Phase I studies of the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dual glucagon receptor/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist BI 456906.

AIM: To report two phase I studies of the novel subcutaneous glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor/glucagon receptor (GLP-1R/GCGR) dual agonist BI 456906 versus placebo in healthy volunteers and people with overweight/obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phase Ia study (NCT03175211) investigated single rising doses (SRDs) of BI 456906 in 24 males with a body mass index (BMI) of 20-<30 kg/m2 . A phase Ib study (NCT03591718) investigated multiple rising doses (MRDs) of BI 456906 (escalated over 6 [Part A] or 16 [Part B] weeks) in 125 adults with a BMI of 27-40 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In the SRD study (N = 24), mean body weight decreased with increasing BI 456906 dose. In the MRD study, the maximum decreases in placebo-corrected mean body weight were at week 6 (-5.79%, dosage schedule [DS] 1; Part A) and week 16 (-13.8%, DS7; Part B). BI 456906 reduced plasma amino acids and glucagon, indicating target engagement at GCGRs and GLP-1Rs. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) increased with BI 456906 dose. The most frequent drug-related AE with SRDs was decreased appetite (n = 9, 50.0%), and two subjects (8.3%) did not complete the trial because of AEs (nausea and vomiting). During MRD Part A (N = 80), 10 subjects (12.5%) discontinued BI 456906, most commonly because of a cardiac or vascular AE (n = 6, 7.5%); during Part B (N = 45), eight subjects (17.8%) discontinued BI 456906, mainly because of AEs (n = 6, 13.3%), most commonly gastrointestinal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: BI 456906 produced a placebo-corrected body weight loss of 13.8% (week 16), highlighting its potential to promote clinically meaningful body weight loss in people with overweight/obesity.

Acute effects of linagliptin on intact and total glucagon-like peptide-1 and gastric inhibitory polypeptide levels in insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients with and without moderate renal impairment.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of renal impairment on incretin metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) before and after treatment with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-standing T2DM patients with normal (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >90 mL/min/1.73m2 ) and impaired (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2 ) renal function on stable treatment with insulin were included. Before and after 8 days of treatment with 5 mg linagliptin once daily, patients underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and total and intact glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon concentrations were measured. The primary outcome was the difference between the study groups in change of intact GLP-1 concentrations. RESULTS: Of 115 patients screened, 29 were analysed (15 [51.7%] with and 14 [48.3%] without renal impairment). Renal function differed significantly between the groups (101 ± 11 vs. 47 ± 13 mL/min/1.73m2 ; P < 0.0001), while glycaemic control was similar (glycated haemoglobin 68 ± 5 vs. 66 ± 5 mmol/mol; P = 0.45). Baseline GLP-1 and GIP levels were comparable. Glucose concentrations during the OGTT were significantly lowered by linagliptin treatment in patients with renal impairment (P = 0.017), but not in those with normal renal function (P = 0.17). Treatment with linagliptin resulted in a significant increase in intact GLP-1 and GIP levels in patients with normal (P = 0.048 and P = 0.0001, respectively) and impaired (P = 0.040 and P = 0.0011, respectively) renal function during the OGTT. However, the primary outcome (difference between the groups in change of intact GLP-1 concentrations) was not significant (P = 0.22). Overall, linagliptin was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with linagliptin increases intact incretin levels in patients with T2DM. Impaired renal function does not compromise the effects of linagliptin on active or total incretin levels as well as on glucagon secretion. Thus, treatment with linagliptin is suitable for patients with T2DM, independently of renal function.

Effect of upper gastrointestinal disease on the pharmacokinetics of oral semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate whether upper gastrointestinal (GI) disease has any effect on the exposure of oral semaglutide, an important consideration given that its absorption occurs primarily in the stomach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open-label, parallel-group trial (NCT02877355), subjects aged 18-80 years with type 2 diabetes with mild-to-moderate upper GI disease (N = 36; chronic gastritis [n = 5], gastroesophageal reflux disease [n = 8], and both [n = 23]) or without upper GI disease (N = 19) received oral semaglutide 3 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 7 mg for 5 days. The primary and key supportive endpoints were the area under the semaglutide plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to 24 hours after last trial product administration on day 10 (AUC0-24h,day10 ) and the maximum semaglutide plasma concentration (Cmax,day10 ), respectively. RESULTS: Semaglutide exposure was not statistically significantly different between subjects with and without upper GI disease. Estimated group ratios (subjects with/without upper GI disease) were 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80, 1.75) for AUC0-24h,day10 and 1.16 (95% CI, 0.77, 1.76) for Cmax . Time to Cmax and semaglutide half-life were similar in subjects with and without upper GI disease. Oral semaglutide was well tolerated; all adverse events were mild-to-moderate, with no withdrawals because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in exposure to oral semaglutide in subjects with or without upper GI disease, hence no dose adjustment is required.

