Relationship between body weight change and glycaemic control with tirzepatide treatment in people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc assessment of the SURPASS clinical trial programme.

AIM: To assess the relationship between HbA1c and body weight reductions with tirzepatide treatment (5, 10 or 15 mg). MATERIALS AND METHODS: HbA1c and body weight data at 40 weeks (SURPASS-1, -2 and -5) and 52 weeks (SURPASS-3 and -4) were analysed by trial. RESULTS: Across the SURPASS clinical trials, HbA1c reductions from baseline were observed in 96%-99%, 98%-99% and 94%-99% of participants treated with tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively. Moreover, 87%-94%, 88%-95% and 88%-97% of participants, respectively, experienced weight loss associated with HbA1c reductions. Statistically significant associations (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.1438 to 0.3130 across studies; P ≤ .038) between HbA1c and body weight changes were observed with tirzepatide in SURPASS-2, -3, -4 (all doses) and -5 (tirzepatide 5 mg only). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, consistent reductions in both HbA1c and body weight were observed in most participants treated with tirzepatide at doses of 5, 10 or 15 mg. A statistically significant but modest association between HbA1c and body weight change was observed in SURPASS-2, SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4, suggesting that both weight-independent and weight-dependent mechanisms are responsible for the tirzepatide-induced improvement in glycaemic control.

Time to Failure on Oral Glucose-Lowering Agents for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that glycemic control is associated with lower rates of microvascular and long-term cardiovascular complications. In the analyses reported here, we examined treatment failure on oral glucose-lowering agents (GLAs), defined as having sustained hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 7%. METHODS: This study utilized the IBM® MarketScan® Claims and Laboratory Data from 1 January 2012 through 30 June 2018. Adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were classified based upon the maximum number of classes of GLAs prescribed per day during the time period from 1 July 2012 through 31 December 2012. Patients were followed for 5.5 years in order to examine time to failure on oral GLAs, defined based upon receipt of ≥ 2 consecutive HbA1c results ≥ 7%. Multivariable analyses employing a Cox proportional hazards model were used to examine time to failure overall and based upon the number of index classes of oral GLAs prescribed. For patients who had sustained HbA1c above the threshold, multivariable analyses examined the duration of time that HbA1c remained above the threshold (i.e, glycemic burden) and whether or not an additional oral or injectable class of GLA was added to the patient treatment regimen (i.e., clinical inertia). RESULTS: A total of 4156 patients were included in the study, of whom 16% were identified with sustained HbA1c ≥ 7% after 365 days (1 year) and 36% after 730 days (2 years), with half of all patients having sustained HbA1c above target after 1102 days (3 years). There was a statistically significant difference in time to having sustained HbA1c above target based upon index classes of therapy, with patients treated with more GLAs being quicker to have HbA1c above target (P < 0.0001). Among those patients who were found to have sustained HbA1c ≥ 7%, the average number of days in the post-period that HbA1c remained above target was 1026 (2.8 years). Only 36% of patients with sustained HbA1c above target added a GLA to their treatment regimen and, for patients who did add such a therapy, the average duration from identification of HbA1c above target until treatment intensification was 401 days (1.1 years). Multivariable analyses revealed that, among those with sustained HbA1c ≥ 7%, treatment with more classes of oral GLAs was associated with a significantly higher glycemic burden and significantly lower odds of clinical inertia. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that for many patients treated with oral GLAs, glycemic control is not consistently achieved. For patients with above-target HbA1c , the results indicate a relatively large glycemic burden and clinical inertia towards treatment intensification. The findings illustrate some limitations associated with treatment of T2D with oral GLAs.

Evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people with diabetes: Lessons from the IMPERIUM trial.

