Changing the approach to type 2 diabetes treatment: A comparison of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas across the continuum of care.

Despite the importance of individualised strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the availability of alternative treatments, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), sulphonylureas are still widely used in practice. Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1 RAs may provide better and more durable glycaemic control than sulphonylureas, with lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Other reported benefits of GLP-1 RAs include weight loss rather than weight gain (as observed with sulphonylureas), blood pressure reduction and improvement in lipid profiles. In general, the main adverse events with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal in nature. The respective modes of action of GLP-1 RAs and sulphonylureas contribute to differences in the durability of glycaemic control (related to effects on beta-cells) and effects on body weight. Moreover, the glucose-dependent mode of action of GLP-1 RAs, which favours a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, contrasts with the glucose-independent mode of action of sulphonylureas. Evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials indicates a consistent finding of cardiovascular safety across the GLP-1 RAs and suggests a class benefit for the long-acting GLP-1 RAs in reducing three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. In contrast, potential concerns relating to an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular events with sulphonylureas have yet to be fully resolved. Recent updates to management guidelines recommend that treatment selection for patients with T2DM should consider clinical trial evidence of cardiovascular safety. Available evidence suggests that this selection should give preference to GLP-1 RAs over sulphonylureas, especially for patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes treatment: are they all the same?

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) are an important class of drugs with a well-established efficacy and safety profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Agents in this class are derived from either exendin-4 (a compound present in Gila monster venom) or modifications of human GLP-1 active fragment. Differences among these drugs in duration of action (ie, short-acting vs long-acting), effects on glycaemic control and weight loss, immunogenicity, tolerability profiles, and administration routes offer physicians several options when selecting the most appropriate agent for individual patients. Patient preference is also an important consideration. The aim of this review is to discuss the differences between and similarities of GLP-1 RAs currently approved for clinical use, focusing particularly on the properties characterising the single short-acting and long-acting GLP-1 RAs rather than on their individual efficacy and safety profiles. The primary pharmacodynamic difference between short-acting (ie, exenatide twice daily and lixisenatide) and long-acting (ie, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, and semaglutide) GLP-1 RAs is that short-acting agents primarily delay gastric emptying (lowering postprandial glucose) and long-acting agents affect both fasting glucose (via enhanced glucose-dependent insulin secretion and reduced glucagon secretion in the fasting state) and postprandial glucose (via enhanced postprandial insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion). Other advantages of long-acting GLP-1 RAs include smaller fluctuations in plasma drug concentrations, improved gastrointestinal tolerability profiles, and simpler, more convenient administration schedules (once daily for liraglutide and once weekly for albiglutide, dulaglutide, the long-acting exenatide formulation, and semaglutide), which might improve treatment adherence and persistence.

Dulaglutide is an effective treatment for lowering HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of body mass index.

AIM: To assess the relationship between baseline body mass index (BMI) and glycaemic control in dulaglutide-treated patients, a post hoc analysis was conducted on HbA1c and baseline BMI data from eight AWARD studies, with a total of 5770 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Changes from baseline in HbA1c data from patients treated with 1.5 mg or 0.75 mg dulaglutide, active comparator or placebo, were analyzed in each study (AWARD-1 to -6, -8 and - 9) at approximately 6 months (26, 24 and 28 weeks, respectively). Within each study, data were analyzed by the following baseline BMI categories: <30, ≥30 to <35, and ≥ 35 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, 1.5 mg or 0.75 mg dulaglutide treatment achieved statistically significant HbA1c reductions from baseline in all BMI categories (least-squares mean change from -0.62 to -1.75%) across the AWARD studies. No statistically significant treatment-by-BMI category interactions were found for reductions in HbA1c. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of eight AWARD studies indicates that baseline BMI does not affect the relative treatment efficacy of dulaglutide as measured by HbA1c change from baseline in any study. Dulaglutide is an effective treatment option for adult patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of their baseline BMI category.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients (TROPHIES): Design and Baseline Characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: The TROPHIES observational study enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating their first injectable treatment with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) dulaglutide or liraglutide. This manuscript focuses on the study design, baseline characteristics of the enrolled population, and factors associated with GLP-1 RA choice. METHODS: TROPHIES is a prospective, observational, 24-month study conducted in France, Germany, and Italy. Inclusion criteria include adult patients with T2DM, naïve to injectable antihyperglycemic treatments, initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide per routine clinical practice. The primary outcome is the duration of treatment on dulaglutide or liraglutide without a significant treatment change. RESULTS: The analysis included 2181 patients (dulaglutide, 1130; liraglutide, 1051) (cutoff date May 15, 2019). The population was 56% male with mean [standard deviation (SD)] patient characteristics at baseline as follows: age, 59.2 (11.0) years; body mass index (BMI), 33.9 (6.6) kg/m2; T2DM duration, 8.5 (6.9) years; and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 8.2 (1.3)%. Between-cohort demographic and clinical characteristics were balanced. The mean (SD) HbA1c and BMI values for French, German, and Italian patients were, respectively, 8.6 (1.4)%, 8.2 (1.4)%, 8.0 (0.8)%; 33.3 (6.1) kg/m2, 36.0 (7.2) kg/m2, and 32.6 (5.9) kg/m2. CONCLUSION: This study analysis at baseline provides an opportunity to evaluate between-country differences in baseline HbA1c, weight, macrovascular complications, and factors driving GLP-1 RA selection for patients with T2DM in daily practice.