Ultra-rapid lispro shows faster pharmacokinetics and reduces postprandial glucose excursions versus Humalog® in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, controlled crossover meal test early phase study.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), glucodynamics (GD) and tolerability following single and multiple daily subcutaneous doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) and Humalog® in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a two-part, randomized, double-blind Phase 1b study. Part A used a six-period crossover design to assess PK and GD response to a solid mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) following a single dose of URLi or Humalog administered 15 minutes before, immediately before, or 15 minutes after the start of the meal. Part B evaluated URLi or Humalog during 2 weeks of multiple daily dosing with a parallel design. The PK and GD were assessed following MMTTs at the beginning and end of the 2 weeks when insulins were administered immediately before the start of the meal. RESULTS: URLi increased the insulin exposure within the first 30 minutes postdose by 2.2-fold and reduced the time to the early half-maximal drug concentration by 22.6% compared with Humalog. Overall, URLi resulted in better postprandial glucose lowering when dosed before, immediately before, or after a meal. In comparing the same meal-to-dose timing between the insulins, the postprandial glucose excursion over 5 hours was significantly reduced by 29%-105% for all three dose timings (-15, 0 and +15 minutes) with URLi. The PK and GD were sustained after daily subcutaneous dosing for 2 weeks in patients with T2D. URLi had more hypoglycaemic events during the MMTTs; few events occurred for both treatments during the 2 weeks of outpatient dosing. CONCLUSIONS: URLi demonstrated accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction at different meal-to-dose timings compared with Humalog and was well tolerated in patients with T2D.

Macronutrient intake, appetite, food preferences and exocrine pancreas function after treatment with short- and long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To clarify the distinct effects of a long-acting (liraglutide) and a short-acting (lixisenatide) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) on macronutrient intake, gastrointestinal side effects and pancreas function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty participants were randomized to either lixisenatide or liraglutide for a treatment period of 10 weeks. Appetite, satiety, macronutrient intake, gastrointestinal symptoms and variables related to pancreatic function and gastric emptying were assessed at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: Both GLP-1 RAs reduced macronutrient intake similarly. Weight loss and appetite reduction were not related to the delay in gastric emptying or gastrointestinal side effects (P > .05). Lipase increased significantly with liraglutide treatment (by 18.3 ± 4.1 U/L; P = .0001), but not with lixisenatide (-1.8 ± 2.4 U/L; P = .46). Faecal elastase and serum ß-carotin levels (indicators for exocrine pancreas function) improved in both groups (P < .05). Changes in lipase activities did not correlate with gastrointestinal symptoms (P > .05 for each variable). CONCLUSIONS: Both GLP-1 RAs comparably affected body weight, energy and macronutrient intake. Both treatments were associated with indicators of improved exocrine pancreas function. Reductions in appetite and body weight as a result of treatment with short- or long-acting GLP-1 RAs are not driven by changes in gastric emptying or gastrointestinal side effects.

A single-dose euglycaemic clamp study in two cohorts to compare the exposure of SAR341402 (insulin aspart) Mix 70/30 with US- and European-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 and SAR341402 rapid-acting solution in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetic exposure of SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp -Mix) with US- and European (EU)-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30 [NN-Mix-US]/NovoMix 30 [NN-Mix-EU]) and SAR341402 insulin aspart solution (SAR-Asp) in subjects with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in two cohorts. Fifty-two subjects received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent a euglycaemic clamp procedure lasting for a maximum of 24 hours after dosing. In cohort 1, subjects (N = 36) were exposed once each to SARAsp -Mix, NN-Mix-US and NN-Mix-EU. In cohort 2, subjects (N = 16) were exposed once each to SARAsp -Mix and SAR-Asp. RESULTS: Of the 52 subjects randomized, 48 completed all treatment periods. In cohort 1, the extent of exposure (total and maximum concentration) was similar among the three treatments, with the 90% confidence intervals for pairwise treatment ratios meeting the predefined acceptance range (0.80 to 1.25). In cohort 2, statistically significant differences (P < .001) in early (0-4 hours) and intermediate (4-12 hours) exposure to SARAsp -Mix compared with SAR-Asp were observed, all exceeding a 20% difference. Pharmacodynamic results were in support of the pharmacokinetic findings for both cohorts. All treatments were well tolerated and there were no relevant differences in safety variables among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: SARAsp -Mix showed similar pharmacokinetic exposure to commercially available insulin aspart Mix 70/30 formulations, and a distinct exposure profile compared with SAR-Asp.