Understanding the benefits and risks of treatments to be used by older individuals (≥65 years old) is critical for informed therapeutic decisions. Glucose-lowering therapy for older patients with diabetes should be tailored to suit their clinical condition, comorbidities and impaired functional status, including varying degrees of frailty. However, despite the rapidly growing population of older adults with diabetes, there are few dedicated clinical trials evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people. Conducting clinical trials in the older population poses multiple significant challenges. Despite the general agreement that individualizing treatment goals and avoiding hypoglycaemia is paramount for the therapy of older people with diabetes, there are conflicting perspectives on specific glycaemic targets that should be adopted and on use of specific drugs and treatment strategies. Assessment of functional status, frailty and comorbidities is not routinely performed in diabetes trials, contributing to insufficient characterization of older study participants. Moreover, significant operational barriers and problems make successful enrolment and completion of such studies difficult. In this review paper, we summarize the current guidelines and literature on conducting such trials, as well as the learnings from our own clinical trial (IMPERIUM) that assessed different glucose-lowering strategies in older people with type 2 diabetes. We discuss the importance of strategies to improve study design, enrolment and attrition. Apart from summarizing some practical advice to facilitate the successful conduct of studies, we highlight key gaps and needs that warrant further research.

Risk of clinically relevant hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes self-titrating insulin glargine U-100.

AIMS: We evaluated risk factors for clinically relevant hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <3 mmol/L) in patients with type 2 diabetes during insulin glargine self-titration. Data were from two clinical trials in which patients were able to improve glycaemic control by self-titration of insulin glargine using a simple algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed post hoc analyses of pooled treatment groups from each of two Phase 3 studies comparing LY2963016 with LANTUS: ELEMENT-2 (double-blind) and ELEMENT-5 (open label). Clinically relevant hypoglycaemia was analysed by category of HbA1c (<7%, 7%-8.5%, >8.5%) at Week 12 (titration period) and at Week 24 (overall study), and by subgroups of age (<65, ≥65 years) and previous insulin use (naïve or not). RESULTS: In the ELEMENT-2 study (N = 756), there were no overall differences in rate or incidence of hypoglycaemia among HbA1c categories. In the ELEMENT-5 study (N = 493), patients with HbA1c greater than 8.5% had a lower rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia throughout the study compared to those in the lower HbA1c categories. In both studies, patients 65 years of age or older, compared to those less than 65 years, had a higher rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia during the titration phase, had lower baseline HbA1c, and experienced smaller increases in dose, with no differences in HbA1c post baseline. The rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar between naïve patients and patients previously using basal insulin, across all levels of glycaemic control. With the exception of the older subgroup, hypoglycaemia rates were similar during titration and maintenance periods. CONCLUSION: Our results support broader use of self-titration algorithms for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Use of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in East Asians: A Review.

Insulin glargine (IGlar) 100 U/mL (IGlar-100) is widely used in East Asian countries for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is the gold standard of basal insulin treatment. In this review we summarize key information about clinical experience with IGlar-100 in East Asian patients with T2DM, including findings from clinical trials and postmarketing studies. We also provide recommendations and opinions on the optimal use of IGlar-100 in this population. The findings from the studies highlighted in our review indicate that IGlar-100 can be a suitable treatment option for East Asians with T2DM, from initial therapy in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications through to different combinations and intensification models. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Reduced Glucose Variability With Glucose-Dependent Versus Glucose-Independent Therapies Despite Similar Glucose Control and Hypoglycemia Rates in a Randomized, Controlled Study of Older Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not using injectable therapy. CGM is useful for investigating hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, which is associated with complications in T2DM. METHODS: A CGM substudy of Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER patIents in a randomized trial in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM)) was conducted. Patients were vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) older (≥65 years) individuals with suboptimally controlled T2DM. Strategy A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (n = 26) with a nonsulfonylurea oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (n = 21) with sulfonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. Primary endpoints were duration and percentage of time spent with blood glucose (BG) ≤70 mg/dL over 24 hours at week 24. RESULTS: Duration and percentage of time spent with hypoglycemia at ≤70 mg/dL were similar for Strategy A and Strategy B; glycemic control improved similarly in both arms (LSM change in HbA1c at week 24; A = -1.2%, B = -1.4%). Duration and percentage time spent with euglycemia and hyperglycemia were also similar in both arms. However, Strategy A was associated with lower within-day (21.1 ± 1.2 vs 25.1 ± 1.4, P = .046) and between-day (5.4 ± 1.0 vs 9.1 ± 1.3, P = .038) BG variability (coefficient of variance [LSM ± SE]) at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: This CGM substudy in older patients with T2DM showed lower within- and between-day BG variability with glucose-dependent therapies but similar HbA1c reductions and hypoglycemia duration with glucose-independent strategies.

