Effects of semaglutide with and without concomitant SGLT2 inhibitor use in participants with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease in the FLOW trial.

People with type-2-diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), have a high risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular (CV) complications. Glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) independently reduce cardiovascular and kidney events. The effect of combining both is unclear. FLOW trial participants with T2D and CKD were stratified by baseline SGLT2i use (N = 550) or no use (N = 2,983) and randomized to semaglutide/placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of kidney failure, ≥50% eGFR reduction, kidney or cardiovascular death. The risk of the primary outcome was 24% lower in all participants treated with semaglutide vs placebo (95% confidence interval [CI] 34%, 12%). The primary outcome occurred in 41/277 (semaglutide) versus 38/273 (placebo) participants on SGLT2i at baseline (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.69, 1.67; P=0.755), and in 290/1,490 versus 372/1,493 participants not taking SGLT2i at baseline (HR 0.73; 0.63, 0.85; P<0.001; P-interaction 0.109). Three confirmatory secondary outcomes were predefined. Treatment differences favoring semaglutide for total eGFR slope (ml/min/1.73m2/year) were 0.75 (-0.01, 1.5) in the SGLT2i subgroup and 1.25 (0.91, 1.58) in non-SGLT2i-subgroup, P-interaction 0.237. Semaglutide benefits on major cardiovascular events and all-cause death were similar regardless of SGLT2i use (P-interaction 0.741 and 0.901, respectively). The benefits of semaglutide in reducing kidney outcomes were consistent in participants with/without baseline SGLT2i use; power was limited to detect smaller but clinically relevant effects. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03819153 .

Effects of Semaglutide on Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease are at high risk for kidney failure, cardiovascular events, and death. Whether treatment with semaglutide would mitigate these risks is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 50 to 75 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams] of >300 and <5000 or an eGFR of 25 to <50 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of >100 and <5000) to receive subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg weekly or placebo. The primary outcome was major kidney disease events, a composite of the onset of kidney failure (dialysis, transplantation, or an eGFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), at least a 50% reduction in the eGFR from baseline, or death from kidney-related or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified confirmatory secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS: Among the 3533 participants who underwent randomization (1767 in the semaglutide group and 1766 in the placebo group), median follow-up was 3.4 years, after early trial cessation was recommended at a prespecified interim analysis. The risk of a primary-outcome event was 24% lower in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (331 vs. 410 first events; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.88; P = 0.0003). Results were similar for a composite of the kidney-specific components of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.94) and for death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.89). The results for all confirmatory secondary outcomes favored semaglutide: the mean annual eGFR slope was less steep (indicating a slower decrease) by 1.16 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the semaglutide group (P<0.001), the risk of major cardiovascular events 18% lower (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.029), and the risk of death from any cause 20% lower (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in a lower percentage of participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (49.6% vs. 53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide reduced the risk of clinically important kidney outcomes and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; FLOW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03819153.).

Effect of semaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events by baseline kidney parameters in participants with type 2 diabetes and at high risk of cardiovascular disease: SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 post hoc pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide is a glucose-lowering treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D) with demonstrated cardiovascular benefits; semaglutide may also have kidney-protective effects. This post hoc analysis investigated the association between major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and baseline kidney parameters and whether the effect of semaglutide on MACE risk was impacted by baseline kidney parameters in people with T2D at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Participants from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 trials, receiving semaglutide or placebo, were categorised according to baseline kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45 and ≥ 45-<60 versus ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or damage (urine albumin:creatinine ratio [UACR] ≥ 30-≤300 and > 300 versus < 30 mg/g). Relative risk of first MACE by baseline kidney parameters was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. The same model, adjusted with inverse probability weighting, and a quadratic spline regression were applied to evaluate the effect of semaglutide on risk and event rate of first MACE across subgroups. The semaglutide effects on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight (BW) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across subgroups were also evaluated. RESULTS: Independently of treatment, participants with reduced kidney function (eGFR ≥ 45-<60 and < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2: hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.36 [1.04;1.76] and 1.52 [1.15;1.99]) and increased albuminuria (UACR ≥ 30-≤300 and > 300 mg/g: 1.53 [1.14;2.04] and 2.52 [1.84;3.42]) had an increased MACE risk versus those without. Semaglutide consistently reduced MACE risk versus placebo across all eGFR and UACR subgroups (interaction p value [pINT] > 0.05). Semaglutide reduced HbA1c regardless of baseline eGFR and UACR (pINT>0.05); reductions in BW were affected by baseline eGFR (pINT<0.001) but not UACR (pINT>0.05). More participants in the lower eGFR or higher UACR subgroups experienced SAEs versus participants in reference groups; the number of SAEs was similar between semaglutide and placebo arms in each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: MACE risk was greater for participants with kidney impairment or damage than for those without. Semaglutide consistently reduced MACE risk across eGFR and UACR subgroups, indicating that semaglutide provides cardiovascular benefits in people with T2D and at high cardiovascular risk across a broad spectrum of kidney function and damage. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT01720446; NCT02692716.

