Technosphere Insulin: Results of an early randomized trial in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Technosphere Insulin (TI) is an inhaled insulin. Studies comparing TI with short-acting insulin analogues provide important insights on efficacy, dosing, and time course of action. METHODS: Planned enrollment of 230 subjects was limited to 138 due to premature study discontinuation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a noninferiority of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 0.4% for TI compared with insulin lispro (LIS) in a 16-week phase 3 randomized clinical trial in type 1 diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: HbA1c values were similar in the TI and LIS groups at the beginning of the trial (7.8% and 7.6%, respectively) and at trial endpoint (7.7% and 7.6%, respectively). Least squares mean changes from baseline were similar between study groups. Glucose values after a standard meal were significantly lower with TI in the first 90 minutes post meal compared with LIS. Mild or moderate hypoglycemia event rates were also significantly lower with TI compared with LIS (5.97 vs 8.01, respectively; P = .0269). Cough was the most commonly reported adverse event with TI. Pulmonary function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second was not different between groups at baseline, 16 weeks, or 4 weeks off study drug. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c was unchanged and overall glucose control was comparable between groups. Treatment with TI resulted in improved post-meal glucose and a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with LIS.

Comprehensive Pulmonary Safety Review of Inhaled Technosphere® Insulin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Technosphere® Insulin (TI), a human insulin powder for inhalation (Afrezza®; MannKind Corporation, Westlake Village, CA, USA), is an ultra-rapid-acting inhaled insulin indicated to improve postprandial glycemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Because TI is absorbed across the alveolar membrane, the objective of this analysis was to characterize its pulmonary safety. METHODS: Pooled data from 13 phase 2/3 clinical studies in 5505 patients with T1DM or T2DM treated with TI, Technosphere inhalation powder without insulin (TP; placebo), or active-comparator treatment were analyzed for incidences of respiratory treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in pulmonary function, and lung malignancies. Radiographic changes in the lungs were monitored in a subset of 229 patients. RESULTS: Among 3017 patients receiving TI, the median duration of TI exposure was 168 days; median active-comparator and TP exposure durations were 363 and 149 days for 2198 and 290 patients, respectively. Respiratory TEAEs were comparable across treatments, except for a higher incidence of mild cough with TI in active-comparator studies (28.0% vs. 5.2%). Slight reversible declines in pulmonary function from baseline were observed for TI versus TP and active-comparator treatments, including in a subpopulation of patients with retrospectively identified lung dysfunction. Lung malignancies were reported in two patients on active TI therapy with a smoking history. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed in radiographic images. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary safety assessment of the TI inhalation system did not identify any safety issues in individuals with either T1DM or T2DM.

Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide is an incretin mimetic that shares glucoregulatory properties with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), and improves glycaemic control, with progressive bodyweight reductions, when administered twice a day in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the efficacy of a once-weekly formulation of exenatide to that of a twice daily dose. METHODS: A 30-week, randomised, non-inferiority study compared a long-acting release formulation of exenatide 2 mg administered once weekly to 10 mug exenatide administered twice a day, in 295 patients with type 2 diabetes (haemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] 8.3% [SD 1.0], mean fasting plasma glucose 9 [SD 2] mmol/L, weight 102 [SD 20] kg, diabetes duration 6.7 [SD 5.0] years). The patients were naive to drug therapy, or on one or more oral antidiabetic agents. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA(1c) at 30 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00308139. FINDINGS: At 30 weeks, the patients given exenatide once a week had significantly greater changes in HbA(1c) than those given exenatide twice a day (-1.9 [SE 0.1%] vs -1.5 [0.1%], 95% CI -0.54% to -0.12%; p=0.0023). A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving treatment once a week versus twice a day achieved target HbA(1c) levels of 7.0% or less (77%vs 61% of evaluable patients, p=0.0039). INTERPRETATION: Exenatide once weekly resulted in significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than exenatide given twice a day, with no increased risk of hypoglycaemia and similar reductions in bodyweight.

