Post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, prospective trial evaluating a CXCR1/2 inhibitor in new-onset type 1 diabetes: endo-metabolic features at baseline identify a subgroup of responders.

Aim: In a recent randomized, multicenter trial (NCT02814838) a short-term anti-inflammatory treatment with ladarixin (LDX; an inhibitor of the CXCR1/2 chemokine receptors) did not show benefit on preserving residual beta cell function in new-onset type 1 diabetes. We present a post hoc analysis of trial patients in the predefined subgroup analysis developed according to baseline daily insulin requirement (DIR) tertiles. Method: A double-blind, randomized (2:1), placebo-controlled study was conducted in 45 men and 31 women (aged 18-46 years) within 100 days of the first insulin administration. Patients received LDX (400 mg twice daily) for three cycles of 14 days on/14 days off, or placebo. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve for C-peptide [AUC (0-120 min)] in response to a 2-h mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) at week 13 ± 1. Seventy-five patients completed the week 13 MMTT and were divided into three groups according to the DIR tertiles: lower, ≤ 0.23U/kg/die (n = 25); middle, 0.24-0.40 U/kg/die (n = 24); upper, ≥ 0.41 U/kg/die (n = 26). Results: When considering the patients in the upper tertile (HIGH-DIR), C-peptide AUC (0-120 min) at 13 weeks was higher in the LDX group (n = 16) than in the placebo (n = 10) group [difference: 0.72 nmol/L (95% CI 0.9-1.34), p = 0.027]. This difference reduced over time (0.71 nmol/L at 26 weeks, p = 0.04; 0.42 nmol/L at 52 weeks, p = 0.29), while it has never been significant at any time in patients in the lower and/or middle tertile (LOW-DIR). We characterized at baseline the HIGH-DIR and found that endo-metabolic (HOMA-B, adiponectin, and glucagon-to-C-peptide ratio) and immunologic (chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2)/monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)) features distinguished this group from LOW-DIR. Conclusion: While LDX did not prevent the progressive loss of beta-cell function in the majority of treated subjects, the post hoc analysis suggests that it could work in subjects with HIGH-DIR at baseline. As we found differences in endo-metabolic and immunologic parameters within this subgroup, this generates the hypothesis that the interactions between host factors and drug action can contribute to its efficacy. Further research is needed to evaluate this hypothesis.

Ladarixin, an inhibitor of the interleukin-8 receptors CXCR1 and CXCR2, in new-onset type 1 diabetes: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the ability of ladarixin (LDX, 400 mg twice-daily for three cycles of 14 days on/14 days off), an inhibitor of the CXCR1/2 chemokine receptors, to maintain C-peptide production in adult patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized (2:1), placebo-controlled study was conducted in 45 males and 31 females (aged 18-46 years) within 100 days of the first insulin administration. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) for C-peptide in response to a 2-hour mixed meal tolerance test (AUC[0-120 min] ) at week 13 ± 1. Secondary endpoints included C-peptide AUC(15-120 min) , HbA1c, daily insulin requirement, severe hypoglycaemic events (SHE), the proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% without SHE and maintaining a residual beta cell function. Follow-up assessments were scheduled at weeks 13 ± 1, 26 ± 2 and 52 ± 2. RESULTS: In total, 26/26 (100%, placebo) and 49/50 (98%, LDX) patients completed week 13. The mean change from baseline to week 13 in C-peptide AUC(0-120 min) was -0.144 ± 0.449 nmol/L with placebo and 0.003 ± .322 nmol/L with LDX. The difference was not significant (0.149 nmol/L, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.33; P = .122). At week 26, the proportion of patients with HbA1c less than 7.0% without SHE was transiently higher in the LDX group (81% vs. 54%, P = .024). Otherwise, no significant secondary endpoint differences were noted. Transient metabolic benefit was seen at week 26 in favour of the LDX group in the prespecified subpopulation with fasting C-peptide less than the median value at screening. CONCLUSIONS: In newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, short-term LDX treatment had no appreciable effect on preserving residual beta cell function.

