Dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (AWARD-7): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Many antihyperglycaemic drugs, including insulin, are primarily cleared by the kidneys, restricting treatment options for patients with kidney disease. Dulaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that is not cleared by the kidneys, and confers a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than does insulin. We assessed the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease. METHODS: AWARD-7 was a multicentre, open-label trial done at 99 sites in nine countries. Eligible patients were adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (stages 3-4), with an HbA1c of 7·5-10·5%, and who were being treated with insulin or insulin plus an oral antihyperglycaemic drug and were taking a maximum tolerated dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of a computer-generated random sequence with an interactive response system to once-weekly injectable dulaglutide 1·5 mg, once-weekly dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily insulin glargine as basal therapy, all in combination with insulin lispro, for 52 weeks. Insulin glargine and lispro doses were titrated as per an adjustment algorithm; dulaglutide doses were masked to participants and investigators. The primary outcome was HbA1c at 26 weeks, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The primary analysis population was all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-randomisation HbA1c measurement. The safety population was all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had any post-dose data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01621178. FINDINGS: Between Aug 15, 2012, and Nov 30, 2015, 577 patients were randomly assigned, 193 to dulaglutide 1·5 mg, 190 to dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and 194 to insulin glargine. The effects on HbA1c change at 26 weeks of dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 0·75 mg were non-inferior to those of insulin glargine (least squares mean [LSM] -1·2% [SE 0·1] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg [183 patients]; -1·1% [0·1] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg [180 patients]; -1·1% [0·1] with insulin glargine [186 patients]; one-sided p≤0·0001 for both dulaglutide doses vs insulin glargine). The differences in HbA1c concentration at 26 weeks between dulaglutide and insulin glargine treatments were LSM difference -0·05% (95% CI -0·26 to 0·15, p<0·0001) with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 0·02% (-0·18 to -0·22, p=0·0001) with dulaglutide 0·75 mg. HbA1c-lowering effects persisted to 52 weeks (LSM -1·1% [SE 0·1] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg; -1·1% [0·1] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg; -1·0% [0·1] with insulin glargine). At 52 weeks, eGFR was higher with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation by cystatin C geometric LSM 34·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 [SE 0·7]; p=0·005 vs insulin glargine) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (33·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 [0·7]; p=0·009 vs insulin glargine) than with insulin glargine (31·3 mL/min per 1·73 m2 [0·7]). At 52 weeks, the effects of dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 0·75 mg on UACR reduction were not significantly different from that of insulin glargine (LSM -22·5% [95% CI -35·1 to -7·5] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg; -20·1% [-33·1 to -4·6] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg; -13·0% [-27·1 to 3·9] with insulin glargine). Proportions of patients with any serious adverse events were similar across groups (20% [38 of 192] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg, 24% [45 of 190] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and 27% [52 of 194] with insulin glargine). Dulaglutide was associated with higher rates of nausea (20% [38 of 192] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 14% [27 of 190] with 0·75 mg, vs 5% [nine of 194] with insulin glargine) and diarrhoea (17% [33 of 192] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 16% [30 of 190] with 0·75 mg, vs 7% [14 of 194] with insulin glargine) and lower rates of symptomatic hypoglycaemia (4·4 events per patient per year with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 4·3 with dulaglutide 0·75 mg, vs 9·6 with insulin glargine). End-stage renal disease occurred in 38 participants: eight (4%) of 192 with dulaglutide 1·5 mg, 14 (7%) of 190 with dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and 16 (8%) of 194 with insulin glargine. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, once-weekly dulaglutide produced glycaemic control similar to that achieved with insulin glargine, with reduced decline in eGFR. Dulaglutide seems to be safe to use to achieve glycaemic control in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Dulaglutide as add-on therapy to SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (AWARD-10): a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes through different mechanisms. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to the ongoing treatment regimen in patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with SGLT2 inhibitors, with or without metformin. METHODS: AWARD-10 was a phase 3b, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, 24-week study done at 40 clinical sites in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Spain, and the USA. Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c concentration ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤9·5% [80 mmol/mol]), a BMI of 45 kg/m2 or less, and taking stable doses (>3 months) of an SGLT2 inhibitor (with or without metformin) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injections of either dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or placebo once per week for 24 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to dulaglutide and placebo assignment, and those assessing outcomes were masked to study drug assignment. The primary objective was to test for the superiority of dulaglutide (1·5 mg or 0·75 mg) versus placebo for change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at 24 weeks. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02597049. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2015, and Feb 3, 2017, 424 patients were randomly assigned to dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=142), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=142), and placebo (n=140). One patient in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group was excluded from the analysis because they did not receive any dose of the study drug. The reduction in HbA1c concentration at 24 weeks was larger in patients receiving dulaglutide (least squares mean [LSM] for dulaglutide 1·5 mg -1·34% [SE 0·06] or -14·7 mmol/mol [0·6]; dulaglutide 0·75 mg -1·21% [0·06] or -13·2 mmol/mol [0·6]) than in patients receiving placebo (-0·54% [0·06] or -5·9 mmol/mol [0·6]; p<0·0001 for both groups vs placebo). The LSM differences were -0·79% (95% CI -0·97 to -0·61) or -8·6 mmol/mol (-10·6 to -6·7) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·66% (-0·84 to -0·49) or -7·2 mmol/mol (-9·2 to -5·4) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg (p<0·0001 for both). Serious adverse events were reported for five (4%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, three (2%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and five (4%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in patients treated with dulaglutide than in patients who received placebo, mainly because of an increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Nausea (21 [15%] patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group vs seven [5%] in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group vs five [4%] in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [6%] vs 14 [10%] vs four [3%]), and vomiting (five [4%] vs four [3%] vs one [1%]) were more common with dulaglutide than with placebo. One episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group. Two (1%) patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg died, but these deaths were not considered to be related to study drug; no deaths occurred in the other groups. INTERPRETATION: Dulaglutide as add-on treatment to SGLT2 inhibitors (with or without metformin) resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control, with acceptable tolerability that is consistent with the established safety profile of dulaglutide. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the addition of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to titrated daily insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-9).