Identifying insulin treatment responders with a composite measure: beyond Hba1c < 7% in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Many insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7%, but have clinically relevant HbA1c reductions. Using an integrated database (IDB) of 53 insulin lispro clinical trials and a real-world evidence (RWE) database of T2D patients initiating insulin therapy, an expanded HbA1c measure was used to identify responders to insulin therapy. METHODS: Analysis included 4,908 patients (IDB) and 1,134 patients (RWE) with T2D treated with any insulin regimen with a baseline and ≥1 post-baseline HbA1c. Responders were defined as patients with endpoint HbA1c < 7% (cut point [CP]) and/or either ≥1% absolute (ABS) decrease, and/or ≥10% relative (REL) decrease in HbA1c from baseline. The percentage of responders with CP vs ABS and concordance between ABS and REL were calculated. As the ABS and REL measures were highly correlated (94%), the ABS measure was used to compare characteristics of responders and non-responders by age, diabetes duration, race/ethnicity, baseline HbA1c, and insulin regimen at 24 weeks. RESULTS: In both databases, more responders were identified with ABS or REL (>62%) than CP (<41%). More ABS responders had a baseline HbA1c ≥ 9% and a shorter diabetes duration than non-responders. Basal insulin-treated patients in the IDB had 78.2% responders at 24 weeks, compared to 69.7% with basal/bolus or pre-mixed insulin (75.4%). Results were similar in the IDB and RWE. CONCLUSION: Composite HbA1c measures identified more patients with clinically meaningful responses to therapy than the broadly accepted HbA1c < 7% and may be useful in assessing clinical trials, clinical care, and quality measures.

Glycemia treatment strategies in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.

There is an independent progressive epidemiologic relation between glycemia and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events; however, whether lowering glucose levels with currently available therapies can reduce CVD events remains unknown. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial is designed to answer this question in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In ACCORD, 10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes and other CVD risk factors or CVD were randomly allocated to intensive glycemic control, targeting a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level <6%, or standard glycemic control, targeting an HbA1c level of 7.0%-7.9%. All participants are provided with diabetes education, glucose-monitoring equipment, and antidiabetic medications. All participants in the intensive glycemic control group are started on > or = 2 classes of agents. Doses are intensified or a new medication class is added every month if HbA1c levels are > or = 6% or if >50% of premeal or postmeal capillary glucose readings are >5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) or >7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL), respectively. All drug combinations are permitted, and drugs are reduced only because of side effects or contraindications. Annual training, menus of approaches for intensification, regular electronic messaging, audits of achieved glycemia, and central feedback to sites support glycemic intensification strategies in intensive participants. In participants in the standard glycemic control group, therapy is intensified whenever HbA1c is > or = 8%, and antihyperglycemic drugs that promote hypoglycemia (ie, insulin or insulin secretagogues) are reduced if HbA1c persistently decreases to <7% in the setting of hypoglycemia. ACCORD addresses the hypothesis that aggressive glucose lowering prevents CVD events in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is focused on the levels of glycemia achieved using a variety of strategies, not on the specific therapies used. It will also provide information on how to safely approach near-normal levels of glucose control in clinical practice and evidence to support future clinical guidelines for diabetes management in older adults.

Tolerability and efficacy of exenatide and titrated insulin glargine in adult patients with type 2 diabetes previously uncontrolled with metformin or a sulfonylurea: a multinational, randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of exenatide and insulin glargine therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glucose control with metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: This multinational, randomized, open-label, crossover noninferiority study compared the efficacy of exenatide 10 pg BID and insulin glargine QD (titrated targeting a fasting serum glucose (FSG) level < or =5.6 mmol/L) in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a single oral antidiabetic agent. The study included two 16-week treatment periods. The primary a priori outcome variable was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(lc)). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving the American Diabetes Association (ADA) target HbA(lc) of < or =7% and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes target of < or =6.5%, the change in FSG, end-point values and change in the 7-point self-monitored glucose profile, and change in body weight. Adverse events were assessed based on standard laboratory tests and patient reports. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized to study treatment (52.9% female, 47.1% male; 79.7% white; mean [SEM] age, 54.9 [0.8] years; duration of diabetes, 7.4 [0.4] years; body mass index, 31.1 [0.4] kg/m(2); weight, 84.8 [1.4] kg) while continuing to receive metformin (55.1%) or a sulfonylurea (44.9%). The population had a baseline least squares (LS) mean (SEM) HbA(lc) of 8.95% (0.09%) and an LS mean FSG concentration of 12.0 (0.3) mmol/L. Both exenatide and titrated insulin glargine therapy were associated with similar significant changes from baseline in HbA(1c) (both, -1.36% [0.09%]; P < 0.001); the difference between groups was not statistically significant. The LS mean HbA(1c) at end point was above the ADA target with both treatments (exenatide, 7.57% [0.09%]; insulin glargine, 7.58% [0.09%]). Similar proportions of patients achieved an HbA(1c) < or =7% (37.5% and 39.8%, respectively; P = NS) or < or =6.5% (21.5% and 13.6%). Patients lost weight during exenatide treatment, whereas they gained weight during insulin glargine treatment; the between-group difference in weight change was statistically significant (LS mean difference, -2.2 [0.3] kg; 95% CI, -2.8 to-1.7; P < 0.001). Both exenatide and insulin glargine were associated with significant reductions from baseline in FSG (-2.9 [0.2] and -4.1 [0.2] mmol/L, respectively; both, P < 0.001), although the reduction was significantly greater with insulin glargine compared with exenatide (LS mean difference, 1.2 [0.3] mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.7; P < 0.001). Compared with insulin glargine, exenatide was associated with significantly lower 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions (P < 0.016) and total daily mean glucose excursion (P < 0.001). The proportions of patients reporting nausea during exenatide and insulin glargine treatment were 42.6% and 3.1%, respectively; the proportions reporting vomiting were 9.6% and 3.1%. The incidence of hypoglycemia in the 2 groups was 14.7% and 25.2% (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, crossover study, treatment with exenatide or insulin glargine for 16 weeks was associated with similar significant improvements from baseline in HbA(1c), independent of treatment order. The improvements in HbA(1c) from baseline did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Exenatide therapy was associated with significant reductions in body weight and PPG excursions compared with insulin glargine, whereas insulin glargine was associated with a significantly greater reduction in FSG compared with exenatide. These findings provide additional information to guide treatment decisions in patients with type 2 diabetes who are potential candidates for either therapy.

Improvement of glycemic control, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol levels with muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor activator, in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: A double-blind, randomized, pioglitazone-comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effects of muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) activator within the new glitazar class, on hyperglycemia and lipid abnormalities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was performed in 1,159 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Patients received once-daily doses of either 5 mg muraglitazar or 30 mg pioglitazone for a total of 24 weeks in addition to open-label metformin. Patients were continued in a double-blind fashion for an additional 26 weeks. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted at week 24 for HbA1c (A1C) and at week 12 for lipid parameters. Mean A1C at baseline was 8.12 and 8.13% in muraglitazar and pioglitazone groups, respectively. At week 24, muraglitazar reduced mean A1C to 6.98% (-1.14% from baseline), and pioglitazone reduced mean A1C to 7.28% (-0.85% from baseline; P < 0.0001, muraglitazar vs. pioglitazone). At week 12, muraglitazar and pioglitazone reduced mean plasma triglyceride (-28 vs. -14%), apolipoprotein B (-12 vs. -6%), and non-HDL cholesterol (-6 vs. -1%) and increased HDL cholesterol (19 vs. 14%), respectively (P < 0.0001 vs. pioglitazone for all comparisons). At week 24, weight gain (1.4 and 0.6 kg, respectively) and edema (9.2 and 7.2%, respectively) were observed in the muraglitazar and pioglitazone groups; at week 50, weight gain and edema were 2.5 and 1.5 kg, respectively, and 11.8 and 8.9%, respectively. At week 50, heart failure was reported in seven patients (five with muraglitazar and two with pioglitazone), and seven deaths occurred: three from sudden death, two from cerebrovascular accident, and one from pancreatic cancer in the muraglitazar group and one from perforated duodenal ulcer in the pioglitazone group. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 5 mg muraglitazar resulted in greater improvements in A1C and lipid parameters than a submaximal dose of 30 mg pioglitazone when added to metformin. Weight gain and edema were more common when muraglitazar was compared with a submaximal dose of pioglitazone.

Incretin mimetics and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors: a review of emerging therapies for type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is thought to develop as a result of progressive beta-cell dysfunction in the setting of insulin resistance, leading to increased risks of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Type 2 diabetes is currently treated with diet and exercise, followed by oral drug therapy, and finally exogenous insulin. While this approach is known to improve glycemic control, none of the currently available therapies significantly improve beta-cell function. In addition, this approach does not address defects in hormonal secretion thought to play key roles in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is characterized by excess glucagon secretion and insufficient secretion of the hormone amylin from the pancreatic beta-cell. In addition, individuals with type 2 diabetes demonstrate insufficient secretion of the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). Novel therapies that leverage the so-called "incretin effect" of GLP-1 (including the incretin mimetics and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors) are being actively developed for the management of type 2 diabetes. Incretin mimetics are either derivatives of GLP-1, modified to resist proteolysis, or are novel peptides that share glucoregulatory functions with GLP-1 and are naturally resistant to proteolysis. DPP-IV inhibitors enhance the concentration of endogenous GLP-1 by limiting proteolysis of native GLP-1. With the approval of exenatide- the first "incretin mimetic"-treatment of type 2 diabetes will no doubt be changed. An understanding of the effects of these compounds will be needed to enhance the clinical approach to diabetes treatment.