Effects of Lixisenatide Versus Liraglutide (Short- and Long-Acting GLP-1 Receptor Agonists) on Esophageal and Gastric Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Short-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) decelerate gastric emptying more than long-acting GLP-1 RAs. Delayed gastric emptying is a risk factor for gastroesophageal reflux disease. We aimed to measure esophageal reflux and function as well as gastric emptying and acid secretion during treatment with short-acting (lixisenatide) and long-acting (liraglutide) GLP-1 RAs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 57 subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized to a 10-week treatment with lixisenatide or liraglutide. Changes from baseline in the number of reflux episodes during 24-h pH registration in the lower esophagus, lower esophagus sphincter pressure, gastric emptying (13C-sodium octanoate acid breath test), and gastric acid secretion (13C-calcium carbonate breath test) were analyzed. RESULTS: Gastric emptying half-time was delayed by 52 min (Δ 95% CI 16, 88) with lixisenatide (P = 0.0065) and by 25 min (3, 46) with liraglutide (P = 0.025). There was no difference in the number of reflux episodes (mean ± SEM 33.7 ± 4.1 vs. 40.1 ± 5.3 for lixisenatide and liraglutide, respectively, P = 0.17) or the extent of gastroesophageal reflux (DeMeester score) (35.1 ± 6.7 vs. 39.7 ± 7.5, P = 0.61), with similar results for the individual GLP-1 RAs. No significant changes from baseline in other parameters of esophageal motility and lower esophageal sphincter function were observed. Gastric acidity decreased significantly by -20.7% (-40.6, -0.8) (P = 0.042) with the GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide exerted a more pronounced influence on gastric emptying after breakfast than liraglutide. Neither lixisenatide nor liraglutide had significant effects on esophageal reflux or motility. Gastric acid secretion appears to be slightly reduced by GLP-1 RAs.

Ultra rapid lispro lowers postprandial glucose and more closely matches normal physiological glucose response compared to other rapid insulin analogues: A phase 1 randomized, crossover study.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic (GD) characteristics of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), Fiasp® (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), Humalog® (Eli Lilly and Company) and NovoRapid® (Novo Nordisk), in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, four-period, crossover study, conducted in 68 patients with T1D. Patients received the same individualized subcutaneous dose of each study drug immediately prior to a liquid test meal. For comparison, 12 healthy subjects received the same test meal. RESULTS: URLi had a significantly faster insulin absorption compared to the other insulins tested. Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached 13 minutes after administration of URLi, which was 6 minutes faster than Fiasp, 13 minutes faster than Humalog, and 14 minutes faster than NovoRapid (all P <0.0001). Early insulin exposure was significantly greater and late insulin exposure was reduced after URLi compared to the other insulins. URLi achieved the greatest numerical reduction in postprandial glucose (PPG) at 2 hours post-meal (7 mg/dL vs Fiasp) and was significantly different from Humalog (21 mg/dL) and Novo Rapid (29 mg/dL). Additionally, glucose excursions over the first 3 hours post-meal with URLi were comparable to those in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: URLi demonstrated the fastest insulin absorption and the greatest numeric PPG-lowering effect compared to the other insulins tested. URLi more closely matched the early physiological glucose control observed in healthy subjects.

