Efficacy and safety of once-daily oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg compared with 14 mg in adults with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER PLUS): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Once-daily oral semaglutide is an effective type 2 diabetes treatment. We aimed to investigate a new formulation of oral semaglutide at higher investigational doses versus the approved 14 mg dose in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This global, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3b trial, carried out at 177 sites in 14 countries, enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8·0-10·5% (64-91 mmol/mol), a BMI of 25·0 kg/m2 or greater, receiving stable daily doses of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), by means of an interactive web response system, to once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg for 68 weeks. Investigators, site personnel, trial participants, and trial sponsor staff were masked to dose assignment throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52, evaluated with a treatment policy estimand in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04707469, and the European Clinical Trials register, EudraCT 2020-000299-39, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15 and Sept 29, 2021, of 2294 people screened, 1606 (n=936 [58·3%] male; n=670 [41·7%] female; mean [SD] age 58·2 [10·8] years) received oral semaglutide 14 mg (n=536), 25 mg (n=535), or 50 mg (n=535). At baseline, mean (SD) HbA1c was 9·0% (0·8; 74·4 mmol/L [SD 8·3]) and mean bodyweight was 96·4 kg (21·6). Mean changes (SE) in HbA1c at week 52 were -1·5 percentage points (SE 0·05) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, -1·8 percentage points (0·06) with 25 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·27, 95% CI -0·42 to -0·12; p=0·0006), and -2·0 percentage points (0·06) with 50 mg (ETD -0·53, -0·68 to -0·38; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by 404 (76%) participants in the oral semaglutide 14 mg group, 422 (79%) in the 25 mg group, and 428 (80%) in the 50 mg group. Gastrointestinal disorders, which were mostly mild to moderate, occurred more frequently with oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg than with 14 mg. Ten deaths occurred during the trial; none were judged to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg were superior to 14 mg in reducing HbA1c and bodyweight in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. No new safety concerns were identified. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Greater Combined Reductions of HbA1c ≥ 1.0% and Body Weight Loss ≥ 5.0% or ≥ 10.0% with Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus Comparators.

INTRODUCTION: A post hoc analysis of the PIONEER 1-5 and 8 trials assessed the clinically relevant composite endpoints of HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) reduction ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 5% or ≥ 10% with orally administered semaglutide versus comparators. METHODS: In the PIONEER trials, people with type 2 diabetes were randomised to orally administered semaglutide versus placebo (PIONEER 1, 4, 5 and 8), empagliflozin (PIONEER 2), sitagliptin (PIONEER 3) and liraglutide (PIONEER 4) for 26-78 weeks. This analysis assessed the proportion of people achieving an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 5% at week 26 and at end of treatment, and the proportion of people achieving an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 10% at end of treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 3506 people in PIONEER 1-5 and 8 were included. At week 26 and at end of treatment, odds of achieving the composite endpoint of an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 5% were significantly greater with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg than with placebo (PIONEER 1, 4, 5 and 8; all p < 0.0001), empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2, p < 0.0001), sitagliptin 100 mg (PIONEER 3, p < 0.0001) and liraglutide 1.8 mg (PIONEER 4, p < 0.0001). Odds of achieving the composite endpoint of HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 10% at end of treatment were also significantly greater with orally administered semaglutide versus comparators. CONCLUSION: In PIONEER 1-5 and 8, odds of achieving clinically relevant reductions in both HbA1c and body weight were significantly greater with orally administered semaglutide versus comparators.

Efficacy and safety of liraglutide in type 1 diabetes by baseline characteristics in the ADJUNCT ONE and ADJUNCT TWO randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate 26 weeks of liraglutide treatment in type 1 diabetes (T1D) by subgroups in the ADJUNCT ONE and ADJUNCT TWO trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ADJUNCT ONE and ADJUNCT TWO were randomized controlled phase 3 trials in 1398 and 835 participants with T1D treated with liraglutide (1.8, 1.2, or 0.6 mg) or placebo (adjuncts to insulin). This post hoc analysis evaluated treatment effects by subgroups: HbA1c (< or ≥8.5%), body mass index (BMI; < or ≥27 kg/m2 ), and insulin regimen (basal bolus or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion). RESULTS: In both trials at week 26, reductions in HbA1c, body weight, and daily insulin dose did not differ significantly (P > .05) by baseline HbA1c or BMI. Risk of clinically significant hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia with ketosis did not differ significantly (P > .05) by baseline HbA1c, BMI, or insulin regimen. At week 26 in ADJUNCT ONE, these risks did not differ (P > .05) between treatment groups. Placebo-adjusted reductions in HbA1c, body weight, and insulin dose (-0.30%-points, -5.0 kg, and -12%, respectively, with liraglutide 1.8 mg), were significant (P < .05), greater than at week 52, and similar to those in ADJUNCT TWO (-0.35%, -4.8 kg, and -10%, respectively, with liraglutide 1.8 mg). CONCLUSIONS: In ADJUNCT ONE and ADJUNCT TWO, the efficacy and glycaemic safety of liraglutide did not depend on subgroups, leaving residual beta-cell function as the only identified variable impacting the effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in T1D. These findings support a role for GLP-1 RAs as adjuncts to insulin in T1D, warranting further study.

