Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study.

AIM: To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins. RESULTS: The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

Effect of Subcutaneous Tirzepatide vs Placebo Added to Titrated Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-5 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, as an addition to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes have not been described. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide added to insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted at 45 medical research centers and hospitals in 8 countries (enrollment from August 30, 2019, to March 20, 2020; follow-up completed January 13, 2021) in 475 adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control while treated with once-daily insulin glargine with or without metformin. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of 5-mg (n = 116), 10-mg (n = 119), or 15-mg (n = 120) tirzepatide or volume-matched placebo (n = 120) over 40 weeks. Tirzepatide was initiated at 2.5 mg/week and escalated by 2.5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was achieved. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 40. The 5 key secondary end points included mean change in body weight and percentage of patients achieving prespecified HbA1c levels. Results: Among 475 randomized participants (211 [44%] women; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.9] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.31% [0.85%]), 451 (94.9%) completed the trial. Treatment was prematurely discontinued by 10% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 12% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, 18% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group, and 3% in the placebo group. At week 40, mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.40% with 10-mg tirzepatide and -2.34% with 15-mg tirzepatide vs -0.86% with placebo (10 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.53% [97.5% CI, -1.80% to -1.27%]; 15 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.47% [97.5% CI, -1.75% to -1.20%]; P < .001 for both). Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.11% with 5-mg tirzepatide (difference vs placebo, -1.24% [95% CI, -1.48% to -1.01%]; P < .001]). Mean body weight change from baseline was -5.4 kg with 5-mg tirzepatide, -7.5 kg with 10-mg tirzepatide, -8.8 kg with 15-mg tirzepatide and 1.6 kg with placebo (5 mg: difference, -7.1 kg [95% CI, -8.7 to -5.4]; 10 mg: difference, -9.1 kg [95% CI, -10.7 to -7.5]; 15 mg: difference, -10.5 kg [95% CI, -12.1 to -8.8]; P < .001 for all). Higher percentages of patients treated with tirzepatide vs those treated with placebo had HbA1c less than 7% (85%-90% vs 34%; P < .001 for all). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups vs placebo group were diarrhea (12%-21% vs 10%) and nausea (13%-18% vs 3%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control despite treatment with insulin glargine, the addition of subcutaneous tirzepatide, compared with placebo, to titrated insulin glargine resulted in statistically significant improvements in glycemic control after 40 weeks. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04039503.

Compatibility and Safety of Ultra Rapid Lispro with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: PRONTO-Pump Study.

Background: Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) is a new insulin lispro formulation that has accelerated absorption and improved postprandial glucose control compared with insulin lispro (Humalog®). The compatibility and safety of URLi versus lispro were evaluated in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (insulin pump). Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, crossover study, 49 patients were randomized to two 6-week treatment periods, after a 2-week lead-in period on lispro. The primary endpoint was the rate of infusion set failures due to a pump occlusion alarm, or unexplained hyperglycemia with blood glucose >13.9 mmol/L (250 mg/dL) that did not decrease within 1 h after a correction bolus. Results: There was no significant difference in the rate of infusion set failures between URLi and lispro (0.03 vs. 0.05 events/30 days, P = 0.375). A higher rate of premature infusion set changes was observed with URLi (1.13 vs. 0.78 events/30 days; P = 0.028), translating to one additional infusion set change approximately every 3 months. A trend toward improved glycemic control was observed with URLi treatment: Time in range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (71-180 mg/dL) was 65.7% ± 1.3% versus 63.0% ± 1.3%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 46.9% of patients on URLi treatment and 18.8% on lispro. This difference was driven by an increase in infusion site reactions-more than 90% were mild. Incidence of all other TEAEs and severe hypoglycemia was similar between treatments. Conclusions: URLi was compatible with insulin pump use with a safety profile similar to lispro.

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.

Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SWITCH 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hypoglycemia, a serious risk for insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, negatively affects glycemic control. OBJECTIVE: To test whether treatment with basal insulin degludec is associated with a lower rate of hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target crossover trial including two 32-week treatment periods, each with a 16-week titration period and a 16-week maintenance period. The trial was conducted at 152 US centers between January 2014 and December 2015 in 721 adults with type 2 diabetes and at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor who were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 361) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to morning or evening dosing within each treatment sequence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (severe or blood glucose confirmed [<56 mg/dL]) during the maintenance period. Secondary end points were the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (severe or blood glucose confirmed, occurring between 12:01 am and 5:59 am) and the proportion of patients with severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 721 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.5] years; 53.1% male), 580 (80.4%) completed the trial. During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 185.6 vs 265.4 episodes per 100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) (rate ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]; P < .001; difference, -23.66 episodes/100 PYE [95% CI, -33.98 to -13.33]), and the proportions of patients with hypoglycemic episodes were 22.5% vs 31.6% (difference, -9.1% [95% CI, -13.1% to -5.0%]). The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 55.2 vs 93.6 episodes/100 PYE (rate ratio = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.46-0.74]; P < .001; difference, -7.41 episodes/100 PYE [95% CI, -11.98 to -2.85]), and the proportions of patients with hypoglycemic episodes were 9.7% vs 14.7% (difference, -5.1% [95% CI, -8.1% to -2.0%]). The proportions of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period were 1.6% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.7%) for insulin degludec vs 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.7%) for insulin glargine U100 (McNemar P = .35; risk difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 0.5%]). Statistically significant reductions in overall and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were also seen for the full treatment period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin and with at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02030600.

Rates of hypoglycaemia are lower in patients treated with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) than with IDeg or insulin glargine, regardless of the hypoglycaemia definition used.

AIMS: To re-analyse, using a series of alternative hypoglycaemia definitions, the data from 2 trials, DUAL I and V, in which the once-daily, fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) was compared with basal insulin therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post hoc analyses of the DUAL I (patients uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs) and DUAL V (patients uncontrolled on insulin glargine (IGlar) U100) trials were carried out using different definitions of hypoglycaemia and according to whether treatments were administered in the morning or afternoon. Rates of hypoglycaemia for the definitions of confirmed and American Diabetes Association (ADA)-documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia were compared according to age, gender and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Although hypoglycaemia rates differed according to the alternative hypoglycaemia definitions, rates were consistently lower with IDegLira vs insulin degludec (IDeg) and IGlar U100. Despite glycated haemoglobin concentrations being lower with IDegLira at end of treatment, confirmed and nocturnal-confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were lower for IDegLira vs IDeg and IGlar U100, irrespective of dosing time. The definitions of confirmed and ADA-documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia did not have a significant effect on the treatment difference between IDegLira and IDeg, liraglutide or IGlar U100 when further assessed by baseline age, gender and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDegLira, vs IDeg and IGlar U100, resulted in lower rates of hypoglycaemia regardless of dosing time and definition of hypoglycaemia used. The choice of hypoglycaemia definition did not influence the results of analyses when stratified by age, sex and BMI.

Insulin Degludec 200 Units/mL Is Associated With Lower Injection Frequency and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High-Dose Insulin.

IN BRIEF Many patients with type 2 diabetes require high basal insulin doses, necessitating multiple injections, increasing patient burden, and resulting in reduced treatment adherence. This randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes for a concentrated formulation of insulin degludec (200 units/mL) to those of insulin glargine in patients requiring high doses of basal insulin. By offering equivalent glycemic control while reducing the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia and the number of injections required for administration, insulin degludec 200 units/mL may be preferred by patients with type 2 diabetes who require high basal insulin doses.

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

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

Effect of Insulin Glargine Up-titration vs Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide on Glycated Hemoglobin Levels in Patients With Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: The DUAL V Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Achieving glycemic control remains a challenge for patients with type 2 diabetes, even with insulin therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a fixed ratio of insulin degludec/liraglutide was noninferior to continued titration of insulin glargine in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine and metformin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 3, multinational, multicenter, 26-week, randomized, open-label, 2-group, treat-to-target trial conducted at 75 centers in 10 countries from September 2013 to November 2014 among 557 patients with uncontrolled diabetes treated with glargine (20-50 U) and metformin (≥1500 mg/d) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7% to 10% and a body mass index of 40 or lower. INTERVENTIONS: 1:1 randomization to degludec/liraglutide (n = 278; maximum dose, 50 U of degludec/1.8 mg of liraglutide) or glargine (n = 279; no maximum dose), with twice-weekly titration to a glucose target of 72 to 90 mg/dL. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was change in HbA1c level after 26 weeks, with a noninferiority margin of 0.3% (upper bound of 95% CI, <0.3%). If noninferiority of degludec/liraglutide was achieved, secondary end points were tested for statistical superiority and included change in HbA1c level, change in body weight, and rate of confirmed hypoglycemic episodes. RESULTS: Among 557 randomized patients (mean: age, 58.8 years; women, 49.7%), 92.5% of patients completed the trial and provided data at 26 weeks. Baseline HbA1c level was 8.4% for the degludec/liraglutide group and 8.2% for the glargine group. HbA1c level reduction was greater with degludec/liraglutide vs glargine (-1.81% for the degludec/liraglutide group vs -1.13% for the glargine group; estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.59% [95% CI, -0.74% to -0.45%]), meeting criteria for noninferiority (P < .001), and also meeting criteria for statistical superiority (P < .001). Treatment with degludec/liraglutide was also associated with weight loss compared with weight gain with glargine (-1.4 kg for degludec/liraglutide vs 1.8 kg for glargine; ETD, -3.20 kg [95% CI, -3.77 to -2.64],P < .001) and fewer confirmed hypoglycemic episodes (episodes/patient-year exposure, 2.23 for degludec/liraglutide vs 5.05 for glargine; estimated rate ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61],P < .001). Overall and serious adverse event rates were similar in the 2 groups, except for more nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events reported with degludec/liraglutide (adverse events, 79 for degludec/liraglutide vs 18 for glargine). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes taking glargine and metformin, treatment with degludec/liraglutide compared with up-titration of glargine resulted in noninferior HbA1c levels, with secondary analyses indicating greater HbA1c level reduction after 26 weeks of treatment. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01952145.

Testosterone 2% gel can normalize testosterone concentrations in men with low testosterone regardless of body mass index.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy and safety of testosterone therapy in hypogonadal men. A prior noncomparative trial demonstrated that testosterone 2% gel restored testosterone levels in hypogonadal men and was generally well tolerated. AIM: This post hoc analysis evaluated the influence of BMI on the pharmacokinetics of testosterone therapy in men with low testosterone. METHODS: Men (N = 149) aged 18-75 applied testosterone 2% gel to the front and inner thigh once daily for 90 days. Starting dose was 40 mg/day, which could be adjusted at days 14, 35, and 60. Patients were split into categories depending on baseline BMI: Tertile 1 (≤ 29.1 kg/m(2)), Tertile 2 (29.2-32.4 kg/m(2)), and Tertile 3 (>32.4 kg/m(2)). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy end points were average serum total testosterone concentrations over 24 hours and maximum serum testosterone concentrations at day 90. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The efficacy analysis included 129 men with low testosterone (mean age 52.9, 54.0, and 54.2 years for Tertiles 1, 2, and 3, respectively) defined as serum testosterone <250-300 ng/dL. Baseline testosterone levels were comparable across BMI tertiles. After 90 days of treatment with testosterone 2% gel (≥ 40 mg/day), 79.1%, 79.5%, and 73.8% of patients in Tertiles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, achieved serum testosterone concentrations in the physiologic range (i.e., ≥ 300 to ≤ 1,140 ng/dL). The mean average daily dose at day 90 was higher in participants in Tertiles 3 vs. 2 (P = 0.039) and Tertiles 3 vs. 1 (P = 0.010). The gel was generally well tolerated, with skin reactions the most commonly reported adverse event (16.1%; n = 24). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, daily application of testosterone 2% gel was effective at returning serum testosterone to physiologic levels in men with low testosterone and high BMI, although required dose was affected by BMI.

Safety of exenatide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with a thiazolidinedione alone or in combination with metformin for 2 years.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are routinely treated with combinations of glucose-lowering agents. The adverse event (AE) profile and effects on glycemic control have not been assessed for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide once weekly in combination with a thiazolidinedione (TZD) with or without metformin. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to examine the long-term safety profile and changes in glycemic control and weight for exenatide once weekly with TZD with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus over 2 years. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label trial with treatment up to 104 or 117 weeks, patients received 2 mg exenatide once weekly while continuing treatment with a TZD with or without metformin. Patients were either exenatide-naïve before this study or had previously received exenatide twice daily, which was discontinued on initiating exenatide once weekly. Patients were on a stable dosage of TZD (rosiglitazone or pioglitazone) and, if applicable, metformin. Treatment-emergent AEs were defined as those first occurring or worsening post baseline. Descriptive statistics were used for absolute and change-from-baseline data, and a one-sample t test for within-group change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)). RESULTS: Of 134 patients in the intent-to-treat population (baseline mean [SD] HbA(1c),7.2% [1.0%]), 44 were exenatide-naïve (baseline HbA(1c), 7.8% [1.0%]) and 90 switched from exenatide twice daily (baseline HbA(1c), 7.0% [0.8%]). Of intent-to-treat patients, 106 (79%) completed the final treatment visit (week 104 or week 117). The most common AEs were nausea (17% of patients) and injection-site nodule (12% of patients). Serious AEs were reported in 14% of patients and 5% withdrew because of a treatment-emergent AE. No identifiable pattern of serious AEs was observed. There were 4 reports of edema and no reports of heart failure. No major hypoglycemia was reported; minor hypoglycemia was reported in 4% of patients. Exenatide-naïve patients experienced mean (SE) HbA(1c) reductions of -0.7% (0.2%) and weight reductions of -2.7 (0.8) kg, whereas patients with prior exposure to exenatide twice daily experienced a reduction of -0.4% (0.1%) in HbA(1c) and no change in weight. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events over 2 years were consistent with the reported safety profiles of exenatide once weekly and TZDs. Exenatide-naïve patients experienced improvements in HbA(1c) and weight, while patients with the benefit of prior exenatide therapy experienced an additional reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) and no additional change in weight after 2 years. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00753896.

A novel testosterone 2% gel for the treatment of hypogonadal males.

Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) can improve the symptoms, signs, and well being of hypogonadal men by restoring serum testosterone concentrations to physiologic levels. This multicenter, open-label noncomparative trial of men with hypogonadism evaluated the pharmacokinetic profile and safety of a novel testosterone 2% gel (Fortesta™ Gel), administered once daily to the front and inner thighs at starting doses of 40 mg/d. The metered-dose delivery system allowed dose adjustments in 10-mg increments between 10 and 70 mg/d. Of the 149 patients enrolled, 138 patients (92.6%) completed the study and 129 patients (86.6%) were included in the efficacy analysis. On day 90, mean testosterone concentration (C(avg) [0-24 hours] ± SD) was 438.6 ± 162.5 ng/dL. Overall, 100 (77.5%) patients achieved serum total testosterone concentrations within the normal physiologic range (≥ 300 and ≤ 1140 ng/dL). On day 90, mean testosterone C(max) (± SD) was 827.6 ± 356.5 ng/dL. On day 90, a total of 122 patients (94.6%) had C(max) levels of 1500 ng/dL or less and 2 patients (1.6%) had values between 1800 and 2500 ng/dL. Similar results for C(avg) (0-24 hours) and C(max) were observed on day 35. All enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. Testosterone 2% gel was generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse events (AE) being mild and moderate skin reactions. There were no serious AEs related to testosterone 2% gel. Once-daily testosterone 2% gel restored levels of testosterone in more than 75% of patients, with low risk of supraphysiologic testosterone levels. Patients may find this a suitable option for TRT because of its application site and low volume.

A study of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving high doses of insulin plus insulin sensitizers: applicability of a novel insulin-independent treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether dapagliflozin, which selectively inhibits renal glucose reabsorption, lowers hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes that is poorly controlled with high insulin doses plus oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, three-arm parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 26-center trial (U.S. and Canada). Based on data from an insulin dose-adjustment setting cohort (n = 4), patients in the treatment cohort (n = 71) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to placebo, 10 mg dapagliflozin, or 20 mg dapagliflozin, plus OAD(s) and 50% of their daily insulin dose. The primary outcome was change from baseline in A1C at week 12 (dapagliflozin vs. placebo, last observation carried forward [LOCF]). RESULTS: At week 12 (LOCF), the 10- and 20-mg dapagliflozin groups demonstrated -0.70 and -0.78% mean differences in A1C change from baseline versus placebo. In both dapagliflozin groups, 65.2% of patients achieved a decrease from baseline in A1C > or =0.5% versus 15.8% in the placebo group. Mean changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were +17.8, +2.4, and -9.6 mg/dl (placebo, 10 mg dapagliflozin, and 20 mg dapagliflozin, respectively). Postprandial glucose (PPG) reductions with dapagliflozin also showed dose dependence. Mean changes in total body weight were -1.9, -4.5, and -4.3 kg (placebo, 10 mg dapagliflozin, and 20 mg dapagliflozin). Overall, adverse events were balanced across all groups, although more genital infections occurred in the 20-mg dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving high insulin doses plus insulin sensitizers who had their baseline insulin reduced by 50%, dapagliflozin decreased A1C, produced better FPG and PPG levels, and lowered weight more than placebo.

Inhaled insulin: a clinical perspective with emphasis on EXUBERA®.

There is a Type 2 diabetes epidemic; however, unfortunately, even though insulin is an effective therapy, it is mostly used late and as a last resort. Type 1 diabetics find it difficult to administer extra insulin injections when needed owing to the inconvenience and, although most cope well, many dislike injecting themselves so frequently. The newly approved EXUBERA® inhaled insulin should help counteract the resistance of patients and physicians in instituting insulin in the Type 2 diabetic, and the Type 1 diabetic can take more than 1000 fewer injections per year, making their diabetes easier to live with. Pulmonary function tests have demonstrated clinically insignificant changes after years of monitoring. The increases of insulin antibodies found in those who use inhaled insulin have not affected diabetes control. Side effects of inhaled insulin are insignificantly different from injectable insulin except for a couple of mild coughs after an inhalation, which decrease quickly with time. The two dosage forms of EXUBERA insulin are 1 and 3 mg (equivalent to approximately 3 and 8 U of U-100 insulin, respectively), are adaptable to most regimens for both types of diabetes, and inhaled insulin is preferred by a significant majority of patients. Inhaled insulin should be cost effective if it allows earlier institution in the Type 2 diabetic thus improving diabetic control and lowering the expensive complications of diabetes.

Randomized study to characterize glycemic control and short-term pulmonary function in patients with type 1 diabetes receiving inhaled human insulin (exubera).