Adherence to Basal Insulin Therapy Among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Costs and Patient Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: This research compares costs, resource utilization, and complications between adherent and nonadherent patients over the 3-year period post initiation on basal insulin therapy. METHODS: The study utilized the US-based Truven Health MarketScan® Research Databases from 2011 through 2015. Adults aged 18 years or older and identified with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated therapy on basal insulin in 2012 were included. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, filled their index basal insulin prescription via mail order, or were not continuously insured from 1 year before through 3 years following initiation of treatment with basal insulin. Instrumental variables were used to control for selection bias, and multivariable analyses were used to examine the associations between adherence to basal insulin therapy and costs, resource utilization, and acute complications. RESULTS: A total of 21,363 individuals were included in the study. Three years after initiating therapy on basal insulin, patients who were adherent over time to basal insulin treatment therapy (33.8% of patients) had significantly higher diabetes-related drug costs. However, patients' adherence was associated with significantly lower diabetes-related outpatient, acute care, and total costs. Results for all-cause costs were similar. Adherent patients also had significantly fewer all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits and were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with an acute complication. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study illustrate that despite higher drug costs, there are disease-specific and all-cause cost offsets and improved patient outcomes associated with adherence to basal insulin therapy for people with T2D. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Glycaemic outcomes of an Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER vulnerable patIents: A randomized, controlled stUdy in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM).

AIMS: To compare the glycaemic outcomes of 2 glucose-lowering treatment strategies in vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes whose individual HbA1c targets were not met with diet/exercise and/or oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications (OAMs). METHODS: The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of achieving/maintaining individualized HbA1c targets without "clinically significant" hypoglycaemia (severe hypoglycaemia or repeated hypoglycaemia causing interruption of patients' activities or blood glucose <54 mg/dL). Strategy-A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (n = 99) with a non-sulphonylurea OAM and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy-B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (n = 93) with sulphonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Strategy-A and Strategy-B in percentages of patients achieving the primary endpoint (64.5% vs 54.9%; P = .190). Mean incidences (A vs B) of total (10.2% vs 53.8%), documented symptomatic (5.1% vs 36.6%), and asymptomatic (8.2% vs 32.3%) hypoglycaemia were lower for Strategy-A (P < .001 each). Proportions of patients achieving/maintaining HbA1c target (A, 63.3% vs B, 55.9%) were similar. CONCLUSION: Similar proportions of older, vulnerable aged ≥65 years patients with type 2 diabetes achieved/maintained glycaemic treatment goals without clinically significant hypoglycaemia with Strategies A or B. However, Strategy-A resulted in lower risk of total, documented symptomatic, and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. These results identify an approach of potential clinical benefit in this age group and will inform future clinical research in older patients with type 2 diabetes.

Long-term changes in cardiovascular risk markers during administration of exenatide twice daily or glimepiride: results from the European exenatide study.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is significantly increased in patients with diabetes; thus, it is important to determine whether glucose-lowering therapy affects this risk over time. Changes in cardiovascular risk markers were examined in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide twice daily (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) or glimepiride (a sulfonylurea) added to metformin in the EURopean EXenAtide (EUREXA) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes failing metformin were randomized to add-on exenatide twice daily (n = 515) or glimepiride (n = 514) until treatment failure defined by hemoglobin A1C. Anthropomorphic measures, blood pressure (BP), heart rate, lipids, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) over time were evaluated. RESULTS: Over 36 months, twice-daily exenatide was associated with improved body weight (-3.9 kg), waist circumference (-3.6 cm), systolic/diastolic BP (-2.5/-2.6 mmHg), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (0.05 mmol/L), triglycerides (-0.2 mmol/L), and hsCRP (-1.7 mg/L). Heart rate did not increase (-0.3 beats/minute), and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (0.2 mmol/L) and total cholesterol (0.1 mmol/L) increased slightly. Between-group differences were significantly in favor of exenatide for body weight (P < 0.0001), waist circumference (P < 0.001), systolic BP (P < 0.001), diastolic BP (P = 0.023), HDL-cholesterol (P = 0.001), and hsCRP (P = 0.004). Fewer patients randomized to exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride required the addition of at least one antihypertensive (20.4 vs 26.4%; P = 0.026) or lipid-lowering medication (8.4 vs 12.8%; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Add-on exenatide twice daily was associated with significant, sustained improvement in several cardiovascular risk markers in patients with type 2 diabetes versus glimepiride. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00359762, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Initiation and gradual intensification of premixed insulin lispro therapy versus Basal {+/-} mealtime insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes eating light breakfasts.