Post hoc analysis of SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 trials suggests that people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk treated with semaglutide experience more stable kidney function compared with placebo.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists reduce albuminuria and may stabilize the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In this post hoc analysis of the SUSTAIN 6/PIONEER 6 trials encompassing 6480 participants at high cardiovascular risk (semaglutide, 3239 participants; placebo, 3241 participants), we investigated the effects of semaglutide versus placebo on eGFR decline. Pooled data by treatment were evaluated for annual eGFR change (total annual eGFR slope in ml/min per 1.73 m2) from baseline to end of treatment and time to persistent eGFR reductions of 30%, 40%, 50% and 57% or more, including subgroup analyses by baseline eGFR (30 to under 60 or 60 and over ml/min per 1.73 m2). In the overall population, the estimated treatment difference (ETD; semaglutide versus placebo) in annual eGFR slope was significant at 0.59 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval 0.29; 0.89). The ETD was numerically largest in the 30 to under 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 eGFR subgroup, 1.06 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (0.45; 1.67), but no significant interaction was observed for treatment effect by subgroup. Hazard ratios (semaglutide versus placebo) for time to persistent eGFR decline were under 1.0 for all eGFR thresholds in the overall population; and were numerically lower in the baseline eGFR 30 to under 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 subgroup versus the overall population, although no significant interaction was observed for treatment effect by subgroup. Thus, pooled analyses of clinical trial data in patients with T2D suggest that semaglutide may reduce the rate of eGFR decline.

The rationale, design and baseline data of FLOW, a kidney outcomes trial with once-weekly semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) improve glycaemic control and lower body weight in people with T2D, and some reduce the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in those with high CV risk. GLP-1RAs might also have kidney-protective effects. We report the design and baseline data for FLOW (NCT03819153), a trial investigating the effects of semaglutide, a once-weekly (OW) GLP-1RA, on kidney outcomes in participants with CKD and T2D. METHODS: FLOW is a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational, phase 3b trial. Participants with T2D, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥50‒≤75 ml/min/1.73 m2 and urine albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) >300‒<5000 mg/g or eGFR ≥25‒<50 ml/min/1.73 m2 and UACR >100‒<5000 mg/g were randomised 1:1 to OW semaglutide 1.0 mg or matched placebo, with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade (unless not tolerated/contraindicated). The composite primary endpoint is time to first kidney failure (persistent eGFR <15 ml/min/1.73 m2 or initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy), persistent ≥50% reduction in eGFR or death from kidney or CV causes. RESULTS: Enrolled participants (N = 3534) had a baseline mean age of 66.6 years [standard deviation (SD) 9.0], haemoglobin A1c of 7.8% (SD 1.3), diabetes duration of 17.4 years (SD 9.3), eGFR of 47.0 ml/min/1.73 m2 (SD 15.2) and median UACR of 568 mg/g (range 2‒11 852). According to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines categorisation, 68.2% were at very high risk for CKD progression. CONCLUSION: FLOW will evaluate the effect of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in participants with CKD and T2D, and is expected to be completed in late 2024.

A randomized trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes exhibiting an inadequate response to liraglutide 0.9 mg.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The present trial compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg with liraglutide 0.9 mg in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes to assess the incremental effects of liraglutide 1.8 mg in those who exhibited an inadequate response to 0.9 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 26-week randomized trial (NCT02505334) enrolled Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes across 47 sites in Japan. Participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) 7.5-10.0% were included and those on insulin treatment were excluded. Participants discontinued pre-trial oral antidiabetic drug and initiated liraglutide 0.9 mg for a 12-week run-in period, after which those with HbA1c ≥7.0% (466) were randomized (1:1) to two treatment arms: continuing liraglutide 0.9 mg or dose escalation to 1.8 mg. The change from baseline in HbA1c (primary endpoint) and treatment-emergent adverse events (secondary endpoint) were measured at the end of 26 weeks. RESULTS: After 26 weeks of treatment, liraglutide 1.8 mg was more effective compared with 0.9 mg in lowering HbA1c levels, with an estimated treatment difference of -0.40% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.55, -0.24; P < 0.0001). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with significantly greater odds of participants reaching HbA1c <7.0% (estimated odds ratio [EOR] 3.87; 95% CI 2.12, 7.08; P < 0.0001) and ≤6.5% (EOR 3.78; 95% CI 1.36, 10.54; P = 0.0109) compared with 0.9 mg. Both doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg had better efficacy in improving HbA1c levels after 26 weeks treatment vs 0.9 mg in Japanese patients, with both doses well tolerated.

