Impact of sample acidification and extract storage on hormone receptor-mediated and oxidative stress activities in wastewater.

An underemphasized aspect of sampling strategies in effect-based in vitro testing is to determine suitable collection and preparation techniques. In the current study, the impact of sample acidification on bioactivities was assessed using in vitro bioassays for hormone receptor-mediated effects (estrogen receptor [ER] and androgen receptor [AR]) and the oxidative stress response (Nrf2 activity). Sampling was conducted at a recently upgraded Swedish wastewater treatment plant. Future plans for the treated wastewater include reuse for irrigation or as a potential drinking water source. In the AR and Nrf2 assays, acidification decreased bioactivities in the wastewater influent sample extracts, whereas acidification increased bioactivities following further treatment (disc filtration). In the ER assay, acidification had no impact on the observed bioactivities in the sample extracts. A secondary objective of the study was to assess the stability of the sample extracts over time. Lower activities were detected in the ER and AR assays in all extracts after storage for approximately 1 year. Nrf2 activities did not decrease over time, but rather increased in some of the acidified sample extracts. Overall, the findings suggest that sampling strategies involving acidification may need to be tailored depending on the selected bioassay(s) and the type of wastewater treatments being assessed.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of obesity: An indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg with semaglutide 2.4 mg using an indirect treatment comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SURMOUNT-1 and STEP 1 trial data, mean percentage change in body weight from baseline and odds ratio (OR) of achieving 5% or greater weight loss were compared between tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg at week 72 and semaglutide 2.4 mg at week 68 using matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy estimand. Sensitivity analyses were completed using different methods, including the Bucher method, also using different estimands and/or time points. RESULTS: Greater reductions in percentage change in body weight were observed with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2.4 mg (tirzepatide 10 mg mean difference: -4.67% [95% CI -5.91%, -3.43%]; tirzepatide 15 mg mean difference: -5.92% [95% CI -7.16%, -4.68%]; both P < .001). Similarly, more participants achieved 5% or greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 mg (OR 2.61 [95% CI 1.48, 4.57]; P < .001) and 15 mg (OR 2.75 [95% CI 1.57, 4.81]; P < .001) compared with semaglutide 2.4 mg. All sensitivity analyses were consistent, except for an OR of achieving 5% or greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 mg using the Bucher method to analyse the treatment regimen estimand (P = .074). CONCLUSIONS: Currently there are no direct comparisons of tirzepatide and semaglutide for weight management. Using the matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison method to compare the efficacy of tirzepatide and semaglutide for chronic weight management, this analysis showed greater weight loss with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2.4 mg.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Final patient-reported outcomes at 24 months.

AIM: To report health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM) with two commonly prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) from the prospective, observational TROPHIES study (The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients). MATERIALS AND METHODS: TROPHIES was a two-cohort, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany and Italy. Adults with a T2D diagnosis, naïve to injectable treatment for T2D and prescribed dulaglutide or liraglutide as their first injectable GLM, were eligible for inclusion. Study objectives included describing the following PROs associated with the treatment of T2D with GLP-1RAs: health-related quality of life; impact of weight on self-perception; life and work productivity; and patient satisfaction with treatment and injection device. Additional analyses formally compared PRO measures between the treatment cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, improvements from baseline in PRO scores were observed among people who started dulaglutide or liraglutide. A more pronounced trend of improvement was observed in the dulaglutide cohort for changes from baseline in treatment satisfaction and impact of weight on self-perception, supported by statistically significant differences between treatment cohorts in additional comparative analyses at 12, 18 and 24 months. More positive patient perceptions of the injection device were observed with dulaglutide than with liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in PROs observed in TROPHIES, which were more evident with dulaglutide than liraglutide, reflect a relevant clinical benefit. From the patients' perspective, satisfaction, and confidence in continuing treatment with GLP-1RAs is likely to contribute to long-term treatment persistence.

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (TROPHIES): Final, 24-month analysis of time to first significant treatment change, treatment persistence and clinical outcomes.