Single-Dose Euglycemic Clamp Study Demonstrating Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Similarity Between SAR341402 Insulin Aspart and US- and EU-Approved Versions of Insulin Aspart in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity among SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar/follow-on product, United States-sourced insulin aspart (NovoLog®), and European Union-sourced insulin aspart (NovoRapid®). Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, 3-treatment, 3-period, single-dose, crossover euglycemic study (NCT03202875) in 30 adult male subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Subjects received 0.3 U/kg of each treatment under fasted conditions and underwent a 12-h euglycemic clamp technique to assess pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic activity for up to 12 h. Primary endpoints were area under the plasma insulin concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (INS-AUClast), and extrapolated to infinity (INS-AUCinf), maximum plasma insulin concentration (INS-Cmax), and the area under the body weight-standardized glucose infusion rate (GIR)-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (GIR-AUC0-12h) among the three treatments. GIRmax was the main secondary endpoint. Results: Of the 30 subjects randomized, 29 completed all 3 treatment periods. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles were similar in all groups. The extent of exposure (INS-Cmax, INS-AUClast, and INS-AUCinf) and glucodynamic activity (GIR-AUC0-12h, GIRmax) was similar among the three treatments. The corresponding 90% confidence intervals for pairwise treatment ratios were completely contained within the limits of 80%-125%. SAR341402 was well tolerated. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated similar pharmacokinetic exposure profiles and glucodynamic potency among SAR341402, NovoLog, and NovoRapid in subjects with T1D, supporting further clinical evaluation of SAR341402 as a biosimilar/follow-on product.

Effects of sequential treatment with lixisenatide, insulin glargine, or their combination on meal-related glycaemic excursions, insulin and glucagon secretion, and gastric emptying in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To examine the glucose-lowering mechanisms of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide after two subsequent meals and in combination with basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to treatment sequences with either lixisenatide or insulin glargine alone for 4 weeks, and a combination of both treatments for 4 weeks. Metabolic examinations were performed before and after each treatment period following breakfast and a late lunch 8 hours later. RESULTS: Lixisenatide mainly reduced postprandial glycaemia, while insulin glargine mainly reduced fasting glucose after breakfast (P < 0.05). This was partially preserved after a late lunch (P < 0.05). After breakfast, lixisenatide reduced insulin secretion and glucagon levels significantly. These effects were lost after a late lunch. Insulin glargine did not significantly reduce glucagon or insulin secretion. Gastric emptying was slowed by lixisenatide, but not by insulin glargine after breakfast. After the late lunch, lixisenatide slightly accelerated gastric emptying. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide decelerates gastric emptying after breakfast, thereby reducing glycaemic excursions, insulin secretion and glucagon levels. The glycaemic reduction persists until after a late lunch, despite accelerated gastric emptying. The combination with insulin glargine enhances the glucose-lowering effect because of complementary modes of action.

Sequential Treatment Escalation with Dapagliflozin and Saxagliptin Improves Beta Cell Function in Type 2 Diabetic Patients on Previous Metformin Treatment: An Exploratory Mechanistic Study.

We investigated the effect of sequential treatment escalation with dapagliflozin and saxagliptin on beta cell function in patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled on metformin monotherapy during a hyperglycaemic clamp investigation. Twenty-six patients (19 males, age 63.5±7.0 years; duration of diabetes 8.8±4.7 years; HbA1c 63.9±15.8 mmol/mol; mean±SD) were enrolled in the study. During a first treatment period (TP1) all patients received 10 mg dapagliflozin for one month, followed by the addition of 5 mg saxagliptin or placebo for another month (TP2). At baseline and at the end of each treatment period, fasting glucose and insulin levels were analysed, and a hyperglycaemic clamp with the measurement of plasma C-peptide, insulin, proinsulin, and glucagon was performed. Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced fasting glucose levels and insulin resistance (TP1). Within the hyperglycaemic clamp, C-peptide and insulin concentrations increased after the addition of dapagliflozin in TP1 (0.48±0.45 nmol*h/l; 6.24±17.9 mU*h/l) and further improved after the addition of saxagliptin in TP2 (0.38±0.34 nmol*h/l; 6.59±10.15 mU*h/l). Acute insulin response did not change after the addition of dapagliflozin (TP1), but significantly improved after the addition of saxagliptin in TP2 (0.89±0.76 mU*h/l). Both drugs improved the C-peptide/proinsulin ratio. After the addition of saxagliptin, the glucagon/insulin ratio significantly declined (TP2). Treatment escalation with dapagliflozin and saxagliptin exhibit additive effects on beta cell capacity, and improves alpha and beta cell integrity.

Acceptability of Implantable Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor.

BACKGROUND: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring is associated with significant benefits for diabetes management. Implantable sensors could overcome some challenges reportedly associated with device visibility, psychosocial functioning and sensor durability. METHODS: A psychosocial assessment was conducted to determine acceptability and impact of an implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor as part of the PRECISE trial. Questionnaires were administered to participants comprising the Diabetes Distress Scale, the CGM impact scale, and bespoke device satisfaction. RESULTS: Fifty-one participants across the United Kingdom (n = 10) and Germany (n = 41) completed the questionnaires. Of these, 90% had T1D, 50% followed an insulin pump therapy regimen, and 45% of the participants were previous CGM users. CGM Impact Scale results show 86% (n = 44) of participants reported feeling better (14% neutral) about their diabetes control with 90% CGM naïve participants and 81% previous CGM users reporting increased confidence about their diabetes management. Furthermore, 73% (n = 37) felt more safe (27% neutral) while sleeping and 78% (n = 39) more confident (22% neutral) about avoiding serious hypoglycemia. Responses correspond with an average improvement in HbA1c from 7.51 to 7.05 ( P < .0001) over the 90 days use of the CGM. Overall, the system was rated highly on ease of use, convenience and comfort. 84% would choose to be inserted again with 93% of CGM naïve participants (86% previous CGM users) reporting minimized burden of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable CGM devices are acceptable to users and are evaluated favorably. The considerable majority of participants (93% of first time users and 77% previous CGM users) would like to continue using the system to help manage their diabetes more effectively.

Impact of Injection Speed, Volume, and Site on Pain Sensation.

BACKGROUND: Painful subcutaneous insulin injections may decrease treatment compliance. Improving injection comfort therefore represents a particular area of technological research in which steady progress has been made since the introduction of the insulin pen in 1985. Injection pain can be influenced by many variables, but relatively little is known about their impact. This study investigated the impact of injection volume (range 0-2250 µL), speed (range 0-800 µL/sec), and site (abdomen vs thigh) on pain sensation. METHOD: In random order, patients (n = 80) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes received 24 saline injections subcutaneously through a 27G ultra-thin-wall needle. Injections were performed in the abdomen (n = 19) and thigh (n = 5) with predefined speed-volume combinations. For each injected speed-volume combination, patients scored their pain sensation on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The mean pain scores for speed-volume combinations were all in the lower part (<20 mm) of the VAS, indicating zero to mild pain. Pain sensation was statistically higher ( P < .05) with the 2250 µL volume compared to other injection volumes (range 4.3-5.1 mm) and with thigh compared to abdomen injections (2.1 mm). Pain sensation did not change with increasing injection speed. Patient acceptance of the injection pain was high for all injections (range 93.7-98.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, large volume and thigh injections are rated more painful, but the clinical impact of these findings is likely marginal considering the low absolute pain levels and high patient acceptance rates. Injection speed does not influence pain sensation.

Effects of semaglutide on beta cell function and glycaemic control in participants with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Its effects on first- and second-phase insulin secretion and other measures of beta cell function and glycaemic control were assessed. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, conducted at the Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung, Germany, 75 adult (aged 18-64 years) participants with type 2 diabetes (eligibility: HbA1c of 6.5-9.0% (47.5-74.9 mmol/mol); BMI 20.0-35.0 kg/m2; and treatment with diet and exercise and/or metformin monotherapy with a dose unchanged in the 30 days prior to screening) were randomised (1:1) to once-weekly s.c. semaglutide 1.0 mg (0.25, 0.5, 1.0 mg escalated) or placebo for 12 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to end of treatment in the first (AUC0-10 min) and second (AUC10-120 min) insulin secretion phases, as measured by the IVGTT. An arginine stimulation test (AST) and a 24 h meal stimulation test were also conducted. A graded glucose infusion test (GGIT) assessed insulin secretion rate (ISR) in treated participants and a group of untreated healthy participants. Safety endpoints were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 37 participants received semaglutide and 38 received placebo. Following IVGTT, for insulin, both AUC0-10min and AUC10-120min were significantly increased with semaglutide (estimated treatment ratio [95% CI] 3.02 [2.53, 3.60] and 2.10 [1.86, 2.37], respectively; p < 0.0001). The 24 h meal test showed reduced fasting, postprandial and overall (AUC0-24h) glucose and glucagon responses with semaglutide (p < 0.0001). The AST showed that maximal insulin capacity increased following semaglutide treatment. During GGIT, semaglutide significantly increased ISR to levels similar to those in healthy participants. Semaglutide was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Twelve weeks of once-weekly treatment with semaglutide significantly improved beta cell function and glycaemic control in participants with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02212067 FUNDING: The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

Understanding how pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences of basal analog insulins influence clinical practice.