Risk of Thyroid Cancer Associated with Use of Liraglutide and Other Antidiabetic Drugs in a US Commercially Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Quantify association between the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and risk of thyroid cancer (TC) compared to other antidiabetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initiators of liraglutide, exenatide, metformin, pioglitazone or groups of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas were identified in a US health plan (2010-2014) and followed for a median of 17 months. Thyroid cancer cases during follow-up were identified via a validated algorithm. Incidence rates of TC among liraglutide and comparators were assessed using relative risks estimated within propensity score-matched cohorts using intention to treat (ITT) and time on drug analyses. Latency effects and potential surveillance bias were evaluated. RESULTS: Relative risks from ITT analyses ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-1.79) versus metformin to 1.70 (95% CI 1.03-2.81) versus all comparators excluding exenatide. Effect estimates from latency analyses were slightly attenuated. Time on drug analyses suggested no increased risk for either longer duration or higher cumulative dose of liraglutide. Medical record review found 85% were papillary or a follicular variant of papillary or both; 46% were microcarcinomas (≤10 millimeters), which were more prevalent in the liraglutide cohort (67% versus 43% in all comparators). CONCLUSION: Relative risks were elevated for several comparisons, which should be interpreted cautiously because of potential residual confounding and surveillance bias. Liraglutide cases had smaller thyroid nodules and shorter time-to-diagnosis, suggesting increased surveillance for TC among liraglutide initiators, especially shortly after the drug´s approval. After adjusting the primary analyses (ITT) for latency, no significant elevated risk of TC was observed among liraglutide initiators.

Influence of Production Process and Scale on Quality of Polypeptide Drugs: a Case Study on GLP-1 Analogs.

PURPOSE: Manufacturing processes for polypeptide/protein drugs are designed to ensure robust quality, efficacy and safety. Process differences introduced by follow-on manufacturers may result in changes in quality and clinical outcomes. This study investigated the impact of production methods on the stability and impurities of liraglutide and semaglutide drug substances/products, and the potential impact on drug quality, efficacy and safety. METHODS: State-of-the-art analytical methods were used to compare physical and chemical stability, and impurity profiles of drug substances/products from different suppliers. Identified polypeptide-related impurities were evaluated for immunogenicity potential by in silico T cell epitope prediction. Semaglutide immunogenicity in clinical trials (SUSTAIN) was evaluated using a tiered antibody analysis. RESULTS: Manufacturing scale and process strongly impacted the physical stability of the products. Trace metals increased high-molecular-weight protein formation for liraglutide and semaglutide. Synthetic and recombinant liraglutide produced by five suppliers had distinct impurity profiles compared with the originator. In silico evaluation suggested that new impurities could be immunogenic. Immunogenicity of semaglutide in clinical trials was lower than for liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in manufacturing processes affect chemical/physical stability and impurity profile, and may impact immunogenicity. Follow-on versions of liraglutide and semaglutide, and possibly other polypeptides, should be clinically evaluated for efficacy and safety.

Long-term efficacy and safety of combined insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 therapy: Evidence from the LEADER trial.