AIMS: To present the final results of the TROPHIES study (The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective, real-world TROPHIES study included patients with type 2 diabetes initiating their first injectable glucose-lowering medication (GLM), dulaglutide or liraglutide, in France, Germany and Italy. The primary endpoint was the time spent on dulaglutide or liraglutide until a significant treatment change over 24 months. Other endpoints measured persistence with treatment, clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and weight) and treatment patterns. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first significant treatment change and persistence with treatment were generated. Propensity-score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline imbalances in the comparison between cohorts. RESULTS: The 286 of 1014 patients (28.2%) in the dulaglutide cohort and 448 of 991 patients (45.2%) in the liraglutide cohort had a significant treatment change over 24 months. By IPTW analysis, dulaglutide-initiating patients were less likely to have a significant treatment change (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.63) and more likely to be persistent with treatment (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86) over 24 months than liraglutide-initiating patients. Dulaglutide and liraglutide yielded similar HbA1c (-11.80 mmol/mol [1.08%] and -11.91 mmol/mol [1.09%]) and weight (-3.5 kg and -3.3 kg) reductions from baseline to 24 months. Few changes in patterns of treatment with other GLMs were observed in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide-initiating patients had a longer time spent without any significant treatment change and higher persistence than those initiating liraglutide. Treatment with either glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist yielded similar and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight.

Adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with semaglutide and exenatide BCise: 6-month follow-up from US real-world data.

AIM: To compare 6-month adherence, persistence and treatment patterns among patients initiating once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dulaglutide versus semaglutide, and dulaglutide versus exenatide BCise, using claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years, with type 2 diabetes, ≥1 claim for dulaglutide, semaglutide or exenatide BCise during the index period February 2018 to December 2018 (index date = earliest GLP-1RA fill date), no claim for GLP-1RAs in the 6-month pre-index period, and continuous enrolment 6 months pre- and post-index were included. Dulaglutide users were propensity-matched 1:1 to semaglutide users (3852 pairs) or exenatide BCise users (1879 pairs). The proportions of adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) patients were compared using chi-squared tests. Persistence, measured as days to discontinuation, was analysed using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Matched cohorts (dulaglutide:semaglutide and dulagutide:exenatide BCise) were balanced in baseline characteristics and the mean age was 54 and 55 years, respectively, with approximately 51% and 49% women, respectively. At 6 months, significantly more dulaglutide users were adherent than semaglutide (59.7% vs. 42.7%; P <0.0001) or exenatide BCise users (58.1% vs. 40.3%; P <0.0001). Cox regression showed that dulaglutide users were less likely to discontinue therapy than semaglutide (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66, 0.76) or exenatide BCise users (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53, 0.65; P <0.0001, both). CONCLUSION: At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of patients initiating dulaglutide were adherent to and persistent with their treatment, compared to matched patients initiating either semaglutide or exenatide BCise.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

AIM: When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset. RESULTS: There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycaemic patterns: A post hoc analysis of the AWARD-2 clinical trial.

The long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide acts by stimulating insulin secretion and reducing glucagon levels in a glucose-dependent manner both in the fasting and postprandial states, resulting in reductions of both fasting glucose (FG) and postprandial glucose (PPG). In contrast, the main mechanism of action of basal insulin is to reduce elevated FG by inhibiting hepatic glucose production. The aim of the present post hoc analysis of the phase 3 AWARD-2 trial was to investigate whether specific baseline glycaemic patterns respond differentially to dulaglutide compared to insulin glargine (glargine). We categorized participants into four subgroups based on prespecified glucose thresholds and their baseline FG and daily 2-hour mean PPG: low FG/low PPG; low FG/high PPG; high FG/low PPG; and high FG/high PPG. Changes in glycaemic measures in response to treatment with dulaglutide or glargine were evaluated in each subgroup. At 52 weeks, significant reductions from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were observed in all subgroups with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with glargine (all P < .05), except in patients with low FG/low PPG who received glargine. Greater HbA1c reductions were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg compared to glargine in all subgroups (all P ≤ .05), except in the low FG/high PPG subgroup.

Adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly at 12-month follow-up in a real-world setting in the United States.