AIM: To compare the addition of weekly dulaglutide vs the addition of placebo to titrated glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with sub-optimum glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 300) from this phase III, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were randomized to weekly subcutaneous injections of dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo with titrated daily glargine (mean ± standard deviation baseline dose: 39 ± 22 U), with or without metformin (≥1500 mg/d). The primary endpoint was superiority of dulaglutide/glargine to placebo/glargine with regard to change from baseline in HbA1c level at 28 weeks. RESULTS: Least squares (LS) mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c changes from baseline were -1.44 ± 0.09% (-15.74 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with dulaglutide/glargine and -0.67 ± 0.09% (-7.32 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with placebo/glargine at 28 weeks (LS mean difference [95% confidence interval] -0.77% [-0.97, -0.56]; P < .001). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide/glargine and increased with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: -2.41 ± 0.39 kg; P < .001). Increases from baseline in mean glargine dose were significantly smaller with dulaglutide/glargine vs placebo/glargine (13 ± 2 U [0.1 ± 0.02 U/kg] vs 26 ± 2 U [0.3 ± 0.02 U/kg], respectively; P < .001; LS mean ± s.e. final dose: dulaglutide/glargine, 51 ± 2 U; placebo/glargine, 65 ± 2 U). The hypoglycaemia rate (≤3.9 mmol/L threshold) was 7.69 ± 15.15 and 8.56 ± 16.13 events/patient/year, respectively (P = .488). One episode of severe hypoglycaemia occurred in the dulaglutide/glargine group. Common gastrointestinal adverse events with dulaglutide were nausea (12.0%), diarrhoea (11.3%) and vomiting (6.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg added to basal insulin is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option for patients with T2D.

Biomarker response to drotrecogin alfa (activated) in children with severe sepsis: results from the RESOLVE clinical trial*.

OBJECTIVE: REsearching severe Sepsis and Organ dysfunction in children: A gLobal perspective (RESOLVE), a phase III trial of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in pediatric severe sepsis, examined biomarker changes in inflammation and coagulation. This report describes biomarker profiles in early severe sepsis and the pharmacodynamic assessment of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in RESOLVE. DESIGN: Serial measurements of interleukin-1ß, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, interleukin-10, tissue necrosis factor-α, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and thrombin-antithrombin complex were performed at baseline and daily over the first five study days. Protein C levels were performed at baseline and at the end of the 96-hr study drug infusion. Analysis of variance-based log-transformed data compared the treatment groups for each measured variable. SETTING: : One hundred four pediatric intensive care units in 18 countries. PATIENTS: Four hundred seventy-seven children between 38 wks corrected gestational age and 17 yrs with sepsis-induced cardiovascular and respiratory dysfunction. INTERVENTIONS: Drotrecogin alfa (activated). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pharmacodynamic activity of drotrecogin alfa (activated) compared with placebo was observed with reduction of D-dimer on day 1 (p < .01) and thrombin-antithrombin complex on days 1-4 (p < .05). There were no significant changes by treatment in multiple cytokines or procalcitonin. In the overall population, a median protein C difference was not observed (p > .05) with drotrecogin alfa (activated) administration compared with placebo, although a difference (median percentage change from baseline) in favor of drotrecogin alfa (activated) was observed in patients >1 yr old (p = .0449). CONCLUSIONS: While children in the RESOLVE trial were similar to adults in that they showed a relationship between severity of coagulation and inflammation abnormalities and mortality, their pharmacodynamic response to drotrecogin alfa (activated) differed with respect to changes in protein C activity and systemic inflammation.

Troponin-I as a prognosticator of mortality in severe sepsis patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate cardiac troponin-I (cTnI) as a 28-day mortality prognosticator and predictor for a drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) survival benefit in recombinant human activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis patients. METHODS: Cardiac troponin-I was measured using the Access AccuTnI Troponin I assay (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA). There were 598 patients (305 DrotAA, 293 placebo) with baseline cTnI data (cTnI negative [<0.06 ng/mL], n = 147; cTnI positive [>or=0.06 ng/mL], n = 451). RESULTS: Cardiac troponin-I-positive patients were older (mean age, 61 vs 56 years; P = .002), were sicker (mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 26.1 vs 22.3; P < .001), had lower baseline protein C levels (mean level, 49% vs 56%; P = .017), and had higher 28-day mortality (32% vs 14%, P < .0001) than cTnI-negative patients. Elevated cTnI was an independent prognosticator of mortality (odds ratio, 2.020; 95% confidence interval, 1.153-3.541) after adjusting for other significant variables. Breslow-Day interaction test between cTnI levels and treatment was not significant (P = .65). CONCLUSION: This is the largest severe sepsis study reporting an association between elevated cTnI and higher mortality. Cardiac troponin-I elevation was not predictive of a survival benefit with DrotAA treatment.