OBJECTIVE: We compared two strategies initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and tested for noninferiority of premixed insulin to basal ± mealtime insulin analog in patients eating light breakfasts. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized, open-label, 48-week study compared two algorithms. Up to three injections of insulin lispro mix 25 and/or insulin lispro mix 50 (premix; premixed insulin lispro) or basal insulin glargine plus up to three injections of insulin lispro (basal+; glargine + insulin lispro) were used in type 2 diabetic patients uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycemic medication and consuming <15% daily calories at breakfast. The hypothesis was to test noninferiority of premix to basal+ for glycemic control measured by HbA1c after 48 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with a 0.4% margin. RESULTS: Patients (n = 344; 176 [51%] females; mean [SD] age 54.3 [8.8] years; BMI 29.4 [4.6] kg/m(2); baseline HbA1c 9.02 [0.97]%) were randomized to premix (n = 171) or basal+ (n = 173). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 230), least squares means (95% CI) end point HbA1c were 7.40% (7.15-7.65) and 7.55% (7.27-7.82) in respective arms. Between-treatment difference was -0.14% (-0.42 to 0.13), with noninferiority met. Significantly more patients in premix achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% compared with basal+ (48.2 vs. 36.2%; P = 0.024). Self-monitored blood glucose profiles, body weight changes, total insulin doses, and overall hypoglycemia (65 vs. 60%) were similar in premix and basal+ (P = 0.494), except nocturnal episodes (34.3 vs. 23.7%; P = 0.018) were more common in premix. CONCLUSIONS: Both intensive insulin strategies improved glycemic control; however, final HbA1c levels were seen above those achieved in previous treat-to-target trials, likely due to the inadequate insulin titrations and probably due to the complexity of tested insulin regimens. A higher percentage of patients achieved target HbA1c <7% with multiple premixed insulins, but this treatment resulted in more nocturnal hypoglycemia than a basal-bolus regimen.

Patient-reported outcomes among patients using exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice in six European countries: the CHOICE prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted. RESULTS: There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (≥ 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (≤ 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.

Using Exenatide Twice Daily or Insulin in Clinical Practice: Results from CHOICE.

INTRODUCTION: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy; NCT00635492) assessed, as its primary objective, the time to a 'significant treatment change' (defined within this paper) after patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated their first injectable, glucose-lowering therapy [exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin] in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Patients were invited to participate in CHOICE only after their treating physician had made the clinical decision to initiate first injectable therapy with either exenatide BID or insulin. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 2,515 patients were recruited; 1,114 patients in the exenatide BID cohort and 1,274 patients in the insulin cohort were eligible for the 24-month analysis. During the study, 42.2% and 36.0% of patients from each cohort, respectively, had a significant treatment change. By 24 months, improved mean glycated hemoglobin (p < 0.001 for both cohorts) and reduced severity of several cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts; additionally, mean weight was reduced in the exenatide BID cohort (p < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (p < 0.001). Hypoglycemia was reported by 18.4% of the exenatide BID cohort and 36.8% of the insulin cohort; 25.9% of the exenatide BID cohort and 10.0% of the insulin cohort had met the secondary endpoint of glycated hemoglobin <7.0%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: CHOICE provided data on exenatide BID and insulin usage patterns and 24-month outcomes in clinical practice. On average, improved glycemic control and reduced severity of cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts, and those in the exenatide BID cohort also had mean weight loss.

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

PURPOSE: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices. RESULTS: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

Treatment outcomes after initiation of exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice: 12-month results from CHOICE in six European countries.