AIMS: To evaluate adherence, persistence, glycaemic control and costs at 12-month follow-up for patients initiating dulaglutide versus liraglutide or exenatide once weekly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present retrospective observational claims study included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for dulaglutide, liraglutide or exenatide once weekly from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%, and persistence was measured by time to discontinuation of index therapy. Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was assessed in a subset with pre- and post-index HbA1c results. Propensity scores were used to match the cohorts. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were balanced for the matched cohorts, dulaglutide versus liraglutide (n = 2471) and dulaglutide versus exenatide once weekly (n = 1891). Among those initiating dulaglutide there was a significantly higher proportion of adherent patients compared with the groups initiating liraglutide (51.2% vs. 38.2%; P < 0.001) and exenatide once weekly (50.7% vs. 31.9%; P < 0.001). At 12 months, 55% of patients in the dulaglutide group versus 43.8% in the liraglutide group (P < 0.001), and 54.9% in the dulaglutide versus 34.4% in the exenatide once-weekly group (P < 0.001) were persistent. The dulaglutide group had a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than the liraglutide group (-34.24 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.032), and a greater, but nonsignificant, reduction in HbA1c than the exenatide once-weekly group (-34.46 vs. -31.94 mmol/mol; P = 0.056). The diabetes-related total costs were not significantly different between the dulaglutide and the liraglutide group ($16,174 vs. $16,694; P = 0.184), and were significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly ($15,768 vs. $14,615; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence and persistence are important considerations in patient-centric treatment selection for patients with T2D. Higher adherence and persistence for dulaglutide compared with liraglutide or exenatide once weekly are relevant criteria when choosing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment for patients with T2D.

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg as an add-on option for patients uncontrolled on insulin: Subgroup analysis by age, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin concentration.

AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 mg combined with insulin, categorized by subgroups of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; ≤9% and >9% [≤74.9 and >74.9 mmol/mol]), age (<65 and ≥65 years), and duration of diabetes (<10 and ≥10 years) at 6 months in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis was conducted in a population of patients with T2D with similar baseline characteristics who were included in the AWARD-4 and AWARD-9 clinical trials and randomized to dulaglutide 1.5 mg (pooled mean baseline age 59 years, duration of diabetes 13 years, HbA1c 8.4% [68.3 mmol/mol]). Weight and hypoglycaemia were analysed by individual trial. In AWARD-4, dulaglutide plus lispro three times daily was assessed against glargine plus lispro three times daily. In AWARD-9, dulaglutide added to glargine was assessed against placebo added to glargine. Insulins were titrated to target in both trials. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included in this analysis (73% with HbA1c ≤9%, 27% [≤74.9 mmol/mol] with HbA1c >9% [>74.9 mmol/mol]; 70% aged <65 years, 30% aged ≥65 years; 36% with duration of diabetes <10 years, 64% with duration of diabetes ≥10 years). At 6 months, dulaglutide 1.5 mg significantly reduced HbA1c in all subgroups (P < .001), with the highest reduction observed in patients with baseline HbA1c >9% (>74.9 mmol/mol) (range - 1.3% to -2.5% [-14.2 to -27.3 mmol/mol]). The incidence rates of documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were similar in all subgroups in both trials. The most common adverse events observed in each trial were gastrointestinal in nature. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg combined with basal or prandial insulin is efficacious for patients with T2D irrespective of age, duration of diabetes or baseline HbA1c.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose in patient subpopulations by gender, duration of diabetes and baseline HbA1c.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes by subgroups of gender, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the dulaglutide clinical development programme (AWARD-1 to -6 and -8 clinical trials). METHODS: Change in HbA1c was analysed by gender, duration of diabetes (<5, ≥5 years and <10, ≥10 years), and baseline HbA1c (<8.5%, ≥8.5%) in pooled and individual studies. Changes from baseline in weight, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were evaluated for individual trials. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg at 6 months, the reductions in HbA1c from baseline were similar across gender (men: least squares [LS] mean -1.26% [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.36, -1.16]; women: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.24]) and among duration of diabetes subgroups (<5 years: LS mean -1.32% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥5 and <10 years: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥10 years: -1.24% [95% CI -1.35, -1.14]). Patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% had greater HbA1c reductions than patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5%, (≥8.5%: LS mean -1.86% [95% CI -1.97, -1.75]; <8.5%: LS mean -1.02% [95% CI -1.12, -0.93]). Reductions in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were consistent with HbA1c changes. Similar results were observed with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. In general, body weight changes were similar among duration of diabetes and in baseline HbA1c subgroups, respectively; women had a numerically greater weight loss or less weight gain than men with both dulaglutide doses. There was no clinically meaningful difference in hypoglycaemia trends by gender or duration of diabetes. Hypoglycaemia incidence and rate were generally lower in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% than in those with <8.5%, except for the AWARD-4 study (combination with mealtime insulin). CONCLUSIONS: Across the AWARD studies, dulaglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control irrespective of gender, duration of diabetes, or baseline HbA1c, with greater HbA1c and FBG reductions in patients with a higher baseline HbA1c. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Treatment patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: Higher adherence and persistence with dulaglutide compared with once-weekly exenatide and liraglutide.

AIMS: To compare adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, and treatment patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). More specifically, the main objectives were to compare dulaglutide vs exenatide once weekly and dulaglutide vs liraglutide. METHODS: Patients with T2DM newly initiating dulaglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once weekly, exenatide twice daily and liraglutide between November 2014 and April 2015 were hierarchically selected from Truven Health's MarketScan Research Databases. Propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias. Adherence to and persistence with the index GLP-1RA, and switching and augmentation patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period. RESULTS: Mean adherence for the matched cohorts was significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly (0.72 vs 0.61; P < .0001) and liraglutide (0.71 vs 0.67; P < .0001). The percentage of patients achieving PDC ≥ 0.80 was significantly higher for dulaglutide compared with exenatide once weekly (54.2% vs 37.9%; P < .0001) and liraglutide (53.5% vs 44.3%; P < .0001). The mean (standard deviation) days on treatment for all matched patients was significantly higher for patients in the dulaglutide cohort compared with those in the exenatide once-weekly (148.4 [55.4] vs 123.6 [61.6]; P < .0001) and liraglutide cohorts (146.0 [56.9] vs 137.4 [60.1]; P < .0001). A significantly lower proportion of patients on dulaglutide discontinued treatment compared with those on exenatide once weekly (26.2% vs 48.4%; P < .0001) and those on liraglutide (28.0% vs 35.6%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide initiators had significantly higher adherence, were more persistent, and had lower discontinuation rates compared with initiators of exenatide once weekly or liraglutide during the 6-month follow-up period.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with basal insulins for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Since 2005, several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved to treat people with type 2 diabetes. These agents are considered for use at the same point in the treatment paradigm as basal insulins. A comprehensive comparison of these drug classes, therefore, can help inform treatment decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs compared with basal insulins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ≥16 weeks' duration comparing GLP-1 RAs vs basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs were included. Data on the change from baseline to 26 weeks (±10 weeks) of treatment in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight, as well as the proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, were extracted. Fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were conducted where data were available from ≥2 studies. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were identified and 11 were meta-analysed. The once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, exenatide long acting release (LAR) and dulaglutide, led to greater, statistically significant mean HbA1c reductions vs basal insulins (exenatide: -0.31% [95% confidence interval -0.42, -0.19], dulaglutide: -0.39% [-0.49, -0.29]) whilst once-daily liraglutide and twice-daily exenatide did not (liraglutide: 0.06% [-0.06, 0.18], exenatide: 0.01% [-0.11, 0.13]). Mean weight reduction was seen with all GLP-1 RAs while mean weight gain was seen with basal insulins. Interpretation of the analysis of hypoglycaemia was limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Because of the limited number of available studies sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity could not be conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Although weight reduction is seen with all GLP-1 RA's, only the once-weekly agents, exenatide LAR and dulaglutide, demonstrate significant HbA1c reductions when compared to basal insulins.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DULAGLUTIDE IN HISPANIC/LATINO PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES IN THE AWARD CLINICAL PROGRAM.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post hoc analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in phase 3 AWARD trials 1 to 6. METHODS: Hispanic/Latino data at Week 26 were pooled across studies for each dulaglutide dose to analyze the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), percent to HbA1c goal, and adverse events (AEs). Change from baseline in HbA1c, change from baseline in weight and hypoglycemia were analyzed by Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino subgroups for each study. RESULTS: Of the 3,136 patients randomized to dulaglutide 1.5 or 0.75 mg, 949 were reported as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Baseline characteristics were similar for Hispanic/Latino and overall populations, except there were slightly more Hispanic/Latino females and weight was slightly lower for Hispanic/Latino patients. Hispanic/Latino patients receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg had a reduction in HbA1c of 1.25% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.35, -1.15); dulaglutide 0.75 mg had a reduction of 1.07% (95% CI: -1.18, -0.96). Reductions in HbA1c and percent to goal HbA1c <7% and ≤6.5% were similar between Hispanic/Latino patients and the overall population. Weight change and hypoglycemia were similar between Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino subgroups for all studies. Treatment-emergent AEs were consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide improved glycemic control with the potential for weight loss in Hispanic/Latino patients with T2D. Dulaglutide was well tolerated and had a low risk of hypoglycemia when used without insulin secretagogues or insulin. In the Hispanic/Latino population, dulaglutide efficacy and safety was consistent with that of the overall population. ABBREVIATIONS: AE = adverse event AWARD = Assessment of Weekly AdministRation of dulaglutide in Diabetes BID = twice daily CARMELA = The Cardiovascular Risk Factor Multiple Evaluation of Latin America CI = confidence interval GLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist HbA1c = glycosylated hemoglobin T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Absence of bacterial or fungal growth in vials of reconstituted botulinum toxin type A after storage.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A; Botox) is supplied as individual freeze-dried preparations that should be administered within 24 hours after reconstitution. To avoid wasting this expensive drug, some physicians have resorted to storing vials of reconstituted BTX-A beyond the recommended duration. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the sterility of previously reconstituted BTX-A is maintained during storage. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine whether bacterial and/or fungal proliferation occurred in vials of reconstituted BTX-A and subsequent storage of the remaining solution under refrigeration for 4 weeks. METHODS: A portion of the contents of 88 consecutive 100-U vials of BTX-A was administered aseptically to 108 patients for essential blepharospasm, hemifacial spasm, or facial rejuvenation. The vials were then stored for 4 weeks in a refrigerator, after which the contents were transferred to various media (blood agar, chocolate agar, Sabouraud agar, brain-heart infusion medium, and thioglycolate broth) and assessed for bacterial and/or fungal growth by standard methods. RESULTS: None of the BTX-A vials contained detectable bacterial or fungal contamination after 4 weeks of storage. CONCLUSIONS: Storing vials of reconstituted BTX-A for 4 weeks after administration to patients was not associated with detectable growth of bacteria or fungi.

Estrogenic, androgenic, and genotoxic activities of zearalenone and deoxynivalenol in in vitro bioassays including exogenous metabolic activation.

Zearalenone (ZEN) and deoxynivalenol (DON) and their derivatives are well-known mycotoxins, which can occur not only in crops but also in water bodies, including drinking water sources. In vitro bioassays can be used to detect biological effects of hazardous compounds in water. To this, when studying biological effects and toxicity in vitro, metabolism is important to consider. In this study, ZEN, α-zearalenol (α-ZEL), DON, 3-acetyl DON, and 15-acetyl DON were evaluated in vitro for hormone receptor-mediated effects (estrogen receptor [ER] and androgen receptor [AR]) and genotoxicity (micronucleus assay) in the presence of an exogenous metabolic activation system (MAS). The ER bioassay proved to be a highly sensitive method to detect low concentrations of the ZEN compounds (EC10 values of 31.4 pM for ZEN, 3.59 pM for α-ZEL) in aqueous solutions. In the presence of the MAS, reduced estrogenic effects were observed for both ZEN compounds (EC10 values of 6.47 × 103 pM for ZEN, 1.55 × 102 pM for α-ZEL). Of the DON compounds, only 3-acetyl DON was estrogenic (EC10 of 0.31 µM), and the effect was removed in the presence of the MAS. Anti-androgenic effects of the ZEN compounds and androgenic effects of the DON compounds were detected in the micromolar range. No induction of genotoxicity was detected for ZEN or DON in the presence of the MAS. Our study highlighted that inclusion of exogenous MAS is a useful tool to detect biological effects of metabolites in in vitro bioassays.

The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): resource use and costs of treatment in clinical practice in France, Germany, and Italy.

AIMS: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs after initiation of injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy by adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the prospective, observational, 24-month TROPHIES study in France, Germany, and Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HCRU data for cost calculations were collected by treating physicians during patient interviews at baseline and follow-up visits approximately 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after GLP-1 RA initiation with once-weekly dulaglutide or once-daily liraglutide. Costs were evaluated from the national healthcare system (third-party payer) perspective and updated to 2018 prices. RESULTS: In total, 2,005 patients were eligible for the HCRU analysis (1,014 dulaglutide; 991 liraglutide). Baseline patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups and countries. The largest proportions of patients using ≥2 oral glucose-lowering medications (GLMs) at baseline (42.9-43.4%) and month 24 (44.0-45.1%) and using another injectable GLM at month 24 (15.3-23.2%) were in France. Mean numbers of primary and secondary healthcare contacts during each assessment period were highest in France (range = 4.0-10.7) and Germany (range = 2.9-5.7), respectively. The greatest proportions (≥60%) of mean annualized costs per patient comprised medication costs. Mean annualized HCRU costs per patient varied by treatment cohort and country: the highest levels were in the liraglutide cohort in France (€909) and the dulaglutide cohort in Germany (€883). LIMITATIONS: Limitations included exclusion of patients using insulin at GLP-1 RA initiation and collection of HCRU data by physician, not via patient-completed diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world HCRU and costs associated with the treatment of adults with T2D with two GLP-1 RAs in TROPHIES emphasize the need to avoid generalization with respect to HCRU and costs associated with a particular therapy when estimating the impact of a new treatment in a country-specific setting.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have become frequent treatments of hyperglycemia in type-2 diabetes (T2D). Not all types of clinical study provide information about the cost of these treatments or the effects they might have on use of other medicines and equipment to control T2D or the need for visits to a doctor or nurse and different types of treatment in hospital. This study collected this information during the regular care of adults in France, Germany, or Italy who were prescribed either dulaglutide or liraglutide (both types of GLP-1 RAs) by their family doctor or a specialist in T2D. There were differences in costs and the need for other medicines and medical services between people using either dulaglutide or liraglutide and for people who were using the same GLP-1 RA in each of the three countries. The information from this study could be used to more accurately understand the overall costs and medical care needed when patients use dulaglutide or liraglutide in France, Germany, or Italy.

Adhesion of Acanthamoeba on Scleral Contact Lenses According to Lens Shape.

Purpose: To investigate the adhesion of Acanthamoeba to scleral contact lens (ScCL) surface according to lens shape. Methods: Two strains of A. polyphaga (CDC:V062 and ATCC 30461) and one clinical Acanthamoeba isolate, were inoculated onto five contact lens (CL): one first-generation silicone hydrogel (SHCL; lotrafilcon B; adhesion control) containing plasma surface treatment; two ScCL (fluorosilicone acrylate) one containing surface treatment composed of plasma and the other containing plasma with Hydra-PEG, and two CL designed with a flat shape having the same material and surface treatments of the ScCL. Trophozoites that adhered to the lens's surfaces were counted by inverted optical light microscopy. Possible alterations of the lens surface that could predispose amoeba adhesion and Acanthamoeba attached to these lens surfaces were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: All strains revealed greater adhesion to the ScCL when compared with the flat lenses (P < 0.001). The clinical isolate and the ATCC 30461 had a higher adhesion (P < 0.001) when compared with the CDC:V062. A rough texture was observed on the surface of the lenses that have been examined by SEM. Also, SEM revealed that the isolates had a rounded appearance on the surface of the ScCL in contrast with an elongated appearance on the surface of the silicone hydrogel. Conclusions: The findings revealed that the curved shape of the ScCL favors amoeba adhesion.

Safety and efficacy of twice-daily exenatide in Taiwanese patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Exenatide has been predominantly studied in non-Asian populations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of twice-daily (BID) exenatide versus placebo in a subpopulation of Taiwanese patients from a larger study on Asian patients. METHODS: Patients unable to achieve glycemic control with metformin alone or metformin in combination with sulfonylurea were randomly assigned to self-administer either 5 µg exenatide or placebo BID for 4 weeks, then 10 µg exenatide or placebo BID for an additional 12 weeks, in addition to their regular oral therapy. RESULTS: Fifty patients from Taiwan were enrolled in this study (54.0% male; age: 50.9 ± 9.4 years; weight: 71.0 ± 11.6 kg; 8.1 ± 1.0% hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)). The exenatide-treated patients demonstrated a statistically significant greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline to the endpoint (least-squares [LS] mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]: -0.8% [-1.4 - -0.2]; p = 0.009) compared with patients who received placebo (LS mean [95% CI]: -0.1% [-0.7-0.4]) with an LS mean [95% CI] between-group difference of -0.7% (-1.3 - -0.1) (p = 0.025). A statistically significant higher number of exenatide-treated patients achieved HbA1c targets of ≤ 7% (p = 0.020) and ≤ 6.5% (p = 0.021) by the endpoint compared with patients who received placebo. Exenatide-treated patients experienced a statistically significant reduction in weight from baseline to endpoint (exenatide-placebo adjusted mean difference [95% CI]: -1.6 kg [-2.7 - -0.6]; p = 0.004) compared with the placebo group. The symptomatic hypoglycemia rate (mean patient/year ± standard deviation) was higher in exenatide-treated patients (4.86 mean patient/year ± 7.36) than placebo-treated patients (0.27 mean patient/year ± 1.32). Thirteen (50.0%) exenatide-treated patients and nine (37.5%) placebo-treated patients reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse events; nausea was the most frequently reported side effect (exenatide, 4 [15.4%]; placebo, 0 [0.0%]). CONCLUSION: This subgroup analysis of Taiwanese patients was consistent with the overall study results, which showed that exenatide BID is superior to placebo for improving glycemic control in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes who experienced inadequate glycemic control when using oral antidiabetic therapy.

Microbial keratitis in Sao Paulo, Brazil: a 10-year review of laboratory results, epidemiological features, and risk factors.

PURPOSE: To study epidemiological data, laboratory results, and risk factors associated with microbial keratitis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of corneal sample cultures from patients with microbial keratitis from January 2010 to December 2019. Results were analyzed according to the etiological diagnosis of bacterial, mycotic, or parasitic infection and were associated with related risk factors. RESULTS: We analyzed 4810 corneal samples from 4047 patients (mean age 47.79 ± 20.68 years; male 53.27%). The prevalence of bacterial, fungal, and Acanthamoeba infections were 69.80%, 7.31%, and 3.51%, respectively. The most frequently isolated bacteria were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) (45.14%), S. aureus (10.02%), Pseudomonas spp. (8.80%), and Corynebacterium spp. (6.21%). Among CoNS, the main agent was S. epidermidis (n=665). For mycotic keratitis, Fusarium spp. (35.42%) and Candida parapsilosis (16.07%) were the most common agents among filamentous and yeasts isolates, respectively. Contact lens use was associated with a positive culture for Acanthamoeba spp. (OR = 19.04; p < 0.001) and Pseudomonas spp. (OR = 3.20; p < 0.001). Previous ocular trauma was associated with positive fungal cultures (OR = 1.80; p = 0.007), while older age was associated with positive bacterial culture (OR = 1.76; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated a higher positivity of corneal sample cultures for bacteria. Among those, CoNS was the most frequently identified, with S. epidermidis as the main agent. In fungal keratitis, Fusarium spp. was the most commonly isolated. Contact lens wearers had higher risks of positive cultures for Acanthamoeba spp. and Pseudomonas spp. Ocular trauma increased the risk of fungal infection, while older age increased the risk of bacterial infection.

Bacterial endophthalmitis following anti-VEGF intravitreal injections: a retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: To describe the incidence of endophthalmitis and the treatment outcomes of acute bacterial endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections in a Brazilian hospital. The analysis was based on the timing of infection after intravitreal injection, culture results, visual acuity, and the presence of epiretinal membrane after a 1-year follow-up period, spanning nine years. METHODS: This retrospective case series, conducted over a 9-year period, aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of acute endophthalmitis following intravitreal Bevacizumab injections. The inclusion criteria involved a chart review of 25 patients who presented clinical signs of acute endophthalmitis out of a total of 12,441 injections administered between January 2011 and December 2019. Negative culture results of vitreous samples or incomplete data were excluded. Ultimately, 23 patients were enrolled in the study. Eight patients were treated with intravitreal antibiotic injections (IVAI) using vancomycin 1.0 mg/0.05mL and ceftazidime 2.25 mg/0.05mL, while 15 patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) followed by intravitreal antibiotic injections at the end of surgery (IVAIES). The main outcome measures were the efficacy of controlling the infection with IVAI as a standalone therapy compared to early PPV followed by IVAIES. Data collected included pre-infection and one-year post-treatment best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography (OCT) abnormalities, and enucleation/evisceration rates. To compare groups, Mann-Whitney and ANOVA tests were employed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The incidence rate of bacterial endophthalmitis was 0.185% (1/541 anti-VEGF injections), with the highest infection rates observed in 2014 and 2017. Patients presented clinical symptoms between 2 and 7 days after injection. The most common isolated organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Streptococci spp. Treatment outcomes showed that both IVAI and PPV + IVAIES effectively controlled the infection and prevented globe atrophy. After one year, the PPV group with BCVA better than Light Perception had a significantly better BCVA compared to the IVAI group (p 0.003). However, PPV group had higher incidence of epiretinal membranes formation compared to the IVAI group. (P 0.035) CONCLUSION: Anti-VEGF injections carry a risk of developing acute bacterial endophthalmitis. Isolated antibiotic therapy could be an effective treatment to control the infection, but performing PPV + IVAIES as a primary treatment showed promising results in terms of improving BCVA after one year, despite a higher rate of epiretinal membrane formation. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.