Efficacy and safety of cotadutide, a dual glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon receptor agonist, in a randomized phase 2a study of patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

AIM: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of cotadutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this phase 2a study (NCT03550378), patients with body mass index 25-45 kg/m2 , estimated glomerular filtration rate 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m2 and type 2 diabetes [glycated haemoglobin 6.5-10.5% (48-91 mmol/mol)] controlled with insulin and/or oral therapy combination, were randomized 1:1 to once-daily subcutaneous cotadutide (50-300 µg) or placebo for 32 days. The primary endpoint was plasma glucose concentration assessed using a mixed-meal tolerance test. RESULTS: Participants receiving cotadutide (n = 21) had significant reductions in the mixed-meal tolerance test area under the glucose concentration-time curve (-26.71% vs. +3.68%, p < .001), more time in target glucose range on continuous glucose monitoring (+14.79% vs. -21.23%, p = .001) and significant reductions in absolute bodyweight (-3.41 kg vs. -0.13 kg, p < .001) versus placebo (n = 20). In patients with baseline micro- or macroalbuminuria (n = 18), urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratios decreased by 51% at day 32 with cotadutide versus placebo (p = .0504). No statistically significant difference was observed in mean change in estimated glomerular filtration rate between treatments. Mild/moderate adverse events occurred in 71.4% of participants receiving cotadutide and 35.0% receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: We established the efficacy of cotadutide in this patient population, with significantly improved postprandial glucose control and reduced bodyweight versus placebo. Reductions in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratios suggest potential benefits of cotadutide on kidney function, supporting further evaluation in larger, longer-term clinical trials.

Improving HbA1c Control in Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Using Flash Glucose Monitoring: A Retrospective Observational Analysis in Two German Centres.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate change in laboratory-measured HbA1c in patients with either type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) on insulin therapy following initiation of the FreeStyle Libre™ flash glucose monitoring system. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study on adults with T1D or T2D on insulin, who were started on the FreeStyle Libre system as part of standard care. HbA1c was recorded at initiation and at 3-month intervals thereafter. RESULTS: The analysis included 131 patients with T1D and 176 patients with T2D on insulin. Mean HbA1c decreased significantly by 3 months following initiation of the FreeStyle Libre system, both in T1D (- 0.75%, p < 0.001) and in T2D (- 0.54%, p < 0.001). Reductions were maintained for 12 months. Change from 3 to 12 months was not significant either in T1D or T2D. Subgroup analysis showed significant reduction in patients with a baseline HbA1c > 7.5-10%, both in T1D (- 0.59%, p < 0.001) and in T2D on insulin (- 0.62%, p < 0.005) at 12 months. Reductions for subjects with HbA1c > 10% were - 4.66% in T1D and - 3.73% in T2D. No change was seen for subjects with a baseline HbA1c ≤ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Linear regression confirms that baseline HbA1c is strongly negatively correlated with subsequent change in HbA1c in T1D and in T2D. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T1D or T2D show a reduction in HbA1c by 3 months following initiation of the FreeStyle Libre system. The mean fall in HbA1c at 3 months is strongly negatively correlated with starting HbA1c. This reduction is maintained over 12 months. The significant benefit is seen in patients with a starting HbA1c > 7.5% (58 mmol/mol).

A Randomized Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Compared With Insulin Aspart, Both in Combination With Insulin Degludec With or Without Metformin, in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes (ONSET 9).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp), both with insulin degludec with or without metformin, in adults with type 2 diabetes not optimally controlled with a basal-bolus regimen. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, treat-to-target trial randomized participants to faster aspart (n = 546) or IAsp (n = 545). All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of ancillary treatment, was used for evaluation of effect. RESULTS: Noninferiority for the change from baseline in HbA1c 16 weeks after randomization (primary end point) was confirmed for faster aspart versus IAsp (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.04% [95% CI -0.11; 0.03]; -0.39 mmol/mol [-1.15; 0.37]; P < 0.001). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp for change from baseline in 1-h postprandial glucose (PPG) increment using a meal test (ETD -0.40 mmol/L [-0.66; -0.14]; -7.23 mg/dL [-11.92; -2.55]; P = 0.001 for superiority). Change from baseline in self-measured 1-h PPG increment for the mean over all meals favored faster aspart (ETD -0.25 mmol/L [-0.42; -0.09]); -4.58 mg/dL [-7.59; -1.57]; P = 0.003). The overall rate of treatment-emergent severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycemia was statistically significantly lower for faster aspart versus IAsp (estimated treatment ratio 0.81 [95% CI 0.68; 0.97]). CONCLUSIONS: In combination with insulin degludec, faster aspart provided effective overall glycemic control, superior PPG control, and a lower rate of severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycemia versus IAsp in adults with type 2 diabetes not optimally controlled with a basal-bolus regimen.