OBJECTIVE: The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients' clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had ≥1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan-Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change -3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively. CONCLUSION: About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort.

Exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride for prevention of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type 2 diabetes with metformin failure (EUREXA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control deteriorates progressively over time in patients with type 2 diabetes. Options for treatment escalation remain controversial after failure of first-line treatment with metformin. We compared add-on exenatide with glimepiride for durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial at 128 centres in 14 countries between Sept 5, 2006, and March 29, 2011. Patients aged 18-85 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated by metformin were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive exenatide twice daily or glimepiride once daily as add-on to metformin. Randomisation was stratified by predetermined categories of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) concentration. The primary outcome was time to inadequate glycaemic control and need for alternative treatment, defined as an HbA(1c) concentration of more than 9% after the first 3 months of treatment, or more than 7% at two consecutive visits after the first 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-005448-21, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359762. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 515 patients to the exenatide group and 514 to the glimepiride group, of whom 490 versus 487 were the intention-to-treat population. 203 (41%) patients had treatment failure in the exenatide group compared with 262 (54%) in the glimepiride group (risk difference 12·4 [95% CI 6·2-18·6], hazard ratio 0·748 [0·623-0·899]; p=0·002). 218 (44%) of 490 patients in the exenatide group, and 150 (31%) of 487 in the glimepiride group achieved an HbA(1c) concentration of less than 7% (p<0·0001), and 140 (29%) versus 87 (18%) achieved concentrations of 6·5% and less (p=0·0001). We noted a significantly greater decrease in bodyweight in patients given exenatide than in those given glimepiride (p<0·0001). Five patients in each treatment group died from causes unrelated to treatment. Significantly fewer patients in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group reported documented symptomatic (p<0·0001), nocturnal (p=0·007), and non-nocturnal (p<0·0001) hypoglycaemia. Discontinuation because of adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) was significantly higher (p=0·0005) in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group in the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. INTERPRETATION: These findings provide evidence for the benefits of exenatide versus glimepiride for control of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type-2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company; Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Exenatide Twice Daily or Insulin in Clinical Practice: CHOICE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Changes to Treatment and Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Injectable Therapy (CHOICE) is a European prospective, observational cohort study assessing time to, and factors associated with, a significant change in therapy after type 2 diabetes patients initiate their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy, and these patients' clinical outcomes over 24 months. The authors report baseline data and factors associated with the injectable treatment regimen. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and healthcare resource-use data were collected at initiation of injectable therapy and analyzed using univariate tests between cohorts and multivariate logistic regression analysis for treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 1,177 patients initiated exenatide twice daily (b.i.d.) and 1,315 initiated insulin. Most patients were recruited by secondary-care physicians. Univariate analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the characteristics of patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. and patients who initiated insulin. On multivariate analysis, higher body mass index [BMI; 5 kg/m(2) higher: odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.84-2.40], lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c); 1% higher: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86), and lower age (5 years older: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88) were the variables most strongly associated with increased probability of receiving exenatide b.i.d. (P < 0.0001). Patients initiating exenatide b.i.d. had a mean BMI of 35.3 ± 6.5 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) of 8.4 ± 1.4%, and age of 58 ± 10 years, compared with 29.7 ± 5.4 kg/m(2), 9.2 ± 1.9%, and 64 ± 11 years, respectively, in patients initiating insulin (P < 0.0001). Other characteristics significantly associated with exenatide b.i.d. initiation were "disinhibited eating" (Diabetes Health Profile-18), lower random blood glucose, less blood glucose self-monitoring, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and receipt of diet/exercise advice. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. were on average younger and more obese with lower HbA(1c) than those initiating insulin.