AIM: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and insulin combination therapy is an effective treatment option for type 2 diabetes, but long-term data are lacking. The aim was to assess the long-term efficacy of the GLP-1RA liraglutide in subgroups by insulin use in the LEADER trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEADER assessed cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of liraglutide (1.8 mg) versus placebo (plus standard of care therapy) in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of CV disease, for up to 5 years. We analyzed CV events, metabolic parameters and hypoglycaemia post hoc in three subgroups by baseline insulin use (basal-only insulin, other insulin or no insulin). Insulin was a non-random treatment allocation as part of standard of care therapy. RESULTS: At baseline, 5171 (55%) patients were not receiving insulin, 3159 (34%) were receiving basal-only insulin and 1010 (11%) other insulins. Insulin users had a longer diabetes duration and slightly worse glycaemic control (HbA1c) than the no-insulin subgroup. Liraglutide reduced HbA1c and weight versus placebo in all three subgroups (P < .001), and severe hypoglycaemia rate in the basal-only insulin subgroup. The need for insulin was less with liraglutide. CV risk reduction with liraglutide was similar to the main trial results in the basal-only and no-insulin subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on insulin, liraglutide improved glycaemic control, weight and need for insulin versus placebo, for at least 36 months with no increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia, while maintaining CV safety/efficacy, supporting the combination of liraglutide and insulin for management of type 2 diabetes.

Liraglutide use and evaluation of pancreatic outcomes in a US commercially insured population.

AIMS: Both acute pancreatitis (AP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) have been areas of focus for studies of incretin drugs. This 5-year prospective cohort study aimed to quantify possible associations between liraglutide and risk of AP and PC as compared to other antidiabetic drugs (ADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients initiating liraglutide or other ADs who were enrolled in a US health plan (2010-2014) were included. Comparisons of AP and PC incidence rates were made between matched cohorts of liraglutide initiators and initiators of other ADs. Adjudicated AP cases and algorithm-based PC cases were identified. Propensity score-matched intention-to-treat (ITT) and time-on-drug (TOD) analyses were completed using Poisson regression. A latency analysis was performed for PC. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 405 days for AP cohorts (9995 liraglutide, 1:1 matched to all comparators) and 503 days for PC cohorts (35 163 liraglutide, 1:1 matched to all comparators). In the primary AP analysis, "current" use of liraglutide was not significantly associated with elevated risk across comparators (all comparators relative risk [RR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.3). ITT results were similar where, in the primary analysis, no RRs were significantly associated with PC (all comparators RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.4); latency and TOD analyses did not alter findings. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was not associated with an increased risk of AP or PC, although risk estimates were more variable for AP, and numbers of cases for both outcomes were limited because of the rarity of outcomes.

Health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes participating in the LEADER trial.

AIMS: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) participating in the LEADER cardiovascular outcomes trial using the five-dimension European Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EQ-5D was administered every 12 months in a subset of patients from Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. We compared changes in utility index scores and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores from baseline to 36 months in participants treated with liraglutide and placebo. We also assessed which complications had the greatest impact on quality of life. RESULTS: At 36 months, less deterioration in EQ-5D utility index score was seen in the liraglutide group (-0.058) than in the placebo group (-0.082; estimated treatment difference [ETD] 0.023, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.004;0.043; P = 0.020). A smaller decrease in EQ-5D VAS score was also demonstrated in the liraglutide group (-3.51) vs. the placebo group (-5.45; ETD 1.94, 95% CI 0.32;3.57; P = 0.019). The benefits of liraglutide treatment compared with placebo were driven primarily by shifts in the domains of mobility and self-care. The most influential events contributing to poorer HRQoL were stroke, heart failure, malignant neoplasm and confirmed hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide demonstrated a modest but significant benefit in patient-reported health status using the EQ-5D, compared with placebo. This benefit may be of clinical relevance and requires further study.

Liraglutide and Glycaemic Outcomes in the LEADER Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The LEADER trial was a cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk that compared liraglutide (n = 4668) with placebo (n = 4672) using a primary composite endpoint of 3-point major adverse CV events. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to investigate glycaemic outcomes across both treatment groups. METHODS: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was measured at randomisation, month 3, month 6 and every 6 months thereafter. Cox regression was used to analyse time to a composite endpoint of glycaemic deterioration, defined as a specified change in HbA1c or a substantial intensification of insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drug (OAD). The individual components of the composite were also analysed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including insulin and OAD use, were balanced between treatment groups. HbA1c decreased from baseline in both groups, but the reduction was greater with liraglutide [estimated treatment difference at month 36: - 0.40%; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.45, - 0.34] despite the addition of more OADs and higher insulin use in the placebo group. Fewer of the patients treated with liraglutide (n = 3202, 68.6%) experienced glycaemic deterioration compared with those administered the placebo (n = 3988, 85.4%; average hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% CI 0.48, 0.53; p < 0.001). Analysis of the individual components showed similar results (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes patients at high risk of CV events who were treated with liraglutide achieved greater reductions in HbA1c, had a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and presented less glycaemic deterioration than similar patients who received the placebo. Nonetheless, progressive loss of glycaemic control occurred in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01179048. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. Plain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide to existing insulin regimens in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A post-hoc analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To determine the efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide to three different insulin regimens in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis, results from a 36-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial are reported. Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus were stratified according to their pre-trial insulin regimen (basal, basal-bolus and premix). The primary objective was to determine whether adding liraglutide (0.9 mg/day) to fixed-dose insulin therapy was superior vs fixed-dose insulin monotherapy, assessed by the effect on glycemic control after 16 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The treatment effect on glycated hemoglobin reduction was independent of the pre-trial insulin regimen. Comparing liraglutide with a placebo, liraglutide was associated with glycated hemoglobin reduction in all insulin regimens, with placebo-corrected reductions at 16 weeks ranging from -1.45 to -1.17%, and maintained at 36 weeks. Liraglutide resulted in a greater reduction in mean plasma glucose obtained from seven-point self-monitoring, and greater proportions of patients achieved target glycated hemoglobin. With liraglutide, slightly higher proportions of patients receiving basal and basal-bolus insulin reported confirmed hypoglycemia from 0 to 16 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide to insulin therapy was confirmed, regardless of pre-trial insulin regimen.