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies with inhaled human insulin [Exubera (EXU); insulin human (recombinant DNA origin) Inhalation Powder, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY; Nektar Therapeutics, San Carlos, CA) show comparable efficacy to sc insulin and small declines in pulmonary function in type 1 and 2 diabetes. This is a detailed characterization of short-term efficacy and pulmonary safety profile of EXU. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a 24-wk multicenter study, 226 nonsmoking patients with type 1 diabetes and normal lung function were randomized to intensive regimens of premeal EXU or sc insulin for 12 wk (comparative phase), followed by sc insulin for 12 wk (washout phase). Glycosylated hemoglobin, hypoglycemia, general adverse events, and pulmonary function were measured. Forced expiratory volume in 1 sec and carbon monoxide diffusion capacity were measured using standardized equipment and methodology. RESULTS: Comparable declines from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin were observed in both groups (0.5%) and sustained throughout the study. There was a higher rate of hypoglycemia (risk ratio 1.23; 90% confidence interval 1.16, 1.30) but a lower rate of severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.51; 90% confidence interval 0.30, 0.86) with EXU vs. sc insulin. The treatment group differences in changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec and carbon monoxide diffusion capacity were small, occurred within 2 wk of EXU initiation, and were reversible shortly after discontinuation. More patients reported mild cough with EXU vs. sc insulin (30.9% vs. 7.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Three months of EXU therapy is as effective and well tolerated as intensive sc insulin therapy. This study supports the role of EXU in type 1 diabetes.

Improvement of glycemic control, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol levels with muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor activator, in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: A double-blind, randomized, pioglitazone-comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effects of muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) activator within the new glitazar class, on hyperglycemia and lipid abnormalities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was performed in 1,159 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Patients received once-daily doses of either 5 mg muraglitazar or 30 mg pioglitazone for a total of 24 weeks in addition to open-label metformin. Patients were continued in a double-blind fashion for an additional 26 weeks. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted at week 24 for HbA1c (A1C) and at week 12 for lipid parameters. Mean A1C at baseline was 8.12 and 8.13% in muraglitazar and pioglitazone groups, respectively. At week 24, muraglitazar reduced mean A1C to 6.98% (-1.14% from baseline), and pioglitazone reduced mean A1C to 7.28% (-0.85% from baseline; P < 0.0001, muraglitazar vs. pioglitazone). At week 12, muraglitazar and pioglitazone reduced mean plasma triglyceride (-28 vs. -14%), apolipoprotein B (-12 vs. -6%), and non-HDL cholesterol (-6 vs. -1%) and increased HDL cholesterol (19 vs. 14%), respectively (P < 0.0001 vs. pioglitazone for all comparisons). At week 24, weight gain (1.4 and 0.6 kg, respectively) and edema (9.2 and 7.2%, respectively) were observed in the muraglitazar and pioglitazone groups; at week 50, weight gain and edema were 2.5 and 1.5 kg, respectively, and 11.8 and 8.9%, respectively. At week 50, heart failure was reported in seven patients (five with muraglitazar and two with pioglitazone), and seven deaths occurred: three from sudden death, two from cerebrovascular accident, and one from pancreatic cancer in the muraglitazar group and one from perforated duodenal ulcer in the pioglitazone group. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 5 mg muraglitazar resulted in greater improvements in A1C and lipid parameters than a submaximal dose of 30 mg pioglitazone when added to metformin. Weight gain and edema were more common when muraglitazar was compared with a submaximal dose of pioglitazone.

The efficacy and safety of Dermagraft in improving the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute could promote the healing of diabetic foot ulcers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled, multicenter study was undertaken at 35 centers throughout the U.S. and enrolled 314 patients to evaluate complete wound closure by 12 weeks. Patients were randomized to either the Dermagraft treatment group or control (conventional therapy). Except for the application of Dermagraft, treatment of study ulcers was identical for patients in both groups. All patients received pressure-reducing footwear and were allowed to be ambulatory during the study. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that patients with chronic diabetic foot ulcers of >6 weeks duration experienced a significant clinical benefit when treated with Dermagraft versus patients treated with conventional therapy alone. With regard to complete wound closure by week 12, 30.0% (39 of 130) of Dermagraft patients healed compared with 18.3% (21 of 115) of control patients (P = 0.023). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar for both the Dermagraft and control groups, but the Dermagraft group experienced significantly fewer ulcer-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this study show that Dermagraft is a safe and effective treatment for chronic diabetic foot ulcers.