Long-term effects of adding exenatide to a regimen of metformin and/or sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetes: an uncontrolled, open-label trial in Hungary.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are needed to determine the durability of metabolic response and tolerability associated with long-term treatment. OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to provide long-term data on glycemic control, weight changes, and tolerability of exenatide 10 µg BID treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have failed to achieve glycemic targets with oral antihyperglycemic medication. METHODS: In this uncontrolled, open-label trial with treatment up to 156 weeks, patients received exenatide 10 µg BID while continuing treatment with metformin and/or a sulfonylurea (SFU). Intent-to-treat (ITT), 52-, 100-, and 132-week completer populations were defined. Metabolic changes were analyzed in the completer and ITT populations; adverse events (AEs) were summarized in the ITT population. Descriptive statistics were used for absolute and change-from-baseline data. Within-treatment comparisons were conducted using the paired t test. RESULTS: Of 155 patients in the ITT population (mean [SD]: age, 59 [9] years; 56% female; duration of diabetes, 9.1 [5.9] years; weight, 88.8 [16.5] kg; body mass index, 31.9 [4.7] kg/m(2); hemoglobin [Hb] A(1c), 8.7% [1.2%]), 133, 111, and 103 patients completed 52, 100, and 132 weeks of treatment, respectively. In the ITT population, the mean (SE) change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 132 was -1.0% (0.10%) (P < 0.0001). In patients completing 52, 100, and 132 weeks, HbA(1c) changes from baseline to end point were -1.3% (0.10%), -1.0% (0.12%), and -1.0 (0.13%) (P < 0.0001), with 40% of patients achieving HbA(1c) <7% at 132 weeks. Patients in the ITT and completer populations experienced mean (SE) weight changes of -3.7 (0.39) kg and -3.9 (0.51) kg (P < 0.0001) at week 132. Improved glycemic control and weight loss occurred in 63% of patients in the completer population at week 132. In addition, 38% of completers at week 132 achieved HbA(1c) <7% without weight gain. No relationship was found between the development of antiexenatide antibodies and change in HbA(1c). The most common AEs were gastrointestinal in nature, reported in 46% of patients and leading to discontinuation in 7 cases. Serious AEs were reported in 26% of patients, and 18% withdrew due to a treatment-emergent AE. Of 24% of patients in whom hypoglycemia was reported, 22% were on SFU or metformin + SFU combination, and 2% were on metformin. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this open-label, single-arm study characterized the response to exenatide 10 µg BID for up to 132 weeks. Significant, persistent improvements in HbA(1c) and weight were observed in patients receiving exenatide BID, with reported AEs consistent with those from studies of shorter duration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00044668.

Efficacy and safety of prandial premixed therapy using insulin lispro mix 50/50 3 times daily compared with progressive titration of insulin lispro mix 75/25 or biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, 16-week, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Prandial premixed therapy 3 times daily has been proposed recently for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who fail to achieve glycemic control with commonly used premixed insulin analogs, insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp70/30) BID. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy and safety of 3-times daily insulin lispro mix 50/50 (TID group) with progressive titration of twice-daily LM75/25 or BIAsp70/30 (BID group) administered along with metformin in T2DM patients. METHODS: This was an open-label, 16-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel trial. End point glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was the primary efficacy measure; HbA(1c) reduction from baseline to end point, percentage of patients reaching target HbA(1c) (<7.0% and ≤6.5%), postprandial blood glucose (BG), and BG excursions after lunch were secondary measures. Safety was evaluated by collecting adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients with mean (SD) age 57.7 (9.27) years, diabetes duration 11.2 (6.47) years, HbA(1c) 8.5% (1.23), fasting BG 184.0 (53.04) mg/dL, body weight 86.8 (14.79) kg, body mass index 31.7 (4.23) kg/m(2), and daily insulin dose ∼48 IU were randomized. No significant difference was observed in end point HbA(1c) between the 2 groups. Seven-point BG profiles showed lower fasting and postbreakfast BG in the BID group but lower postlunch BG in the TID group. Daily insulin dose change was similar in both groups, with more weight gain in the TID group (P = 0.0009). Overall hypoglycemic rates were similar in both groups, but nocturnal hypoglycemia was more frequent in the BID group (P = 0.0063). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM who have not achieved adequate glycemic control with LM75/25 and BiAsp70/30 BID plus metformin and who are not candidates for basal bolus therapy, switching either to treatment with LM50/50 TID or to progressive titration of premix insulin analogs BID did not produce sufficient evidence of a difference of overall glycemic control between the 2 treatment groups. Short study duration and less intensive dose adjustments might have contributed to these results.