Safety and efficacy of the combination of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide with an oral antidiabetic drug in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized, 52-week, open-label, parallel-group trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present post-hoc analysis was to investigate the safety and efficacy of liraglutide in combination with one oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) across different OAD classes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis using data from a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group trial, in which patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with a single OAD (α-glucosidase inhibitor, glinide, metformin or thiazolidinedione) were randomized to either pretrial OAD in combination with liraglutide 0.9 mg/day (liraglutide group) or pretrial OAD in combination with an additional OAD (additional OAD group). The primary outcome investigated in this post-hoc analysis was the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events across the different groups of pretrial OADs were comparable between liraglutide and additional OAD (α-glucosidase inhibitor 74.6 vs 70.0%; glinide 93.1 vs 87.1%; metformin 91.8 vs 87.1%; thiazolidinedione 86.2 vs 96.4%, respectively). Minor hypoglycemia was infrequent (seven episodes in two patients randomized to liraglutide, and two episodes in two patients randomized to additional OAD). The mean reduction in glycated hemoglobin appeared greater with liraglutide therapy, with the estimated mean treatment difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) for liraglutide vs additional OAD ranging from -0.14%, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.21 (-1.5 mmol/mol, 95 CI: -5.2 to 2.3) to -0.44%, 95% CI:-0.79 to -0.09 (-4.8 mmol/mol, 95% CI: -8.6 to -1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggests that Japanese patients on OAD monotherapy might benefit from a greater improvement in glycemic control, without impacting tolerability, by combining their OAD with liraglutide rather than another OAD, regardless of which OAD monotherapy they are receiving.

Once-Daily Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide as Add-on to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: A 26-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus lixisenatide as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving adequate glycemic control on metformin alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 26-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial, 404 patients were randomized 1:1 to liraglutide 1.8 mg or lixisenatide 20 µg as add-on to metformin. Liraglutide was administered once daily at any time of the day. Lixisenatide was administered once daily within 1 h prior to the morning or evening meal. RESULTS: At week 26, liraglutide reduced HbA1c (primary end point) more than lixisenatide (estimated treatment difference -0.62% [95% CI -0.8; -0.4]; P < 0.0001), with more patients reaching HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) and ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol) versus lixisenatide (74.2% and 54.6% for liraglutide vs. 45.5% and 26.2% for lixisenatide; P < 0.0001 for both). Liraglutide reduced fasting plasma glucose more than lixisenatide (estimated treatment difference -1.15 mmol/L [95% CI -1.5; -0.8]; P < 0.0001). Liraglutide provided greater reduction in mean 9-point self-measured plasma glucose (P < 0.0001). However, postprandial glucose increments were smaller with lixisenatide for the meal directly after injection compared with liraglutide (P < 0.05), with no differences between treatments across all meals. Both drugs promoted similar body weight decrease (-4.3 kg for liraglutide, -3.7 kg for lixisenatide; P = 0.23). The most common adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal disorders. Greater increases in pulse, lipase, and amylase were observed with liraglutide. Hypoglycemic episodes were rare and similar between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: At the dose levels studied, liraglutide was more effective than lixisenatide as add-on to metformin in improving glycemic control. Body weight reductions were similar. Both treatments were well tolerated, with low risk of hypoglycemia and similar gastrointestinal adverse event profiles.