Efficacy and Safety of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart in People with Type 1 Diabetes Using Carbohydrate Counting: A Post Hoc Analysis of Two Randomised Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin dosing based on carbohydrate counting is the gold standard for improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). This post hoc analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) according to bolus dose adjustment method in people with T1D. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of two 26-week, treat-to-target, randomised trials investigating treatment with double-blind mealtime faster aspart, insulin aspart (IAsp), or open-label post-meal faster aspart (onset 1, n = 1143; onset 8, n = 1025). Participants with previous experience continued carbohydrate counting (onset 1, n = 669 [58.5%]; onset 8, n = 428 [41.8%]), while remaining participants used a bolus algorithm. RESULTS: In onset 1, HbA1c reduction was statistically significantly in favour of mealtime faster aspart versus IAsp with carbohydrate counting (estimated treatment difference [ETD 95% CI] - 0.19% [- 0.30; - 0.09]; - 2.08 mmol/mol [- 3.23; - 0.93]). In onset 8, there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c reduction with either dose adjustment method, although a trend towards improved HbA1c was observed for mealtime faster aspart with carbohydrate counting (ETD - 0.14% [- 0.28; 0.003]; - 1.53 mmol/mol [- 3.10; 0.04]). In both trials, bolus insulin doses and overall rates of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia were similar between treatments across dose adjustment methods. CONCLUSION: For people with T1D using carbohydrate counting, mealtime faster aspart may offer improved glycaemic control versus IAsp, with similar insulin dose and weight gain and no increased risk of hypoglycaemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01831765 (onset 1) and NCT02500706 (onset 8). FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the setting of insulin degludec-treated type 1 diabetes: Efficacy and safety from a randomized double-blind trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mealtime or post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp), both in combination with insulin degludec, in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This multicentre, treat-to-target trial (Clinical trial registry: NCT02500706, ClinicalTrials.gov) randomized participants to double-blind mealtime faster aspart (n = 342) or IAsp (n = 342) or open-label post-meal faster aspart (n = 341). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c 26 weeks post randomization. All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for evaluation of the effect. RESULTS: Non-inferiority for the change from baseline in HbA1c was confirmed for mealtime and post-meal faster aspart vs IAsp (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: 95%CI, -0.02% [-0.11; 0.07] and 0.10% [0.004; 0.19], respectively). Mealtime faster aspart was superior to IAsp for 1-hour PPG increment using a meal test (ETD, -0.90 mmol/L [-1.36; -0.45]; P < 0.001). Self-monitored 1-hour PPG increment favoured faster aspart at breakfast (ETD, -0.58 mmol/L [-0.99; -0.17]; P = 0.006) and across all meals (-0.48 mmol/L [-0.74; -0.21]; P < 0.001). Safety profiles and overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia were similar between treatments, but significantly less hypoglycaemia was seen 3 to 4 hours after meals with mealtime faster aspart. CONCLUSION: Mealtime and post-meal faster aspart in conjunction with insulin degludec provided effective glycaemic control compared with IAsp, with no increased safety risk. Mealtime faster aspart provided PPG control superior to that of IAsp.

A 26-Week Randomized Controlled Trial of Semaglutide Once Daily Versus Liraglutide and Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled on Diet and Exercise With or Without Metformin.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of once-daily semaglutide in comparison with once-daily liraglutide and placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 26-week, multicenter, double-blind trial involved patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with HbA1c 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol) and treated with diet and exercise with or without metformin. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily semaglutide, liraglutide, or placebo in one of four volume-matched doses (semaglutide 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 mg and liraglutide 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, or 1.8 mg, with both compared within each volume-matched dose group). Primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. RESULTS: In total, 705 randomized patients were exposed to trial products. At week 26, a dose-dependent change in HbA1c was observed with semaglutide from -1.1% (0.05 mg) to -1.9% (0.3 mg) and with liraglutide from -0.5% (0.3 mg) to -1.3% (1.8 mg) (all P < 0.001 in favor of volume-matched semaglutide dose). Change with pooled placebo was -0.02% (P < 0.0001 vs. semaglutide). Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders were the most common adverse events (AEs) with semaglutide and liraglutide, occurring in 32.8-54.0% and 21.9-41.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily semaglutide at doses up to 0.3 mg/day resulted in greater reductions in HbA1c compared with liraglutide or placebo but with a higher frequency of GI AEs.

Semaglutide Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 5): A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Context: Combination therapy with insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) is important for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D). This trial assesses the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a GLP-1RA, as an add-on to basal insulin. Objective: To demonstrate the superiority of semaglutide vs placebo on glycemic control as an add-on to basal insulin in patients with T2D. Design: Phase 3a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 30-week trial. Setting: This study included 90 sites in five countries. Patients: We studied 397 patients with uncontrolled T2D receiving stable therapy with basal insulin with or without metformin. Interventions: Subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 or 1.0 mg once weekly or volume-matched placebo. Main Outcome Measures: Primary endpoint was change in glycated Hb (HbA1c) from baseline to week 30. Confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight from baseline to week 30. Results: At week 30, mean HbA1c reductions [mean baseline value, 8.4% (67.9 mmol/mol)] with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg were 1.4% (15.8 mmol/mol) and 1.8% (20.2 mmol/mol) vs 0.1% (1.0 mmol/mol) with placebo [estimated treatment difference (ETD) vs placebo, -1.35 (14.8 mmol/mol); 95% CI, -1.61 to -1.10 and ETD, -1.75% (19.2 mmol/mol); 95% CI, -2.01 to -1.50; both P < 0.0001]. Severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemic episodes were reported in 11 patients (17 events) and 14 patients (25 events) with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs seven patients (13 events) with placebo (estimated rate ratio vs placebo, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.67 to 6.51 and estimated rate ratio vs placebo, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.84 to 6.96 for 0.5 and 1.0 mg; both P = nonsignificant). Mean body weight decreased with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs placebo from baseline to end of treatment: 3.7, 6.4, and 1.4 kg (ETD, -2.31; 95% CI, -3.33 to -1.29 and ETD, -5.06; 95% CI, -6.08 to -4.04 kg; both P < 0.0001). Premature treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was higher for semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs placebo (4.5%, 6.1%, and 0.8%), mainly due to gastrointestinal disorders. Conclusions: Semaglutide, added to basal insulin, significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight in patients with uncontrolled T2D vs placebo.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in comparison with insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (onset 1): A 52-week, randomized, treat-to-target, phase III trial.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) with conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: onset 1 was a randomized, multicentre, treat-to-target, phase III, 52-week (initial 26 weeks + additional 26 weeks) trial conducted at 165 sites across 9 countries. Adults with T1D were randomly allocated to double-blind mealtime faster aspart or IAsp, each with once- or twice-daily insulin detemir. The primary endpoint, change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline after the initial 26 weeks, has been reported previously. In the present paper, we report data from the full 52-week study period. RESULTS: Between August 2013 and June 2015, 381 participants were assigned to double-blind faster aspart and 380 participants to IAsp. After 52 weeks, estimated mean changes from baseline in HbA1c levels were -0.08% (faster aspart) and +0.01% (IAsp); estimated treatment difference significantly favoured faster aspart (-0.10% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.19;-0.00]; P = .0424). Changes from baseline in 1-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment (meal test; faster aspart -1.05 mmol/L; IAsp -0.14 mmol/L) also significantly favoured faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.40;-0.43]; -16.48 mg/dL [95% CI -25.17;-7.80]; P = .0002). There was no difference in overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes or treatment-emergent adverse events between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, overall glycaemic control had significantly improved with faster aspart vs IAsp, consistent with the 26-week study findings. Achieving an insulin profile closer to physiological insulin secretion with faster aspart translates into lower PPG and HbA1c levels compared with those achieved with IAsp in people with T1D.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily insulin glargine as add-on to metformin (with or without sulfonylureas) in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase 3a trial.

BACKGROUND: Several pharmacological treatment options are available for type 2 diabetes; however, many patients do not achieve optimum glycaemic control and therefore new therapies are necessary. We assessed the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in clinical development, compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled with metformin (with or without sulfonylureas). METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 4) at 196 sites in 14 countries. Eligible participants were insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, aged 18 years and older, who had insufficient glycaemic control with metformin either alone or in combination with a sulfonylurea. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to either subcutaneous once-weekly 0·5 mg or 1·0 mg semaglutide (doses reached after following a fixed dose-escalation regimen) or once-daily insulin glargine (starting dose 10 IU per day, then titrated weekly to a pre-breakfast self-measured plasma glucose target of 4·0-5·5 mmol/L [72-99 mg/dL]) for 30 weeks. In all treatment groups, previous background metformin and sulfonylurea treatment was continued throughout the trial. We did the randomisation using an interactive voice or web response system. The primary endpoint was change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30 and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT; all randomly assigned participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug) and used a margin of 0·3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA1c reduction. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02128932. FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1089 participants to treatment; the mITT population consisted of 362 participants assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 360 to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 360 to insulin glargine. 49 (14%) participants assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide discontinued treatment prematurely, compared with 55 (15%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 26 (7%) assigned to insulin glargine. Most discontinuations were due to adverse events-mostly gastrointestinal with semaglutide, and others such as skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (eg, rash, pruritus, and urticaria) with insulin glargine. From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8·17% (SD 0·89), at week 30, 0·5 and 1·0 mg semaglutide achieved reductions of 1·21% (95% CI 1·10-1·31) and 1·64% (1·54-1·74), respectively, versus 0·83% (0·73-0·93) with insulin glargine; estimated treatment difference versus insulin glargine -0·38% (95% CI -0·52 to -0·24) with 0·5 mg semaglutide and -0·81% (-0·96 to -0·67) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (both p<0·0001). Mean bodyweight at baseline was 93·45 kg (SD 21·79); at week 30, 0·5 and 1·0 mg semaglutide achieved weight losses of 3·47 kg (95% CI 3·00-3·93) and 5·17 kg (4·71-5·66), respectively, versus a weight gain of 1·15 kg (0·70-1·61) with insulin glargine; estimated treatment difference versus insulin glargine -4·62 kg (95% CI -5·27 to -3·96) with 0·5 mg semaglutide and -6·33 kg (-6·99 to -5·67) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (both p<0·0001). Severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia was reported by 16 (4%) participants with 0·5 mg semaglutide and 20 (6%) with 1·0 mg semaglutide versus 38 (11%) with insulin glargine (p=0·0021 and p=0·0202 for 0·5 mg and 1·0 mg semaglutide vs insulin glargine, respectively). Severe hypoglycaemia was reported by two (<1%) participants with 0·5 mg semaglutide, five (1%) with 1·0 mg semaglutide, and five (1%) with insulin glargine. Six deaths were reported: four (1%) in the 0·5 mg semaglutide group (three cardiovascular deaths, one pancreatic carcinoma, which was assessed as being possibly related to study medication) and two (<1%) in the insulin glargine group (both cardiovascular death). The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea with semaglutide, reported in 77 (21%) patients with 0·5 mg and in 80 (22%) with 1·0 mg, and nasopharyngitis reported in 44 (12%) patients with insulin glargine. INTERPRETATION: Compared with insulin glargine, semaglutide resulted in greater reductions in HbA1c and weight, with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of other GLP-1 receptor agonists. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Improves Glycemic Control in Basal-Bolus Treatment for Type 1 Diabetes: Results of a 26-Week Multicenter, Active-Controlled, Treat-to-Target, Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial (onset 1).