The relationship between HbA1c and hypoglycaemia in patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL.

AIM: Treat-to-target, randomized controlled trials have confirmed lower rates of hypoglycaemia at equivalent glycaemic control with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Treat-to-target trials are designed to enable comparisons of safety and tolerability at a similar HbA1c level. In this post hoc analysis of the SWITCH 1 and 2 trials, we utilised a patient-level modelling approach to compare how glycaemic control might differ between basal insulins at a similar rate of hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for HbA1c and symptomatic hypoglycaemia from the SWITCH 1 and SWITCH 2 trials were analyzed separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The association between the individual patient-level risk of hypoglycaemia and HbA1c was investigated using a Poisson regression model and used to estimate potential differences in glycaemic control with degludec versus glargine U100, at the same rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Improvements in glycaemic control increased the incidence of hypoglycaemia with both basal insulins across diabetes types. Our analysis suggests that patients could achieve a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.70 [0.05; 2.20]95% CI (for type 1 diabetes) or 0.96 [0.39; 1.99]95% CI (for type 2 diabetes) percentage points (8 [1; 24]95% CI or 10 [4; 22]95% CI mmol/mol, respectively) further with degludec than with glargine U100 before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients in clinical practice may be able to achieve lower glycaemia targets with degludec versus glargine U100, before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia.

A greater proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes achieve treatment targets with insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL at 26 weeks: DUAL VIII, a randomized trial designed to resemble clinical practice.

This report presents the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) as initial injectable therapy at 26 weeks in the 104-week DUAL VIII durability trial (NCT02501161). Participants (N = 1012) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) were randomized 1:1 to open-label IDegLira or IGlar U100. Visits were scheduled at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 12, and every 3 months thereafter. After 26 weeks, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions were greater with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (-21.5 vs. -16.4 mmol/mol [-2.0 vs. -1.5%]), as was the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (78.7% vs. 55.7%) and HbA1c targets without weight gain and/or hypoglycaemia. Estimated treatment differences for insulin dose (-13.01 U) and body weight change (-1.57 kg) significantly favoured IDegLira. The hypoglycaemia rate was 44% lower with IDegLira versus IGlar U100. Safety results were similar. In a trial resembling clinical practice, more participants receiving IDegLira than IGlar U100 met treatment targets, supporting use of IDegLira as an initial injectable therapy for people with T2D uncontrolled on OADs and eligible for insulin initiation.

Redefining Hypoglycemia in Clinical Trials: Validation of Definitions Recently Adopted by the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the International Hypoglycaemia Study Group (IHSG) level 2 low glucose definition can identify clinically relevant hypoglycemia in clinical trials and offer value as an end point for future trials. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed of the SWITCH (SWITCH 1: n = 501, type 1 diabetes; SWITCH 2: n = 721, type 2 diabetes) and DEVOTE (n = 7,637, type 2 diabetes) trials utilizing the IHSG low glucose definitions. Patients in all trials were randomized to either insulin degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL. In the main analysis, the following definitions were compared: 1) American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2005 (plasma glucose [PG] confirmed ≤3.9 mmol/L with symptoms); and 2) IHSG level 2 (PG confirmed <3.0 mmol/L, independent of symptoms). RESULTS: In SWITCH 2, the estimated rate ratios of hypoglycemic events indicated increasing differences between treatments with decreasing PG levels until 3.0 mmol/L, following which no additional treatment differences were observed. Similar results were observed for the SWITCH 1 trial. In SWITCH 2, the IHSG level 2 definition produced a rate ratio that was lower than the ADA 2005 definition. CONCLUSIONS: The IHSG level 2 definition was validated in a series of clinical trials, demonstrating its ability to discriminate between basal insulins. This definition is therefore recommended to be uniformly adopted by regulatory bodies and used in future clinical trials.

IDegLira Improves Glycemic Control in Japanese Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes on Premixed Insulin Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: DUAL II Japan (NCT02911948) was a 26-week, phase 3a randomized, treat-to-target trial which compared the efficacy and safety of IDegLira with degludec in 210 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on premixed or basal insulin therapy. The DUAL II Japan trial presented the opportunity for a post hoc analysis to examine the safety and efficacy of switching patients from a premixed regimen (containing both basal and bolus insulin components) to IDegLira. METHODS: Patients from DUAL II Japan were stratified according to prior insulin regimen (premixed or basal insulin). The following endpoints were assessed in this post hoc analysis by pre-trial insulin regimen: change in HbA1c, body weight, daily total insulin dose, nine-point self-measured blood glucose, and severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia (defined as severe or plasma glucose less than 56 mg/dL). RESULTS: This post hoc analysis included 39 patients who switched from premixed insulin to IDegLira. The treatment effect in this population was independent of insulin type at baseline (premixed or basal; interaction test, P = 0.2535). In patients switching from premixed insulin to IDegLira, mean [standard deviation (SD)] HbA1c was 8.26% (0.73) at baseline and 6.68% (0.93) at week 26. Mean (SD) body weight was reduced by 1.5 (2.9) kg. At week 26, daily insulin dose was 34.2 dose steps. After 26 weeks, the mean prandial increment was smaller at all meals with IDegLira irrespective of pre-trial insulin regimen. Rate of hypoglycemic events was 2.59 events/patient-year of exposure over the 26 weeks. CONCLUSION: This post hoc study is the first to evaluate the switch from premixed insulin to IDegLira in patients with uncontrolled T2D. IDegLira initiation resulted in improved HbA1c and weight loss. This study offers insight into the effectiveness and safety of switching patients from premixed insulin therapy to IDegLira, and provides support for further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02911948.

The rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis with insulin degludec-based treatment compared with insulin detemir in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: An analysis of data from two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Historically, data on the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis have not been collected in clinical trials. However, it is clinically important to assess the rate of these events in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This question was addressed in two pediatric trials using insulin degludec (degludec). OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis in two-phase 3b trials investigating degludec (Study 1) and degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp [Study 2]) vs insulin detemir (IDet). SUBJECTS: Patients (aged 1-17 years inclusive) with T1D treated with insulin for ≥3 months. METHODS: Study 1: patients were randomized to degludec once daily (OD) or IDet OD/twice daily (BID) for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week extension phase. Study 2: patients were randomized to IDegAsp OD or IDet OD/BID for 16 weeks. Bolus mealtime IAsp was included in both studies. In Study 1, hyperglycemia was recorded if plasma glucose (PG) was >11.1 mmol/L, with ketone measurement required with significant hyperglycemia (>14.0 mmol/L). In Study 2, hyperglycemia was recorded with PG >14.0 mmol/L where the subject looked/felt ill, with ketone measurement also required in these hyperglycemic patients. In this post hoc analysis, the hyperglycemia threshold was 14.0 mmol/L for uniformity. RESULTS: Despite similar rates of hyperglycemia with degludec/IDegAsp compared with IDet, the rates of ketosis were lower with degludec/IDegAsp. CONCLUSIONS: These trials, the first to systematically collect data on ketosis in pediatric patients with T1D, demonstrate the potential of degludec/IDegAsp to reduce rates of metabolic decompensation, compared with IDet.