This article reviews pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) concepts relating to the pharmacology of basal insulin analogs. Understanding the pharmacology of currently available long-acting basal insulins and the techniques used to assess PK and PD parameters (e.g. the euglycemic clamp method) is important when considering the efficacy and safety of these agents, and can help in understanding the rationale for specific dosing strategies when tailoring therapy for a specific patient. Basal insulins such as insulin glargine 100 units (U)/mL and insulin detemir show improved PK/PD characteristics compared with the intermediate-acting NPH insulin, with a longer duration of action, a more consistent glucose-lowering effect and less prominent concentration peaks. However, more recently developed basal insulins (insulin glargine 300 U/mL, and insulin degludec 100 U/mL and 200 U/mL) have PK/PD profiles closer to the physiologic profile of endogenous basal insulin owing to a more evenly distributed, predictable and prolonged time-action profile that exceeds 24 hours and improved within-patient variability in glucose-lowering effect. The clinical implications and relevance of these PK/PD profiles is explored, including the potential effect of PK/PD parameters on glycemic control and hypoglycemia, and the timing of dosing. The improved PK/PD properties of newer longer-acting basal insulins may translate into clinical benefits for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, such as more consistent insulin levels in the blood over 24 hours, lower intra-patient variability, a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, and more flexibility in dosing time, all of which are important to consider when choosing a basal insulin regimen.

Impact of insulin glargine and lixisenatide on ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized open-label study.

It is known that ß-cell function can be enhanced by direct stimulation of insulin secretion or by induction of ß-cell rest, but whether both strategies can complement each other has not yet been examined. A total of 28 people with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin 7.8% ± 0.5%) were treated with either lixisenatide or titrated insulin glargine, followed by their combined administration, each over 4 weeks. First- and second-phase insulin secretion during an intravenous glucose challenge were calculated. First- and second-phase insulin secretion were not increased with glargine alone, but increased after addition of lixisenatide ( P < .001). Lixisenatide alone increased first- and second-phase insulin secretion ( P < .01). Addition of insulin glargine tended to further increase first-phase insulin secretion (P = .054), as well as insulin and C-peptide concentrations ( P < .05). Second-phase insulin secretion was not affected by the addition of glargine. The sequence of initiating lixisenatide or glargine had no effect on the final measures of glycaemia or insulin secretion. Thus, lixisenatide and, to a lesser extent, insulin glargine, increase glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in an additive manner.

Consistent findings in glycaemic control, body weight and hypoglycaemia with iGlarLixi (insulin glargine/lixisenatide titratable fixed-ratio combination) vs insulin glargine across baseline HbA1c, BMI and diabetes duration categories in the LixiLan-L trial.

AIMS: To assess the impact of baseline characteristics on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-L trial, a randomized open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a novel fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) plus lixisenatide, in comparison with iGlar over 30 weeks in a population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on a previous regimen of basal insulin alone or in combination with 1 or 2 oral glucose-lowering drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this exploratory analysis of LixiLan-L (N = 736), efficacy outcomes were assessed within population subgroups derived from the following baseline characteristics: glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c; <8%, ≥8% (<64, ≥64 mmol/mol)]; duration of T2DM (<10, ≥10 years); body mass index (<30, ≥30 kg/m2 ). Furthermore, the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia with plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL) was also analysed according to the same subgroups. RESULTS: Compared with the iGlar treatment group, patients treated with iGlarLixi showed consistently greater reductions in HbA1c during the treatment period, with higher percentages of patients achieving the HbA1c target level of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) in all of the subpopulations tested (P < .0001 for all), having consistent mitigation of body weight gain and with no major differences in the incidence of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar in all baseline characteristic subgroups of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin, including difficult-to-treat subgroups of patients with long duration of diabetes, obesity and high HbA1c. Clinical trial number: NCT02058160 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Similar pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin lispro products SAR342434 and US- and EU-approved Humalog in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of 3 rapid-acting insulin lispro products: SAR342434 solution, United States (US)-approved Humalog and European Union (EU)-approved Humalog. METHODS: In a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, 3-treatment, 3-period, 6-sequence, crossover, euglycaemic clamp study (NCT02273258), adult male subjects with type 1 diabetes were randomized to receive 0.3 U/kg of SAR342434 solution, US-approved and EU-approved Humalog under fasted conditions. PK and PD (glucose infusion rate [GIR]) were assessed up to 12 hours. RESULTS: Of the 30 subjects randomized, 28 completed all 3 treatment periods. Mean concentration and GIR vs time profiles were similar for all 3 products. Exposure (INS-Cmax , INS-AUClast and INS-AUC) and activity (GIRmax and GIR-AUC0-12h ) of SAR342434, US-approved and EU-approved Humalog were similar in all comparisons (point estimates of treatment ratios, 0.95-1.03 for PK parameters and 1.00-1.07 for PD parameters), with 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric least squares means within the pre-specified bioequivalence limit (0.80-1.25) and no significant differences in time-related parameters. Within-subject variability of exposure and activity was low across the 3 clamps, indicating high day-to-day reproducibility in clamp performance, irrespective of the individual product. Adverse events were similar for all 3 products. No safety concerns were noted in vital signs or in laboratory and electrocardiogram data. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate similarity in insulin lispro exposure profiles and PD activity of SAR342434 solution to both US- and EU-approved Humalog, and between both US- and EU-approved Humalog, supporting the use of SAR342434 solution for injection as a follow-on product.