Integrated tobacco cessation counseling in a diabetes self-management training program: a randomized trial of diabetes and reduction of tobacco.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a tobacco cessation intervention using motivational interviewing on smoking cessation rates during diabetes self-management training (DSMT). METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with subjects recruited from an ongoing type 2 diabetes adult education program at a large diabetes center. A total of 114 subjects were randomized to intervention (n = 57; face-to-face motivational interviewing plus telephone counseling and offering of medication) or standard care (n = 57). Outcome measures included tobacco cessation rates, mean number of cigarettes smoked, A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids. RESULTS: Intensive intervention using motivational interviewing integrated into a standard DSMT program resulted in a trend toward greater abstinence at 3 months of follow-up in those receiving the intervention. However, this same trend was not observed at 6 months. The addition of this structured smoking cessation intervention did not negatively affect either diabetes education or other measures of diabetes management, including A1C values. CONCLUSIONS: Structured tobacco cessation efforts can be readily integrated into established diabetes education programs without a negative impact on diabetes care or delivery of diabetes education. However, an intervention of moderate intensity for smoking cessation was no more effective than usual care in assisting patients with tobacco cessation after 6-month follow-up. Whether a more intensive intervention, targeting patients expressing a readiness to discontinue tobacco use, and/or a longer duration or a more cumulative effect of treatment will be more effective must be evaluated.

Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and a sulfonylurea.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of exenatide, a novel incretin mimetic, in hyperglycemic patients with type 2 diabetes unable to achieve glycemic control with metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 30-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 733 subjects (aged 55 +/- 10 years, BMI 33.6 +/- 5.7 kg/m(2), A1C 8.5 +/- 1.0%; means +/- SD) randomized to 5 microg subcutaneous exenatide b.i.d. (arms A and B) or placebo for 4 weeks. Thereafter, arm A remained at 5 microg b.i.d. and arm B escalated to 10 microg b.i.d. Subjects continued taking their dose of metformin and were randomized to either maximally effective (MAX) or minimum recommended (MIN) doses of sulfonylurea. RESULTS: Week 30 A1C changes from baseline (+/-SE) were -0.8 +/- 0.1% (10 microg), -0.6 +/- 0.1% (5 microg), and +0.2 +/- 0.1% (placebo; adjusted P < 0.0001 vs. placebo), yielding placebo-adjusted reductions of -1.0% (10 microg) and -0.8% (5 microg). In the evaluable population, exenatide-treated subjects were more likely to achieve A1C < or =7% than placebo-treated subjects (34% [10 microg], 27% [5 microg], and 9% [placebo]; P < 0.0001). Both exenatide arms demonstrated significant weight loss (-1.6 +/- 0.2 kg from baseline each exenatide arm, -0.9 +/- 0.2 kg placebo; P < or = 0.01 vs. placebo). Mild or moderate nausea was the most frequent adverse event. The incidence of mild/moderate hypoglycemia was 28% (10 microg), 19% (5 microg), and 13% (placebo) and appeared lower with MIN than with MAX sulfonylurea treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide significantly reduced A1C in patients with type 2 diabetes unable to achieve adequate glycemic control with maximally effective doses of combined metformin-sulfonylurea therapy. This improvement in glycemic control was associated with no weight gain and was generally well tolerated.

A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: Published reports suggest that pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different effects on lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these previous studies were either retrospective chart reviews or clinical trials not rigorously controlled for concomitant glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies. This study examines the lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (treated with diet alone or oral monotherapy) and dyslipidemia (not treated with any lipid-lowering agents). After a 4-week placebo washout period, subjects randomly assigned to the pioglitazone arm (n = 400) were treated with 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg once daily for an additional 12 weeks, whereas subjects randomly assigned to rosiglitazone (n = 402) were treated with 4 mg once daily followed by 4 mg twice daily for the same intervals. RESULTS: Triglyceride levels were reduced by 51.9 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with pioglitazone, but were increased by 13.1 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001 between treatments). Additionally, the increase in HDL cholesterol was greater (5.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.5 mg/dl; P < 0.001) and the increase in LDL cholesterol was less (12.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 21.3 +/- 1.6 mg/dl; P < 0.001) for pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone, respectively. LDL particle concentration was reduced with pioglitazone and increased with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001). LDL particle size increased more with pioglitazone (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have significantly different effects on plasma lipids independent of glycemic control or concomitant lipid-lowering or other antihyperglycemic therapy. Pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone is associated with significant improvements in triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL particle concentration, and LDL particle size.