The co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart lowers fasting plasma glucose and rates of confirmed and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, independent of baseline glycated haemoglobin levels, disease duration or body mass index: A pooled meta-analysis of phase III studies in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate whether the proven benefits of insulin degludec (IDeg) combined with insulin aspart (IAsp), known as IDegAsp, given twice daily, extend across a wide spectrum of patients with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc pooled analysis of 5 phase III randomized, 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trials comparing IDegAsp twice daily (n = 1111) with one of two comparators: premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30]) twice daily (n = 561) or IDeg once daily + IAsp (n = 136). Patient data were stratified according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) categories, as well as by baseline duration of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) categories. RESULTS: We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 clinical trials: NCT01513590, NCT01009580, NCT01059812, NCT01680341 and NCT01713530. End-of-trial results were broadly consistent, with differences between IDegAsp and comparators observed in phase III trials. HbA1c results were similar for IDegAsp and the comparators in all baseline characteristic (HbA1c, duration of diabetes or BMI) and category groups (number ranges). Significantly lower FPG level was observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and most category groups (excluding FPG <5.5 mmol/L). Significantly lower insulin doses were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline characteristic and half of the category groups, and significantly lower rates of confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia were observed with IDegAsp vs comparators in all baseline variable and category groups. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp retains a consistent safety and efficacy profile in patients with different baseline characteristics.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Distinct prandial and basal glucose-lowering effects.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of long-acting insulin degludec (IDeg) and rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). The present study investigated the pharmacodynamic properties of IDegAsp in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, two-period, cross-over trial, 21 Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus received single doses of 0.5 U/kg IDegAsp and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in a randomized sequence (13-21 days washout between treatments). The pharmacodynamic response was evaluated in a 26-h euglycemic glucose clamp (target 5.5 mmol/L). Single-dose IDegAsp glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles were extrapolated to steady state using modeling. RESULTS: The IDegAsp single-dose GIR profile showed a clear distinction between the effects of the bolus (IAsp) and basal (IDeg) components in IDegAsp. When simulated to steady state, the GIR profile of IDegAsp was shifted upwards compared with the single-dose profile, and showed a rapid onset of action and a distinct peak from the IAsp component followed by a separate and sustained basal action from the long-acting IDeg component. For biphasic insulin aspart 30, the initial shape of the GIR profile was similar to IDegAsp, but GIR continuously decreased from maximum and reached zero 18-20 h post-dosing. The characteristics of the GIR profile for IDegAsp were retained when simulated to steady state in a twice-daily dosing regimen. DISCUSSION: In Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the pharmacodynamic profile of IDegAsp is characterized by distinct prandial and basal effects from the IAsp and IDeg components, consistent with what has been reported previously in Caucasian patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus reflect similarities with Caucasian patients.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg) in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, single-center, double-blind, two-period, crossover, multiple-dose trial. Patients were randomized into two treatment sequences, and received IDeg or insulin detemir for 6 days and a washout period (7-21 days) before switching treatment. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic measurements were obtained before each dose and up to 120 h after the last dose of each treatment period. Pharmacodynamic measurements were obtained using a 26-h euglycemic clamp procedure after the last dose of each treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were randomized (14 men, 8 women; mean glycosylated hemoglobin at baseline of 7.5% [based on Japanese Diabetes Society value]). At steady state, total glucose-lowering effect (area under the glucose infusion rate [GIR] curve during one dosing interval [τ, 0-24 h] at steady state [AUCGIR ,τ, SS]) was 1,446 mg/kg and total exposure (geometric mean) of IDeg (AUCID eg,τ, SS) was 81,270 pmol h/L. Both the glucose-lowering effect and the exposure of IDeg were evenly distributed over the dosing interval, with AUC for the first 12-h intervals being approximately 50% of the total (geometric mean; AUCGIR ,0-12h, SS/AUCGIR ,τ, SS = 48%; AUCID eg,0-12h, SS/AUCID eg,τ, SS = 53%). CONCLUSIONS: IDeg has a flat, consistent and ultra-long glucose-lowering effect that is evenly distributed across a 24-h interval and an ultra-long duration of action in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. These data support once-daily dosing of IDeg in all patients. Overall, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic end-points and safety observations are consistent with those previously reported in Caucasian patients.

Pharmacokinetic and prandial pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of long-acting insulin degludec and short-acting insulin aspart. This open-label, Phase 1 study aimed to determine the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of IDegAsp in children (6-11 yr), adolescents (12-17 yr), and adults (18-65 yr) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Thirty-eight subjects received single subcutaneous IDegAsp dosing (0.5 U/kg) immediately before a standardized liquid meal (17.3 g carbohydrates/100 mL; adjusted for body weight) followed by plasma glucose (PG) and pharmacokinetic blood sampling for 36 and 57 h, respectively. There were no apparent differences between age groups in PG lowering effect (AUCPG baseline,0-6 h,meal,SD ), maximum PG excursion (ΔPGmax,meal,SD ), or maximum PG concentration (PGmax,meal,SD ) after the standardized meal. Estimated ratios (ERs) for total exposure (AUCIAsp,0-12 h,SD ) and maximum concentration (Cmax,IAsp,SD ) of IAsp in IDegAsp were children/adults, 1.69 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.02; 2.80) and 1.66 (95% CI: 1.10; 2.51); adolescents/adults, 1.14 (95% CI: 0.76; 1.69) and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.84; 1.61). ERs for total exposure (AUCIDeg,0-∞,SD ) and maximum concentration (Cmax,IDeg,SD ) of IDeg in IDegAsp were children/adults, 1.42 (95% CI: 0.94; 2.16) and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.09; 1.76); adolescents/adults, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.96; 1.58) and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.95; 1.42). IDegAsp was well tolerated across age groups. The fast onset of prandial coverage of IAsp in IDegAsp and the ultra-long pharmacokinetic properties of IDeg in IDegAsp were preserved in children and adolescents. Exposure to IAsp and IDeg seemed to be higher in children vs. adults, but no differences were observed in PG lowering effect. IDegAsp could be an alternative treatment option in children and adolescents with T1DM.