Once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg restores insulin secretion in response to intravenous glucose infusion.

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of dulaglutide 1.5 mg on first- and second-phase insulin secretion in response to an intravenous (i.v.) glucose bolus challenge, in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; primary objective) and in healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover study, subjects received a single subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo on day 1 of each period. On day 3, subjects underwent a 6-hour insulin infusion, followed by an i.v. glucose bolus and a glucagon challenge during hyperglycaemia. Areas under the concentration-time curve and maximum concentrations for first- (AUC0-10 and Cmax0-10 ) and second-phase secretion (AUC10-180 and Cmax10-180 ) were calculated for insulin and C-peptide. The glucose disappearance constant (Kg ) and homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) were assessed. RESULTS: In 20 subjects with T2DM, dulaglutide increased mean insulin AUC0-10 by 7.92-fold and Cmax0-10 by 5.40-fold vs placebo, and mean AUC10-180 and Cmax10-180 by 2.44- and 3.78- fold, respectively. In 10 healthy subjects, dulaglutide increased the mean insulin AUC0-10 by 3.09-fold and Cmax0-10 by 2.96-fold vs placebo, and mean AUC10-180 and Cmax10-180 by 2.04- and 4.15-fold, respectively. The corresponding C-peptide values also increased. Mean Kg and HOMA-ß were higher after dulaglutide compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with T2DM, a single dulaglutide 1.5-mg dose restored the first-phase insulin secretion in response to an i.v. glucose bolus, increased the second-phase insulin response and enhanced ß-cell function.

Effects on α- and ß-cell function of sequentially adding empagliflozin and linagliptin to therapy in people with type 2 diabetes previously receiving metformin: An exploratory mechanistic study.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of sequential treatment escalation with empagliflozin and linagliptin on laboratory markers of α- and ß-cell function in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) insufficiently controlled on metformin monotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 44 people with T2DM received 25 mg empagliflozin for a duration of 1 month in an open-label fashion (treatment period 1 [TP1]). Thereafter, they were randomized to a double-blind add-on therapy with linagliptin 5 mg or placebo (treatment period 2 [TP2]) for 1 additional month. α- and ß-cell function was assessed using a standardized liquid meal test and an intravenous (i.v.) glucose challenge. Efficacy measures comprised the areas under the curve for glucose, insulin, proinsulin and glucagon after the liquid meal test and the assessment of fast and late-phase insulin release after an i.v. glucose load with a subsequent hyperglycaemic clamp. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced fasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels, associated with a significant reduction in postprandial insulin levels and an improvement in the conversion rate of proinsulin (TP1). The addition of linagliptin during TP2 further improved postprandial glucose levels, probably as a result of a marked reduction in postprandial glucagon concentrations (TP2). The insulin response to an i.v. glucose load increased during treatment with empagliflozin (TP1), and further improved after the addition of linagliptin (TP2). CONCLUSION: After metformin failure, sequential treatment escalation with empagliflozin and linagliptin is an attractive treatment option because of the additive effects on postprandial glucose control, probably mediated by complementary effects on α- and ß-cell function.