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, treat-to-target, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) versus conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks. After an 8-week run-in, subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to double-blind mealtime faster aspart (n = 381), IAsp (n = 380), or open-label postmeal faster aspart (n = 382)-each with insulin detemir. RESULTS: HbA1c was reduced in both treatment groups, and noninferiority to IAsp was confirmed for both mealtime and postmeal faster aspart (estimated treatment difference [ETD] faster aspart-IAsp, mealtime, -0.15% [95% CI -0.23; -0.07], and postmeal, 0.04% [-0.04; 0.12]); mealtime faster aspart statistically significantly reduced HbA1c versus IAsp (P = 0.0003). Postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increments were statistically significantly lower with mealtime faster aspart at 1 h (ETD -1.18 mmol/L [95% CI -1.65; -0.71], -21.21 mg/dL [-29.65; -12.77]; P < 0.0001) and 2 h (-0.67 mmol/L [-1.29; -0.04], -12.01 mg/dL [-23.33; -0.70]; P = 0.0375) after the meal test; superiority to IAsp for the 2-h PPG increment was confirmed. The overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]) hypoglycemic episodes and safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart effectively improved HbA1c, and noninferiority to IAsp was confirmed, with superior PPG control for mealtime faster aspart versus IAsp. Subjects randomized to postmeal faster aspart for all meals maintained HbA1c noninferior to that obtained with mealtime IAsp.

Real-World Data Collection Regarding Titration Algorithms for Insulin Glargine in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The primary objective of this study was to collect data regarding the effectiveness of different dose titration algorithms (TAs) for optimization or initiation of basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT) in patients with type 2 diabetes. A total of 50 patients were enrolled in this trial (17 women, 33 men, age 63 ± 8 years, HbA1c 7.9 ± 0.8%). The investigator decided on an individual basis to apply any of 4 standard TAs: standard (S: fasting glucose target 90-130 mg/dL, n = 39), standard-fast titration (S-FT: 90-130 mg/dL, larger dose increments at FBG < 180 mg/dl, n = 1), less tight (LT: 110-150 mg/dL, n = 5), and tight (T: 70-100 mg/dL, n = 5). During the next 30 days daily contacts were used to adapt the insulin dose. The majority of all patients (70%) achieved a stable insulin glargine dose within 5 ± 6 days after initiation of the dose titration. HbA1c improved from 7.9 ± 0.8% to 7.5 ± 0.7% (P < .001). In total, 1300 dose decisions were made (1192 according to the TA and 108 by the physicians independently from the TA in 29 patients [58% of study population]). Reasons for TA-overruling dosing decisions were hypoglycemic events (14 mild/4 moderate) in 9 patients. In the majority of these cases (89.8%), the physician recommended continuation of the previous dose or a higher dose. The majority of FBG values were within the respective target range after 4 weeks. In conclusion, the insulin glargine TAs delivered safe dose recommendations with a low risk of hypoglycemia, which successfully led to a stable dose in the vast majority of patients.

No effect of insulin pen with memory function on glycemic control in a patient cohort with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomized open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Injection compliance is a major problem in patients with type 1 diabetes. Increased compliance with mealtime insulin injections significantly improves metabolic control. Using an insulin pen with memory function might facilitate corrective dosing to avoid postprandial blood glucose peaks and therefore might improve overall glycemic control. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, 24-week multicenter study evaluated if patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes [hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 8%] who were randomized to use the HumaPen® Memoir™, an insulin pen device with memory function, for their mealtime insulin injections achieved superior glycemic control (HbA1c change from baseline) than patients who used the conventional device HumaPen Luxura™. Hemoglobin A1c, hypoglycemia, and pen acceptance were assessed at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Of 263 patients randomized, 257 were eligible for analysis: HumaPen Memoir 129, HumaPen Luxura 128; mean [standard deviation (SD)] baseline HbA1c 9.09% (0.99%); mean (SD) age 39.8 (16.5) years; 87.9% ≥18 years old; and mean (SD) diabetes duration 16.0 (11.2) years. Least square mean (95% confidence interval) changes of HbA1c up to week 24 were not significantly different between the HumaPen Memoir [0.43% (-0.59%,-0.28%)] and the HumaPen Luxura group [0.48% (0.64%, 0.32%); p = .669]. The overall incidence of hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly between groups (p = .982). Average satisfaction with insulin delivery was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient sample, usage of a memory function pen was not associated with superior glycemic control, suggesting that adherence to mealtime injection schedules was not improved in a relevant manner. The memory function might be helpful for specific patient populations only, e.g., children or forgetful patients.