Combination therapy with liraglutide and insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 36-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To assess efficacy and safety of liraglutide in combination with insulin compared with insulin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 36-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, where patients on stable insulin therapy (basal/premixed/basal-bolus) were randomized 1:1 to additional liraglutide 0.9 mg/day (n = 127) or placebo (n = 130). The insulin dose was fixed for 16 weeks, and titrated based on self-measured plasma glucose thereafter. The primary end-point was change in glycosylated hemoglobin after 16 weeks. RESULTS: Superiority of liraglutide plus insulin versus insulin monotherapy was confirmed based on estimated mean difference in glycosylated hemoglobin after 16 weeks of -1.30% (-14 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval -1.47 to -1.13 [-16, -12]; P < 0.0001). Statistical significance was maintained to week 36. More patients on liraglutide achieved a glycosylated hemoglobin target of <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 16 (estimated odds ratio 50.57; 95% confidence interval 16.59 to 154.16; P < 0.0001). Improvements in seven-point self-measured plasma glucose and fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with liraglutide than the placebo at week 16. Insulin dose after 36 weeks was lower with liraglutide than the placebo (estimated treatment ratio: 0.82 [95% confidence interval 0.76-0.90; P < 0.0001]). Occurrence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (85.8 and 81.5%, respectively); most were mild in severity. There were no significant differences in the number of hypoglycemic episodes during the 36 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Adding liraglutide to insulin results in superior glycemic control compared with insulin alone in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally well tolerated.

Liraglutide is effective and well tolerated in combination with an oral antidiabetic drug in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, 52-week, open-label, parallel-group trial.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of liraglutide in combination with an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) compared with combination of two OADs were assessed in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group trial in which patients whose type 2 diabetes was inadequately controlled with a single OAD (glinide, metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitor or thiazolidinedione) were randomized 2:1 to either pretrial OAD in combination with liraglutide 0.9 mg/day (liraglutide group; n = 240) or pretrial OAD in combination with an additional OAD (additional OAD group; n = 120). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, 86.3% of patients in the liraglutide group and 85.0% of patients in the additional OAD group experienced AEs; these were similar in nature and severity. Adverse event rates were 361 and 331 per 100 patient-years of exposure, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycemia was rare (seven episodes in two patients on liraglutide, and two in two patients on additional OAD). There were no reported pancreatitis events, and no unexpected safety signals were identified. Mean reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin were significantly greater in the liraglutide group than the additional OAD group [estimated mean treatment difference -0.27% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.09; P = 0.0026)]; reductions in mean fasting plasma glucose levels were also greater with liraglutide [estimated mean difference -5.47 mg/dL (-0.30 mmol/L; 95% CI: -10.83, -0.10; P = 0.0458)]. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was well tolerated and effective as combination therapy with an OAD in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide Versus Placebo as Add-on to Glucose-Lowering Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment (LIRA-RENAL): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Renal impairment in type 2 diabetes limits available glucose-lowering treatment options. This trial was conducted to establish the efficacy and safety of liraglutide as an add-on to existing glucose-lowering medications in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind trial, 279 patients with HbA1c 7-10%, BMI 20-45 kg/m(2), and moderate renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2); MDRD) were randomized (1:1) to once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg (n = 140) or placebo (n = 139). RESULTS: The estimated treatment difference in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 was -0.66% (-7.25 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.90 to -0.43 [-9.82 to -4.69]), P < 0.0001). Fasting plasma glucose decreased more with liraglutide (-1.22 mmol/L [-22.0 mg/dL]) than with placebo (-0.57 mmol/L [-10.3 mg/dL], P = 0.036). There was a greater reduction in body weight with liraglutide (-2.41 kg) than with placebo (-1.09 kg, P = 0.0052). No changes in renal function were observed (eGFR relative ratio to baseline: -1% liraglutide, +1% placebo; estimated treatment ratio [ETR] 0.98, P = 0.36). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (liraglutide, 35.7%; placebo, 17.5%). No difference in hypoglycemic episodes was observed between treatment groups (event rate/100 patient-years of exposure: liraglutide, 30.47; placebo, 40.08; P = 0.54). The estimated ratio to baseline for lipase was 1.33 for liraglutide and 0.97 for placebo (ETR 1.37, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide did not affect renal function and demonstrated better glycemic control, with no increase in hypoglycemia risk but with higher withdrawals due to GI adverse events than placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment.