Efficacy and safety of once weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management in a predominantly east Asian population with overweight or obesity (STEP 7): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on the benefits of the once weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management in people from east Asia are insufficient. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of once weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo for weight management in a predominantly east Asian adult population. METHODS: This randomised phase 3a, double-blind multicentre controlled trial (STEP 7) recruited participants from 23 hospitals and trial centres in China, Hong Kong, Brazil, and South Korea. Adults with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a subcutaneous injection of either semaglutide 2·4 mg or placebo once a week for 44 weeks, plus a diet and physical activity intervention. Randomisation was done in blocks of six with an interactive web response system and was stratified by diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Participants, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment allocation until after database lock. Primary endpoints were percentage change in mean bodyweight and proportion of participants having reached a weight reduction of at least 5% of bodyweight from baseline to week 44. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04251156, and is now complete. FINDINGS: From Dec 8, 2020, to Aug 23, 2022, 448 participants were screened, of whom 375 were randomly assigned to either the semaglutide 2·4 mg group (n=249) or the placebo group (n=126). Estimated mean percentage change in bodyweight from baseline to week 44 was -12·1% (SE 0·5) with semaglutide 2·4 mg versus -3·6% (0·7) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -8·5 percentage points [95% CI -10·2 to -6·8]; p<0·0001). At week 44, the proportion of participants who lost 5% or more of their bodyweight was higher in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group than in the placebo group (203/238 [85%] vs 36/116 [31%]); odds ratio 13·1 (95% CI 7·4-23·1; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by 231 (93%) of 249 participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group and 108 (86%) of 126 participants in the placebo group, the most common of which were gastrointestinal disorders (168/249, 67% vs 45/126, 36%). INTERPRETATION: The results of this study support the use of semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management in people of east Asian ethnicity with overweight or obesity and with or without type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. TRANSLATIONS: For the Mandarin, Portuguese and South Korean translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

BrazIliaN Type 1 & 2 DiabetEs Disease Registry (BINDER): longitudinal, real-world study of diabetes mellitus control in Brazil.

Introduction: This study aimed at assessing the patterns of care and glycemic control of patients with diabetes (DM) in real life during a follow-up of 2 years in the public and private health sectors in Brazil. Methods: BINDER was an observational study of patients >18 years old, with type-1 (T1DM) and type-2 DM (T2DM), followed at 250 sites from 40 cities across the five regions of Brazil. The results for the 1,266 participants who were followed for 2 years are presented. Main results: Most patients were Caucasians (75%), male (56.7%) and from the private health sector (71%). Of the 1,266 patients who entered the analysis, 104 (8.2%) had T1DM and 1162 (91.8%) had T2DM. Patients followed in the private sector represented 48% of the patients with T1DM and 73% of those with T2DM. For T1DM, in addition to insulins (NPH in 24%, regular in 11%, long-acting analogues in 58%, fast-acting analogues in 53%, and others in 12%), the patients received biguanide (20%), SGLT2-I (4%), and GLP-1Ra (<1%). After 2 years, 13% of T1DM patients were using biguanide, 9% SGLT2-I, 1% GLP-1Ra, and 1% pioglitazone; the use of NPH and regular insulins decreased to 13% and 8%, respectively, while 72% were receiving long-acting insulin analogues, and 78% fast-acting insulin analogues. Treatment for T2DM consisted of biguanide (77%), sulfonylureas (33%), DPP4 inhibitors (24%), SGLT2-I (13%), GLP-1Ra (2.5%), and insulin (27%), with percentages not changing during follow-up. Regarding glucose control, mean HbA1c at baseline and after 2 years of follow-up was 8.2 (1.6)% and 7.5 (1.6)% for T1DM, and 8.4 (1.9)% and 7.2 (1.3)% for T2DM, respectively. After 2 years, HbA1c<7% was reached in 25% of T1DM and 55% of T2DM patients from private institutions and in 20.5% of T1DM and 47% of T2DM from public institutions. Conclusion: Most patients did not reach the HbA1c target in private or public health systems. At the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant improvements in HbA1c in either T1DM or T2DM, which suggests an important clinical inertia.

Advances in GLP-1 treatment: focus on oral semaglutide.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a large arsenal of antidiabetic drugs available to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, this is a serious chronic disease that affects millions of adults worldwide and is responsible for severe complications, comorbidities, and low quality of life when uncontrolled due mainly to delays in initiating treatment or inadequate therapy. This review article aims to clarify the therapeutic role of the oral formulation of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide in treating typical T2D patients. The discussion focused on metabolic, glycemic, and weight alteration effects and the safety of the therapy with this drug. MAIN TEXT: Therapy with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) promotes strategic changes in the pathophysiological pathway of T2D and improves the secretion of glucagon and insulin, which results in a reduction in blood glucose levels and the promotion of weight loss. Until recently, the only route for semaglutide administration was parenteral. However, an oral formulation of GLP-1 RA was recently developed and approved by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on the Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) program results. A sequence of 10 clinical studies compared oral semaglutide with placebo or active standard-of-care medications (empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or liraglutide 1.8 mg) in different T2D populations. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide effectively reduces glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and body weight in a broad spectrum of patients with T2D and shows cardiovascular safety. Oral semaglutide broadens therapy options and facilitates the adoption of earlier GLP-1 RA treatment once T2D patients present low rates of treatment discontinuation. The main adverse events reported were related to the gastrointestinal tract, common to GLP-1 RA class drugs.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in SUSTAIN China: A 30-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomized trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a multiregional clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the 30-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator SUSTAIN China trial, 868 adults with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin (HbA1c 7.0%-10.5%) were randomized to receive once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg (n = 288), semaglutide 1.0 mg (n = 290) or once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 290). The primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 30 in HbA1c and body weight, respectively. RESULTS: The trial enrolled ~70% (605/868) of the patients in China, and the remaining patients from four other countries, including the Republic of Korea. Both doses of semaglutide were superior to sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c and body weight after 30 weeks of treatment. The odds of achieving target HbA1c of less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), weight loss of 5% or higher, or 10% or higher, and the composite endpoint of HbA1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia no weight gain, were all significantly higher with both semaglutide doses compared with sitagliptin. The safety profile for semaglutide was consistent with the known class effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists (RAs). Consistent efficacy and safety findings were seen in the Chinese subpopulation. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to sitagliptin in improving glycaemic control and reducing body weight in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin. The safety and tolerability profiles were consistent with those of semaglutide and other GLP-1 RAs. Semaglutide is an effective once-weekly treatment option for the Chinese population.

Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Establishing cardiovascular safety of new therapies for type 2 diabetes is important. Safety data are available for the subcutaneous form of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide but are needed for oral semaglutide. METHODS: We assessed cardiovascular outcomes of once-daily oral semaglutide in an event-driven, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients at high cardiovascular risk (age of ≥50 years with established cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, or age of ≥60 years with cardiovascular risk factors only). The primary outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). The trial was designed to rule out 80% excess cardiovascular risk as compared with placebo (noninferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary outcome). RESULTS: A total of 3183 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral semaglutide or placebo. The mean age of the patients was 66 years; 2695 patients (84.7%) were 50 years of age or older and had cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. The median time in the trial was 15.9 months. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 61 of 1591 patients (3.8%) in the oral semaglutide group and 76 of 1592 (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Results for components of the primary outcome were as follows: death from cardiovascular causes, 15 of 1591 patients (0.9%) in the oral semaglutide group and 30 of 1592 (1.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.92); nonfatal myocardial infarction, 37 of 1591 patients (2.3%) and 31 of 1592 (1.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.90); and nonfatal stroke, 12 of 1591 patients (0.8%) and 16 of 1592 (1.0%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.57). Death from any cause occurred in 23 of 1591 patients (1.4%) in the oral semaglutide group and 45 of 1592 (2.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.84). Gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation of oral semaglutide or placebo were more common with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular risk profile of oral semaglutide was not inferior to that of placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; PIONEER 6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02692716.).

Randomised study of evolocumab in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia on background statin: Primary results of the BERSON clinical trial.

AIM: To evaluate the lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of evolocumab combined with background atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hyperlipidaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BERSON was a double-blind, 12-week, phase 3 study (NCT02662569) conducted in 10 countries. Patients ≥18 to ≤80 years with type T2DM received atorvastatin 20 mg/d and were randomised 2:2:1:1 to evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or 420 mg monthly (QM) or placebo Q2W or QM. Co-primary endpoints were the percentage change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline to week 12 and from baseline to the mean of weeks 10 and 12. Additional endpoints included atherogenic lipids, glycaemic measures, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, 981 patients were randomised and received ≥1 dose of study drug. Evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C versus placebo at week 12 (Q2W, -71.8%; QM, -74.9%) and at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (Q2W, -70.3%; QM, -70.0%; adjusted P < 0.0001 for all) when administered with atorvastatin. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B100, total cholesterol, lipoprotein (a), triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol improved significantly with evolocumab versus placebo. The overall incidence of AEs was similar between evolocumab and placebo-treated patients, and there were no clinically meaningful differences in changes over time in glycaemic variables (fasting serum glucose and HbA1c) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and hyperlipidaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia on statin, evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and other atherogenic lipids, was well tolerated, and had no notable impact on glycaemic measures.

Randomized study of evolocumab in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia on background statin: Pre-specified analysis of the Chinese population from the BERSON clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of evolocumab with background atorvastatin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hyperlipidaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a pre-specified analysis of patients in the BERSON study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02662569) in China. Patients initiated background atorvastatin 20 mg/d, after which they were randomized 2:2:1:1 to evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or 420 mg monthly (QM) or to placebo Q2W or QM. Co-primary endpoints were percentage change in LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline to week 12 and from baseline to the mean of weeks 10 and 12. Additional endpoints included atherogenic lipids, glycaemic measures and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Among 453 patients randomized in China, 451 received at least one dose of study drug (evolocumab or placebo). Evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C compared with placebo at week 12 (Q2W, -85.0%; QM, -74.8%) and at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (Q2W, -80.4%; QM, -81.0%) (adjusted P < 0.0001 for all) when administered with background atorvastatin. Non-HDL-C, ApoB100, total cholesterol, Lp(a), triglycerides, HDL-C and VLDL-C significantly improved with evolocumab vs placebo. No new safety findings were observed with evolocumab. The incidence of diabetes AEs was higher with evolocumab compared with placebo. There were no differences over time between evolocumab and placebo in measures of glycaemic control. CONCLUSIONS: In patients in China with T2DM and hyperlipidaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia receiving background atorvastatin, evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and other atherogenic lipids, was well tolerated, and had no notable impact on glycaemic measures.

Rationale and design of a randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of evolocumab in patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia: The BERSON clinical trial.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and diabetic dyslipidemia is a major contributor to cardiovascular risk in these patients. Here we report the rationale and design of a phase 3, double-blind study specifically designed to evaluate the lipid-lowering efficacy of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab in patients with T2DM and hyperlipidemia or mixed dyslipidemia who are on background statin therapy. In the BERSON (evolocumaB Efficacy for LDL-C Reduction in subjectS with T2DM On background statiN) trial, patients with T2DM, a screening low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of ≥ 2.6 mmol/L (≥100 mg/dL) or ≥ 3.4 mmol/L (≥130 mg/dL), and with or without statin treatment at screening, respectively, were enrolled and started on atorvastatin 20 mg/day for a lipid stabilization period of at least 4 weeks. Then, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive atorvastatin 20 mg once daily plus either evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W), evolocumab 420 mg every month (QM), placebo Q2W, or placebo QM. The co-primary outcome measures were the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C at week 12 and the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C at the mean of weeks 10 and 12. The BERSON trial has completed enrollment. The study completed in the first half of 2018, and will provide information on the efficacy and safety of evolocumab in patients with T2DM and dyslipidemia.

Barriers to insulin initiation in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Brazil.

AIMS: We aimed to explore insulin initiation barriers in the Brazilian Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) elderly population, according to the physician's perspective, and suggest strategies to overcome them. METHODS: A 45-questions survey addressing issues as clinical characteristics, barriers to insulinization, and treatment strategies in elderly patients with T2DM, was sent to six endocrinologists from different Brazilian locations. Thereafter, all the respondents participated in a panel discussion to validate their responses and collect additional relevant data. RESULTS: Endocrinologists had at least 15 years of experience, with a mean of 63 elderly patients per month. Nearly 25% of the elderly patients were treated in the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS, Unified Health System); only a quarter presented proper glycemic control. In contrast, 55% of the patients from private healthcare system presented adequate glycemic control. The main barriers for insulin initiation for patients, according to physicians' perspective, are side effects and negative perception over treatment (100%). For endocrinologists, main barriers were lack of time to guide patients and concern over side effects (83%). Therefore, specialists considered education for both healthcare professionals and patients as one of the most important strategies to circumvent the current scenario related insulin therapy among elderly patients in the country. CONCLUSION: Insulin therapy remains underused due to several barriers, such as concern over side effects and negative perception. Educational measures for patients and HCPs could improve the current scenario.

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidance specifies the need to establish cardiovascular safety of new diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in order to rule out excess cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular effects of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue with an extended half-life of approximately 1 week, in type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3297 patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a standard-care regimen to receive once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 104 weeks. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We hypothesized that semaglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome. The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. RESULTS: At baseline, 2735 of the patients (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. The primary outcome occurred in 108 of 1648 patients (6.6%) in the semaglutide group and in 146 of 1649 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 2.9% of the patients receiving semaglutide and in 3.9% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P=0.12); nonfatal stroke occurred in 1.6% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.99; P=0.04). Rates of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. Rates of new or worsening nephropathy were lower in the semaglutide group, but rates of retinopathy complications (vitreous hemorrhage, blindness, or conditions requiring treatment with an intravitreal agent or photocoagulation) were significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02). Fewer serious adverse events occurred in the semaglutide group, although more patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was significantly lower among patients receiving semaglutide than among those receiving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semaglutide. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SUSTAIN-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720446 .).

Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from Latin America. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Analyses were performed in subgroups of patients from Latin America based on data from three individual, 26-week, placebo-controlled studies of canagliflozin (monotherapy [n = 116/584], add-on to metformin [n = 199/918], and add-on to metformin plus sulfonylurea [n = 76/469]) and three individual, 52-week, active-controlled studies of canagliflozin (add-on to metformin versus sitagliptin [n = 240/1101], add-on to metformin versus glimepiride [n = 155/1450], and add-on to metformin plus sulfonylurea versus sitagliptin [n = 156/755]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight, and systolic blood pressure (BP) with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg versus placebo or active comparator (i.e., sitagliptin or glimepiride) were evaluated in the overall study populations and Latin American subgroups. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) reports. RESULTS: Canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg provided reductions in HbA1c, body weight, and systolic BP across studies in patients from Latin America that were generally similar to those seen in the overall populations of patients with T2DM. The AE profile in patients from Latin America was equivalent to that in the overall populations; higher rates of genital mycotic infections and osmotic diuresis-related AEs were seen with canagliflozin versus comparators. Limitations of this study include the post hoc analysis of data and the small sample size of patients from Latin America. CONCLUSION: Canagliflozin improved glycemic control, reduced body weight and systolic BP, and was generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM from Latin America. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01081834; NCT01106677; NCT01106625; NCT00968812; NCT01137812.

Starting glargine in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients based on body mass index is safe.

AIM: To evaluate the safety of four insulin titration algorithms in a homogeneous population of insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: We conducted a 24-wk, open, single-center study with 92 insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients who failed treatment with one or two oral drugs. The patients were randomized to one of the four following algorithms: LANMET (n = 26) and LANMET PLUS (n = 22) algorithms, whose patients received a fixed initial insulin dose of 10 U, and DeGold (n = 23) and DeGold PLUS (n = 21) algorithms, whose patients' initial insulin dose was based on their body mass index (BMI). In addition, patients in the PLUS groups had their insulin titrated twice a week from 2 to 8 U. In the other two groups, the titration was also performed also twice a week, but in a fixed increments of 2 U. The target fasting glucose levels for both groups was 100 mg/dL. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in efficacy parameters. There was no significant difference when comparing moderate hypoglycemia events in algorithms starting with a 10 U fixed dose and algorithms based on BMI. However, there was a significant increase in moderate hypoglycemia events among the PLUS treated patients when the LANMET and DeGold algorithms were compared with the 2 fast-titration PLUS algorithms. We observed 12 hypoglycemia events in the first group, which corresponded to 0.94 events/patient per year, and we observed 42 events in the second group, which corresponded to 2.81 events/patient per year (P < 0.037). No further significant differences were observed when other comparisons between the algorithms were carried out. CONCLUSION: Starting insulin glargine based on BMI is safe, but fast titration algorithms increase the risk of moderate hypoglycemia.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário da saxagliptina como terapia adicional à metformina para o tratamento do diabetes mellitus tipo 2 no sistema de saúde suplementar do Brasil / Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the brazilian private health system

OBJETIVOS: Comparar custos e benefícios clínicos de três terapias adicionais à metformina (MF) para pacientes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DMT2). MÉTODOS: Um modelo de simulação de eventos discretos foi construído para estimar a relação custo-utilidade (custo por QALY) da saxagliptina como uma terapia adicional à MF comparada à rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona. Um modelo de impacto orçamentário (BIM - Budget Impact Model) foi construído para simular o impacto econômico da adoção de saxagliptina no contexto do Sistema Suplementar de Saúde brasileiro. RESULTADOS: O custo de aquisição da medicação para o grupo de pacientes hipotéticos analisados, para o horizonte temporal de três anos, foi de R$ 10.850.185,00, R$ 14.836.265,00 e R$ 14.679.099,00 para saxagliptina, pioglitazona e rosiglitazona, respectivamente. Saxagliptina exibiu menores custos e maior efetividade em ambas as comparações, com economias projetadas para os três primeiros anos de -R$ 3.874,00 e -R$ 3.996,00, respectivamente. O BIM estimou uma economia cumulativa de R$ 417.958,00 com o reembolso da saxagliptina em três anos a partir da perspectiva de uma operadora de plano de saúde com 1 milhão de vidas cobertas. CONCLUSÃO: Da perspectiva da fonte pagadora privada, a projeção é de que o acréscimo de saxagliptina à MF poupe custos quando comparado ao acréscimo de rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona em pacientes com DMT2 que não atingiram a meta de hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c) com metformina em monoterapia. O BIM, para a inclusão de saxagliptina nas listas de reembolso das operadoras de planos de saúde, indicou uma economia significativa para o horizonte de 3 anos.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Islet versus pancreas transplantation in Brazil: Defining criteria for pancreas allocation decision.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have evaluated whether there are characteristics related to pancreas donors and the islet isolation process that can influence pancreatic islet yield. However, this analysis has not yet been performed in Brazil, one of the world leaders in whole pancreas organ transplantation (WOPT), where pancreas allocation for pancreatic islet transplantation (PIT) has no officially defined criteria. Definition of parameters that would predict the outcome of islet isolation from local pancreas donors would be useful for defining allocation priority in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between multiple donor-related and islet isolation variables with the total number of isolated pancreatic islet equivalents (IEQ) in a brazilian sample of pancreas donors. METHODS: Several variables were analyzed in 74 pancreata relative to the outcome of total IEQs obtained at the end of the process. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.003), the presence of fatty infiltrates in the pancreas as observed during harvesting (p = 0.042) and pancreas digestion time (p = 0.046) were identified as variables related to a greater IEQ yield. In a multivariate analysis a statistically significant contribution to the variability of islet yield was found only for the BMI (p = 0.017). A ROC curve defined a BMI = 30 as a cut-off point, with pancreata from donors with BMI > 30 yielding more islets than donors with BMI < 30 (p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: These data reinforce the importance of the donor BMI as a defining parameter for successful islet isolation and establishes this variable as a potential pancreas allocation criterion in Brazil, where there is unequal competition for good quality organs between WOPT and PIT.

Comparison of prandial AIR inhaled insulin alone to intensified insulin glargine alone and to AIR insulin plus intensified insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with once-daily insulin glargine.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes often initiate insulin with once-daily basal insulin. Over time, many patients intensify their insulin regimens in an attempt to attain and sustain glycemic targets. This study compares three intensification approaches: changing insulin glargine to preprandial AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.), intensifying glargine via validated titration algorithms (IG), or adding AIR insulin while intensifying glargine (AIR + IG). METHODS: Five hundred sixty patients with hemoglobin A(1c) (A1C) of 7.5-10.5%, on one or more antihyperglycemic medications, and on once-daily insulin glargine for > or =4 months were randomly allocated to one of the three treatments lasting 52 weeks. The primary objective assessed between-group differences in A1C mean change from baseline to 24 weeks using last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, A1C was reduced from a mean baseline of 8.5% to 7.7%, 7.9%, and 7.5% for the AIR, IG, and AIR + IG groups, respectively. AIR produced 0.20% greater A1C decrease than IG (least-squares mean difference = -0.20%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.39, -0.02). AIR + IG had a 0.35% greater A1C decrease versus IG (95% CI, -0.57, -0.13). The -0.15% difference between AIR + IG versus AIR was not significant (P < 0.198). More hypoglycemia categorized as severe occurred with AIR alone versus IG alone at LOCF end points. More nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred with IG alone versus AIR alone and AIR + IG. CONCLUSIONS: Preprandial inhaled insulin provides an alternative for patients not optimized on insulin glargine alone. Glycemic control, hypoglycemic risk, delivery preference, and regimen complexity must be considered when selecting insulin initiation and optimization regimens.

Two-year pulmonary safety and efficacy of inhaled human insulin (Exubera) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 2-year pulmonary safety of inhaled human insulin (Exubera [EXU]) in 635 nonsmoking adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive prandial EXU or subcutaneous insulin (regular or short-acting) plus basal (intermediate- or long-acting) insulin. The primary end points were the annual rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) and carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DL(CO)). RESULTS: Small differences in FEV(1) favoring subcutaneous insulin developed during the first 3 months but did not progress. Adjusted treatment group differences in FEV(1) annual rate of change were -0.007 l/year (90% CI -0.021 to 0.006) between months 0 and 24 and 0.000 l/year (-0.016 to 0.016) during months 3-24. Treatment group differences in DL(CO) annual rate of change were not significant. Both groups sustained similar reductions in A1C by month 24 (last observation carried forward) (EXU 7.7-7.3% vs. subcutaneous insulin 7.8-7.3%). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were greater with EXU than with subcutaneous insulin (adjusted mean treatment difference -12.4 mg/dl [90% CI -19.7 to -5.0]). Incidence of hypoglycemia was comparable in both groups. Weight increased less with EXU than with subcutaneous insulin (-1.3 kg [-1.9 to -0.7]). Adverse events were comparable, except for a higher incidence of mild cough and dyspnea with EXU. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year prandial EXU therapy showed a small nonprogressive difference in FEV(1) and comparable sustained A1C improvement but lower FPG levels and less weight gain than seen in association with subcutaneous insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy of insulin glargine and glimepiride in controlling blood glucose of ethnic Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glimepiride plus insulin glargine in ethnic Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This 24-week, open-label, single-arm study was conducted in eight centers in Brazil. One hundred ethnic Japanese T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control [HbA(1c): 8.0-11.0% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG)>or=140 mg/dL] on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) were enrolled. Patients were treated once daily with glimepiride 3mg (morning) and glargine (bedtime) with dose titration to achieve FPG 72-100mg/dL. RESULTS: At Week 24, the mean dose of glargine was 37.6 IU/day. There were significant decreases (p<0.0001) compared with baseline, for mean HbA(1c) (1.5%), mean FPG (88.3mg/dL) (p<0.0001), mean PPG (112.0mg/dL), and mean fasting C-peptide (1.14 ng/mL). Peptide index (peak-basal/basal) in carbohydrate challenge test increased by 2.24 units. No severe adverse events, including severe hypoglycemia were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that combined therapy of insulin glargine and glimepiride should be considered for T2DM patients who have unsatisfactory response to previous OAD treatment.

Beneficial effects of prolactin and laminin on human pancreatic islet-cell cultures.

The problem of pancreas donor shortage could be addressed through in vitro islet-cell proliferation prior to transplantation into diabetic patients. Therefore, we set out to evaluate the effects of prolactin (rhPRL) and laminin on primary cultures of human pancreatic islets. Our results showed that rhPRL induced an increase in islet-cell number and in cumulative insulin secretion (p<0.01). However, glucose-induced insulin secretion was enhanced only in the presence of both laminin and rhPRL. In addition, we describe, for the first time in human islets, the PRL-induced activation of JAK2, and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) 1, 3 and 5. Our results demonstrate a significant beneficial effect of rhPRL and laminin on human islets and support widely held notion that the closer physiological stimuli and environment of beta cells are mimicked, the better are the results in cell proliferation and secretory function, both essential for successful islet transplantation.

Therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin both in combination with glimepiride.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients often fail to achieve adequate glycemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Insulin has been shown to improve glycemic control in these patients but with increased risk of hypoglycemia. This study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine and NPH insulin, both in combination with a once-daily fixed dose of glimepiride, in terms of glycemic control and incidence of hypoglycemia. METHODS: In this open-label, 24-week randomized trial in ten Latin American countries, T2DM patients poorly controlled on OADs (HbA1c > or = 7.5 and < or = 10.5%) received glimepiride plus insulin glargine (n = 231) or NPH insulin (n = 250) using a forced titration algorithm. The primary endpoint was the equivalence of 24-week mean changes in HbA1c. RESULTS: Insulin glargine and NPH insulin achieved similar HbA1c reductions (adjusted mean difference -0.047; 90% CI -0.232, 0.138; per-protocol analysis). Confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin (16.9 vs. 30.0%; p <0.01; safety analysis). Patients receiving insulin glargine were significantly more likely to achieve HbA1c levels < 7.0% without hypoglycemia (27 vs. 17%; p = 0.014; per-protocol analysis). There was a more pronounced treatment satisfaction improvement with insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin (p <0.02; full analysis). The proportion of patients who lost time from work or normal activities due to diabetes was lower with insulin glargine vs. NPH (1.8 vs. 3.3%; full analysis). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, inadequately controlled on OADs, once-daily insulin glargine plus glimepiride is effective in improving metabolic control with a reduced incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin.