Clinical perspectives from the BEGIN and EDITION programmes: Trial-level meta-analyses outcomes with either degludec or glargine 300U/mL vs glargine 100U/mL in T2DM.

AIMS: To explore comparative glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia incidence with insulin degludec 100U/mL (IDeg) or insulin glargine 300U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100U/mL (Gla-100) in trial-level meta-analyses of phase 3a clinical trials including people with type-2 diabetes. METHODS: Meta-analyses of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), average 24h self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), pre-breakfast SMPG and hypoglycaemia incidence and rate, using data from the BEGIN (IDeg) and EDITION (Gla-300) insulin development programmes, were performed. RESULTS: In BEGIN, despite greater FPG reduction with IDeg than Gla-100, HbA1c reduction was greater with Gla-100 (mean difference [95% CI] in HbA1c change: 0.09 [0.01-0.18] %) whereas in EDITION, there was no difference in FPG and HbA1c reduction between Gla-300 and Gla-100. Risk of nocturnal confirmed (<3.1mmol/L [<56mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia, but not anytime (24h) events, was lower with IDeg than Gla-100 (relative risk [RR] 0.79 [0.66-0.94]) whereas Gla-300 was associated with reduced risk of nocturnal (RR 0.75 [0.61-0.92]) and anytime (24h) (RR 0.81 [0.69-0.94]) confirmed (<3.0mmol/L [<54mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia versus Gla-100. CONCLUSIONS: These trial-level meta-analyses suggest that despite greater reductions in FPG, IDeg was associated with less improvement in HbA1c versus Gla-100, with a hypoglycaemia benefit only evident at night. In contrast, Gla-300 showed similar HbA1c reduction to Gla-100, accompanied by lower risk of hypoglycaemia both at night and at any time of day. Gla-300 and IDeg appear more similar than dissimilar, but head-to-head trials are required.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as add-on therapy to basal insulin and metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and metformin. METHODS: This was a post hoc subanalysis of participants who received basal insulin and metformin in a global phase III study that randomized participants (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo for ≥52 weeks as add-on therapy to basal insulin alone or in combination with metformin and/or pioglitazone. During the first 24 weeks, the background dose of basal insulin remained stable; thereafter, adjustments based on glucose concentrations were recommended. The primary endpoint of the subanalysis was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks. The safety analysis incorporated data up to a maximum of 110 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 950 participants receiving background insulin and metformin were included in this subanalysis (linagliptin and placebo, both n = 475). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean (±se) change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin was -7 (±1) mmol/mol [-0.7 (±0.1) %; 95% CI -0.8, -0.6; P < 0.0001]. The overall frequency of drug-related adverse events (linagliptin, 18.9%; placebo, 21.9%) and investigator-reported hypoglycaemia (linagliptin, 30.7%; placebo, 31.6%) were similar in both groups at the end of treatment. The frequency of severe hypoglycaemia was low (linagliptin, 1.7%; placebo, 0.8%). No meaningful changes in mean (±sd) body weight were noted in either group [week 52: linagliptin, -0.5 (±3.2) kg; placebo, 0.0 (±3.1) kg]. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin added to basal insulin and metformin improved glycaemic control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or body weight gain.

Efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus placebo added to basal insulin analogues (with or without metformin) in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To confirm the superiority, compared with placebo, of adding liraglutide to pre-existing basal insulin analogue ± metformin in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol)]. METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind, parallel-group study, conducted in clinics or hospitals, 451 subjects were randomized 1 : 1 to once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg (dose escalated from 0.6 and 1.2 mg/day, respectively, for 1 week each; n = 226) or placebo (n = 225) added to their pre-existing basal insulin analogue (≥20 U/day) ± metformin (≥1500 mg/day). After randomization, insulin adjustments above the pre-study dose were not allowed. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change. RESULTS: After 26 weeks, HbA1c decreased more with liraglutide [-1.3% (-14.2 mmol/mol)] than with placebo [-0.1% (-1.2 mmol/mol); p < 0.0001]. More subjects on liraglutide reached HbA1c targets: <7.0% (59% vs 14%; p < 0.0001) and ≤6.5% (43% vs 4%; p < 0.0001) using slightly less insulin (35.8 IU vs 40.1 IU). Greater decreases from baseline (estimated treatment differences vs placebo; p < 0.0001) occurred in fasting plasma glucose (-1.3 mmol/l), seven-point glucose profiles (-1.6 mmol/l), body weight (-3.1 kg) and systolic blood pressure (-5.0 mmHg). Transient gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea: 22.2% vs 3.1%) and minor hypoglycaemia (18.2% vs 12.4%) were more frequent with liraglutide than placebo, and pulse increased (4.5 beats/min) compared with placebo. No severe hypoglycaemia or pancreatitis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adding liraglutide to a basal insulin analogue ± metformin significantly improved glycaemic control, body weight and systolic blood pressure compared with placebo. Typical gastrointestinal symptoms and minor hypoglycaemia were more frequent with liraglutide.

Impact of empagliflozin added on to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin: a 78-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of empagliflozin added to basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7 to ≤10% (>53 to ≤86 mmol/mol)] on basal insulin (glargine, detemir, NPH) were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 169), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 155) or placebo (n = 170) for 78 weeks. The baseline characteristics were balanced among the groups [mean HbA1c 8.2% (67 mmol/mol), BMI 32.2 kg/m(2) ]. The basal insulin dose was to remain constant for 18 weeks, then could be adjusted at investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18. Key secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in HbA1c and insulin dose at week 78. RESULTS: At week 18, the adjusted mean ± standard error changes from baseline in HbA1c were 0.0 ± 0.1% (-0.1 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) for placebo, compared with -0.6 ± 0.1% (-6.2 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) and -0.7 ± 0.1% (-7.8 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) for empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (both p < 0.001). At week 78, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg significantly reduced HbA1c, insulin dose and weight vs placebo (all p < 0.01), and empagliflozin 10 mg significantly reduced systolic blood pressure vs placebo (p = 0.004). Similar percentages of patients had confirmed hypoglycaemia in all groups (35-36%). Events consistent with urinary tract infection were reported in 9, 15 and 12% of patients on placebo, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, and events consistent with genital infection were reported in 2, 8 and 5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin for 78 weeks added to basal insulin improved glycaemic control and reduced weight with a similar risk of hypoglycaemia to placebo.

Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 1 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial: the ELEMENT 1 study.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and the reference product (Lantus®) insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This phase III, randomized, open-label, 52-week study enrolled patients with T1D [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤11%] being treated with basal (once-daily) and bolus insulin. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily LY IGlar (n = 268) or IGlar (n = 267) in combination with mealtime insulin lispro for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was to test the non-inferiority (0.4% and then 0.3% margin) of LY IGlar to IGlar as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks. RESULTS: Both treatment groups had similar and significant (p < 0.001) within-group decreases in mean HbA1c values from baseline. LY IGlar met the non-inferiority criteria compared with IGlar for change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks [-0.35 vs -0.46%, least-squares mean difference 0.108% (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.219), p > 0.05]. There were no significant (p > 0.05) treatment differences in other efficacy measures, including proportion of patients reaching HbA1c <7%, daily mean blood glucose, and insulin dose at 24 and 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, similar findings were observed between LY IGlar and IGlar for safety outcomes, including adverse events, allergic reactions, hypoglycaemia, weight change and insulin antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Both LY IGlar and IGlar, when used in combination with mealtime insulin lispro, provided effective and similar glucose control and similar safety profiles.

Similar efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine and insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve or previously treated with insulin glargine: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial (the ELEMENT 2 study).

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and the reference product (Lantus(®)) insulin glargine (IGlar) in combination with oral antihyperglycaemic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study enrolled patients with T2D who were insulin-naïve [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7 and ≤11.0%] or previously on IGlar (HbA1c ≤11%) and treated with ≥2 oral antihyperglycaemic medications. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily LY IGlar (n = 376) or IGlar (n = 380) for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was to test the non-inferiority (0.4% and then 0.3% margin) of LY IGlar to IGlar, as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks. RESULTS: Both treatment groups had similar and significant (p < 0.001) within-group decreases in mean HbA1c values from baseline. LY IGlar met non-inferiority criteria compared with IGlar for change in HbA1c from baseline [-1.29 vs -1.34%; respectively, least-squares mean difference 0.052% (95% confidence interval -0.070 to 0.175); p > 0.05]. There were no treatment differences (p > 0.05) in fasting plasma glucose, proportion of patients reaching HbA1c <7% or insulin dose at 24 weeks. Adverse events, allergic reactions, weight change, hypoglycaemia and insulin antibodies were similar between treatment groups. Similar findings were observed in patients who were insulin-naïve or previously treated with IGlar at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Both LY IGlar and IGlar, when used in combination with oral antihyperglycaemic medications, provided effective and similar glucose control with similar safety profiles in patients with T2D.

Regardless of the degree of glycaemic control, linagliptin has lower hypoglycaemia risk than all doses of glimepiride, at all time points, over the course of a 2-year trial.

AIM: To evaluate the risk of documented hypoglycaemia with glimepiride versus linagliptin. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of data from a 2-year, randomized, double-blind study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 764) versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride 1-4 mg once daily (n = 755) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by metformin. Patients randomized to glimepiride started on 1 mg and after 4 weeks were allowed to be individually uptitrated stepwise to glimepiride 4 mg if a fasting plasma glucose concentration ≤6.1 mmol/l was not achieved. Investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was evaluated by dose, over time, and by the degree of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with at least one hypoglycaemic event at the individual maximum glimepiride dose were: 1 mg, 45.0%; 2 mg, 50.8%; 3 mg, 36.1%; and 4 mg, 27.7%. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin (36.1 vs. 7.5%; p < 0.0001); after performing sensitivity analyses by excluding events during dose escalation (weeks 0-16), this difference remained significant (weeks 16-104: 25.8 vs. 5.9%; p < 0.0001). Notably, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin in each quartile of HbA1c change from baseline (all p < 0.0001); the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes was not increased with greater reductions in HbA1c in either group. In all 4-week intervals across the 2-year study, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower with linagliptin than with glimepiride. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride at all dose levels and time intervals, and regardless of change in HbA1c level.

Insulin degludec improves long-term glycaemic control similarly to insulin glargine but with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes in patients with advanced type 2 diabetes on basal-bolus insulin therapy.

The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of insulin degludec with those of insulin glargine in patients with advanced type 2 diabetes (T2D) over 78 weeks (the 52-week main trial and a 26-week extension). Patients were randomized to once-daily insulin degludec or insulin glargine, with mealtime insulin aspart ± metformin ± pioglitazone, and titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 3.9-4.9 mmol/l (70-88 mg/dl). After 78 weeks, the overall rate of hypoglycaemia was 24% lower (p = 0.011) and the rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 31% lower (p = 0.016) with insulin degludec in the extension trial set, while both groups of patients achieved similar glycaemic control. Rates of adverse events and total insulin doses were similar for both groups in the safety analysis set. During 18 months of treatment, insulin degludec + mealtime insulin aspart ± oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2D improves glycaemic control similarly, but confers lower risks of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia than with insulin glargine treatment.

Efficacy and safety of colesevelam in combination with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Colesevelam improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes when added to existing metformin-, sulfonylurea-, or insulin-based regimens. We evaluated colesevelam's effects in subjects on stable pioglitazone-based therapy. This 24-week multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes who had suboptimal glycemic control [HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) and ≤ 80 mmol/mol (9.5%)] on pioglitazone (30 or 45 mg) with or without 1-2 other oral antidiabetes medications. Subjects were randomized to colesevelam 3.8 g/day (n = 280) or placebo (n = 282) added to existing pioglitazone-based therapy. Primary efficacy variable was mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Secondary variables included safety and tolerability, fasting plasma glucose changes, glycemic responses, and lipid profile. Tertiary variables included lipid particle profile changes by nuclear magnetic resonance. Colesevelam decreased HbA1c [least-squares mean treatment difference, - 3.5 mmol/mol (- 0.32%); p < 0.001] and fasting plasma glucose (- 14.7 mg/dl; p<0.001) vs. placebo at Week 24. More subjects receiving colesevelam vs. placebo achieved HbA1c reduction ≥ 7.7 mmol/mol (0.7%) (40% vs. 25%; p<0.001) or HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) (21% vs. 13%; p = 0.012). Colesevelam also decreased total cholesterol (mean treatment difference, - 6.5%), LDL-cholesterol (- 16.4%), non-HDL-cholesterol (- 9.8%), apolipoprotein B (- 8.8%), and total LDL particle concentration, and increased apolipoprotein A1 (+3.4%) and triglycerides (median treatment difference, + 11.3%) vs. placebo (all p < 0.001). There were no serious drug-related adverse events, and the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate. In subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with pioglitazone-based therapy, add-on colesevelam therapy improved glycemic control and lipid parameters and was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00789750.

Contrasting weight changes with LY2605541, a novel long-acting insulin, and insulin glargine despite similar improved glycaemic control in T1DM and T2DM.

AIMS: The basal insulin analogue LY2605541, a PEGylated insulin lispro with prolonged duration of action, was previously shown to be associated with modest weight loss in Phase 2, randomized, open-label trials in type 2 (N=288) and type 1 (N=137) diabetes mellitus (T2DM and T1DM), compared with modest weight gain with insulin glargine. Exploratory analyses were conducted to further characterize these findings. METHODS: Pearson correlations between change in body weight and other variables were calculated. Continuous variables were analysed using a mixed linear model with repeated measurements. Proportions of subjects with weight loss were analysed using Fisher's exact test for T2DM and Nagelkerke's method for T1DM. RESULTS: Weight loss was more common in LY2605541-treated patients than in patients treated with insulin glargine (T2DM: 56.9 vs. 40.2%, p=0.011; T1DM: 66.1 vs. 40.3%, p<0.001). More LY2605541-treated patients experienced ≥5% weight loss compared to patients treated with glargine (T2DM: 4.8 vs. 0%, p=0.033; T1DM: 11.9 vs. 0.8%, p<0.001). In both the T1DM and T2DM studies, weight change did not correlate with baseline body mass index (BMI), or change in HDL-cholesterol in either treatment group. No consistent correlations were found across both studies between weight change and any of the variables assessed; however, weight change was significantly correlated with hypoglycaemia rate in glargine-treated T2DM patients. CONCLUSION: In two Phase 2 trials, improved glycaemic control with long-acting basal insulin analogue LY2605541 is associated with weight loss in previously insulin-treated patients. This weight change is independent of baseline BMI or hypoglycaemia.

The glucose and lipid effects of colesevelam as monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes.

Colesevelam has shown efficacy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in combination with metformin-, sulfonylurea-, or insulin-based therapy, lowering hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. A study was conducted to evaluate colesevelam as monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with T2DM. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, adults with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤9.5%) with diet and exercise alone were randomized to receive colesevelam 3.75 g/day (n=176) or placebo (n=181) for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was HbA1c at week 24. Colesevelam as compared to placebo showed significant reductions from baseline in HbA1c (-2.92 mmol/mol [0.3%]; p=0.01) and fasting plasma glucose (-10.3 mg/dl; p=0.04) at week 24 with last observation carried forward. Colesevelam also significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-11.2%; p<0.0001), total cholesterol (-5.1%; p=0.0005), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-7.4%; p=0.0001), and apolipoprotein B (-6.5%; p=0.0001) and increased apolipoprotein A-I (+ 2.4%; p=0.04), and triglycerides (+ 9.7%; p=0.03). Colesevelam monotherapy resulted in statistically significant improvements in glycemic and most lipid parameters in subjects with type 2 diabetes, with no new or unexpected safety and tolerability issues. Modest reductions in HbA1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with colesevelam further support its use in combination with other antidiabetes agents when treatment targets for these parameters are close but are not quite achieved.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00789737.

Randomized, 1-year comparison of three ways to initiate and advance insulin for type 2 diabetes: twice-daily premixed insulin versus basal insulin with either basal-plus one prandial insulin or basal-bolus up to three prandial injections.

AIM: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiate insulin therapy when other treatments fail; how best to do this is poorly defined. METHODS: People with T2DM [n = 588; glycated haemoglobin A1C (A1C) >7.0%, mean baseline 9.4%] were randomized to twice-daily premixed protamine-aspart/aspart insulin (PM - 2), once-daily insulin glargine plus zero to one prandial insulin glulisine injection (G + 1), or insulin glargine plus zero to three prandial injections (G + 3). Insulin was titrated for 60 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Discontinuation rates were 53 of the 194 (27%), 44 of the 194 (23%) and 38 of the 194 (20%), for PM - 2, G + 1 and G + 3. Glycaemic control improved in all groups (A1C 7.2 ± 1.37, 7.1 ± 1.68 and 7.0 ± 1.21% at 60 weeks; 7.5 ± 1.29, 7.2 ± 1.62 and 7.2 ± 1.63% at endpoint). G + 1 was statistically non-inferior to PM - 2 in reducing A1C. G + 3 was slightly superior to PM - 2 in attaining <7.0% at 60 weeks, but only when the analysis included Good Clinical Practice non-adherent sites. Hypoglycaemia with plasma glucose <2.8 mmol/l was more frequent with PM - 2 versus G + 1 and G + 3; [adjusted incidence: 46 (p = 0.0087) vs. 33 (p = 0.0045) and 31.5%; events per patient-year: 1.9 vs. 0.8 and 0.9, p ≤ 0.0001]. Insulin dosage and weight-gain were similar. CONCLUSION: Basal insulin plus a single prandial injection is as effective in improving glycaemic control as premixed insulin. Full basal-prandial therapy is only slightly more effective than premixed insulin. Stepwise basal-prandial regimens improve glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia than twice-daily premixed insulin.

A direct comparison of long- and short-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (taspoglutide once weekly and exenatide twice daily) on postprandial metabolism after 24 weeks of treatment.

AIMS: T-emerge 2 was a randomized, open-label, 24-week trial comparing subcutaneous taspoglutide 10 mg weekly (Taspo10), taspoglutide 20 mg weekly (Taspo20; titrated after 4 weeks of Taspo10), with exenatide 10 mcg BID (Exe; after 4 weeks of Exe 5 mcg) in patients inadequately controlled on metformin, a thiazolidinedione, or both. T-emerge 2 showed that once-weekly Taspo provided better glycaemic control than Exe. This report focuses on a subset of T-emerge 2 participants undergoing a standardized liquid meal comparing Taspo to Exe, which has been previously shown to lower postprandial glucose. METHODS: Meal tolerance tests (MTT) were performed at baseline and at week 24 in a subset of Taspo10, Taspo20 and Exe patients (n = 42, 39 and 67, respectively). Blood samples for glucose, insulin, glucagon and C-peptide were obtained before and after (30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 min) ingestion of a standardized liquid meal. RESULTS: The 2-h postprandial, mean 0-3 h and iAUC0-3 h glucose during the MTT was reduced to a similar extent in all groups and the time profile of the postprandial glucose showed a similar pattern. Taspo10 and Taspo20, but not Exe, significantly increased insulin from baseline (both mean and iAUC0-3 h). Although changes from baseline in C-peptide were not significant within any treatment group, the mean change from baseline (both mean 0-3 h and iAUC0-3 h) was significantly increased in Taspo10 vs. Exe. Mean glucagon showed significant decreases in all groups. CONCLUSION: Taspoglutide and Exe improved postprandial glucose tolerance to a similar extent but possibly with different intimate mechanisms.

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes with mild hyperglycaemia.

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin added to metformin for 12 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This dose-ranging, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized 495 participants with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) >7 to ≤10%] to receive 1, 5, 10, 25, or 50 mg empagliflozin once daily (QD), or placebo, or open-label sitagliptin (100 mg QD), added to metformin for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 (empagliflozin groups versus placebo). RESULTS: Reductions in HbA1c of -0.09 to -0.56% were observed with empagliflozin after 12 weeks, versus an increase of 0.15% with placebo (baseline: 7.8-8.1%). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin doses from 5 to 50 mg resulted in reductions in fasting plasma glucose (-2 to -28 mg/dl vs. 5 mg/dl with placebo; p < 0.0001) and body weight (-2.3 to -2.9 kg vs. -1.2 kg; p < 0.01). Frequency of adverse events was generally similar with empagliflozin (29.6-48.6%), placebo (36.6%) and sitagliptin (35.2%). Hypoglycaemia rates were very low and balanced among groups. Most frequent adverse events with empagliflozin were urinary tract infections (4.0% vs. 2.8% with placebo) and pollakiuria (2.5% vs. 1.4% with placebo). Genital infections were reported only with empagliflozin (4.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Once daily empagliflozin as add-on therapy to metformin was well tolerated except for increased genital infections and resulted in reductions in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Long-term 4-year safety of saxagliptin in drug-naive and metformin-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To evaluate the safety of saxagliptin ± metformin over 4 years in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Drug-naive (n = 401; study 11) or metformin-treated (n = 743; study 14) adults with HbA(1c) of 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10%) were enrolled in two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of saxagliptin 2.5, 5 or 10 mg/day. Patients rescued during or completing 24 weeks of treatment could continue in a 42-month long-term blinded phase, for which the primary goal was assessment of safety and tolerability. Between-group efficacy was not evaluated in the long-term phase of study 11. Time to rescue or discontinuation because of inadequate glycaemic control, change from baseline in HbA(1c) and percentages of patients achieving HbA(1c) < 53 mmol/mol (< 7.0%) were assessed in study 14. RESULTS: No new safety findings were noted during the long-term phase. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with slightly greater frequency of upper respiratory infections with saxagliptin. Hypoglycaemic event rates were similar with saxagliptin and placebo. In study 14, time to rescue or discontinuation because of inadequate glycaemic control was longer with saxagliptin plus metformin than for placebo plus metformin. From baseline to week 154, HbA(1c) decreased with saxagliptin but increased with placebo. CONCLUSION: Saxagliptin monotherapy or add-on to metformin is generally safe and well tolerated, with no increased risk of hypoglycaemia, for up to 4 years.

Baseline HbA1c predicts attainment of 7.0% HbA1c target with structured titration of insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: a patient-level analysis of 12 studies.

AIMS: To determine whether baseline characteristics, especially haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), predict the likelihood of reaching HbA1c ≤ 7.0% or the risk of experiencing hypoglycaemia after the addition of insulin glargine to oral therapy in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Pooled patient-level data from 12 prospective, randomized, controlled studies that used insulin glargine in a treat-to-target titration regimen seeking fasting glucose levels ≤5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) were analysed. Baseline characteristics were evaluated by logistic regression models as predictors of reaching a target HbA1c ≤ 7.0% or experiencing confirmed hypoglycaemia. The effect of prior glycaemic control was further explored by analysis of categorical ranges of baseline HbA1c. RESULTS: Of 2312 participants, 95% completed 24 weeks of treatment. Lower HbA1c at baseline was independently associated with reaching HbA1c target [adjusted odds ratio (OR) for 1% difference: 0.538, p < 0.0001] and also with likelihood of experiencing confirmed hypoglycaemic events (adjusted OR: 0.835, p < 0.0001) at week 24. In an unadjusted analysis by baseline HbA1c range, the strong association between baseline control and attaining target HbA1c was confirmed (75% with baseline HbA1c < 8.0%, 60% with baseline HbA1c ≥ 8.0 and <9.0% and 38% with baseline HbA1c ≥ 9.0% attained HbA1c ≤ 7.0%). The incidence of hypoglycaemia confirmed <3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) was higher in the lower baseline HbA1c ranges but severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent at all baseline HbA1c levels. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically titrated insulin glargine, added to oral agents, was effective over a wide range of baseline HbA1c. Lower baseline HbA1c was the best clinical predictor of achieving HbA1c ≤ 7.0% and also associated with higher risk of glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent using this treatment approach.

Alogliptin versus glipizide monotherapy in elderly type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with mild hyperglycaemia: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, 1-year study.

AIM: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin versus glipizide in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 1 year of treatment. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of elderly T2DM patients (aged 65-90 years) with mild hyperglycaemia on diet/exercise therapy alone [glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-9.0%] or plus oral antidiabetic monotherapy (HbA1c 6.5-8.0%). Patients were randomized to once-daily alogliptin 25 mg or glipizide 5 mg titrated to 10 mg, if needed. Hypoglycaemic episodes were systematically captured under predefined criteria. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, HbA1c mean changes from a baseline of 7.5% were -0.14% with alogliptin (n = 222) and -0.09% with glipizide (n = 219) at the end of the study, demonstrating non-inferiority of alogliptin to glipizide [least squares (LS) mean difference = -0.05%; one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI): -∞, 0.13%]. More clinically relevant HbA1c reductions occurred among patients who completed the study: -0.42 and -0.33% with alogliptin and glipizide, with non-inferiority again confirmed (LS mean difference = -0.09%; one-sided 97.5% CI: -∞, 0.07%). Overall, alogliptin was safe and well tolerated, with notably fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than glipizide [5.4% (31 episodes) vs. 26.0% (232 episodes), respectively]; three patients experienced severe hypoglycaemia, all with glipizide. Alogliptin also resulted in favourable weight changes versus glipizide (-0.62 vs. 0.60 kg at week 52; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Alogliptin monotherapy maintained glycaemic control comparable to that of glipizide in elderly patients with T2DM over 1 year of treatment, with substantially lower risk of hypoglycaemia and without weight gain.

Linagliptin is more effective than glimepiride at achieving a composite outcome of target HbA1c < 7% with no hypoglycaemia and no weight gain over 2 years.

Linagliptin treatment for 104 weeks was recently reported to achieve non-inferior glucose-lowering effects compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Additional analyses from this randomised, active-controlled, double-blind trial have been performed in individuals completing the study on study drug without requiring rescue therapy. In this population, significantly more patients receiving linagliptin achieved HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycaemia and without body weight gain after 2 years compared with those receiving glimepiride (54% and 23%, respectively; odds ratio of 3.9, 95% confidence interval 2.6-5.7, p < 0.0001).

Diabetes and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The potential of an increased risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes has been the subject of a great deal of recent research. METHODS: A meta-analysis was undertaken using a random effects model to investigate the association between diabetes and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: Thirty-nine independent risk estimates were available from observational epidemiological studies. The summary relative risk (SRR) for breast cancer in women with diabetes was 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.39) with no evidence of publication bias. Prospective studies showed a lower risk (SRR 1.23 (95% CI, 1.12-1.35)) than retrospective studies (SRR 1.36 (95% CI, 1.13-1.63)). Type 1 diabetes, or diabetes in pre-menopausal women, were not associated with risk of breast cancer (SRR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.35) and SRR 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.12), respectively). Studies adjusting for body mass index (BMI) showed lower estimates (SRR 1.16 (95% CI, 1.08-1.24)) as compared with those studies that were not adjusted for BMI (SRR 1.33 (95% CI, 1.18-1.51)). CONCLUSION: The risk of breast cancer in women with type 2 diabetes is increased by 27%, a figure that decreased to 16% after adjustment for BMI. No increased risk was seen for women at pre-menopausal ages or with type 1 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor PF-734200 added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: PF-734200 is a potent and selective oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of PF-734200 at dose rates of 20 and 30 mg/day in subjects with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, multicentre, 12 week study. Subjects with Type 2 diabetes mellitus were eligible if screening glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c) ) was 7-11% (53.0-96.7 mmol/mol) and they had been receiving metformin monotherapy for ≥2 months. Subjects receiving metformin and an insulin secretagogue or metformin and thiazolidinedione needed to have a screening HbA(1c) of 6.5-9.5% (47.5-80.3 mmol/mol), measured prior to discontinuing the insulin secretagogue or thiazolidinedione. The primary end-point of the study was a change from baseline to week 12 in HbA(1c) levels. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 289 subjects randomized to PF-734200 or placebo groups were similar (mean age 56.5 years, mean body mass index 32.2 kg/m(2) and mean HbA(1c) 8.2%, 66.1 mmol/mol). In the predefined per protocol data set, least-squares mean HbA(1c) at week 12 was reduced by 0.79 (8.6 mmol/mol 95% confidence interval -1.10 to -0.49, -12.0 to -5.4 mmol/mol) and 0.92% (10.1 mmol/mol; -1.23 to -0.61, -13.4 to -6.7 mmol/mol) in the 20 and 30 mg groups, respectively, compared with placebo. Differences from placebo were statistically significant (P<0.0001), but the differences between the 20 and 30 mg groups were not. The intent-to-treat analysis yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: The HbA(1c) was significantly and meaningfully reduced by both doses of PF-734200, but 20 mg appears to be the more appropriate therapeutic dose for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, contingent upon confirmation by long-term controlled studies.