Dulaglutide and liraglutide are medications that can help people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to control their blood sugar levels. These medications may also reduce body weight and reduce the risk of major cardiovascular disease. Given these treatment effects, it is essential to know how they are used in everyday clinical practice. Therefore, a study is being performed in three countries (France, Germany, and Italy) in people with T2DM who had a first-ever injectable therapy for T2DM with dulaglutide or liraglutide. Here, we present the study design, the patient characteristics at the start of treatment, and the factors driving the choice of one or the other medication. We analyzed data from 2181 people with T2DM. On average, it was shown that they were middle-aged and obese. On average, these people were diagnosed with T2DM 8.5 years before the start of dulaglutide or liraglutide and had high blood sugar levels when these medications were started. The patient characteristics were slightly different between the three countries. Country-specific factors driving the choice of either medication were also identified.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in the early control of fasting serum glucose and HbA1c.

AIMS: To determine the early benefit:risk balance of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, open-label study (AWARD-2; modified intention-to-treat group) in which suboptimally controlled metformin + glimepiride-treated patients received dulaglutide 1.5 mg (n = 273) or insulin glargine (n = 262). Two composite endpoints were used: for weeks 2-20, fasting serum glucose (FSG) <130 mg/dL (<7.2 mmol/L) without hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L] or severe hypoglycemia); at week 26, patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (<53.0 mmol/mol) or reduction from baseline ≥1.0% (≥10.9 mmol/mol), no hypoglycemia (as defined above) and no weight gain. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The probability of reaching the FSG target without hypoglycemia was higher with dulaglutide than with insulin glargine at weeks 4 (OR 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.60) and 8 (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.15-2.48). The proportion of patients achieving the 26-week endpoint was higher with dulaglutide (37.4% vs. 10.3%; OR 5.28; 95% CI 3.28-8.48). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide's balanced efficacy-to-safety profile compares favorably with that of insulin glargine and is apparent soon after treatment initiation and after 6 months of therapy.

Change in HbA1c Across the Baseline HbA1c Range in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Receiving Once-Weekly Dulaglutide Versus Other Incretin Agents.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory post hoc analysis investigated the relative changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with dulaglutide versus active comparators across a continuous range of baseline HbA1c values using data from three phase III randomised controlled trials. METHODS: Data from patients receiving once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg, once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg or twice-daily exenatide 10 µg in the intent-to-treat populations in the AWARD-5, AWARD-6 and AWARD-1 trials were analysed using last observation carried forward analysis of covariance. Starting with the predefined statistical model from each study, the type of association between HbA1c baseline and change at 26 weeks was modelled. Consistency of treatment effect was assessed via treatment-by-baseline HbA1c interaction terms. RESULTS: Improvements in HbA1c occurred in all treatment groups across the entire baseline HbA1c range. The relationship between HbA1c baseline and magnitude of change was linear in all treatment groups, with greater reductions in patients with higher baseline HbA1c values. Across the continuum of baseline HbA1c values, patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg achieved a similar mean HbA1c reduction to patients receiving liraglutide 1.8 mg and a greater reduction than patients receiving twice-daily exenatide or sitagliptin. In AWARD-5, the treatment-by-baseline HbA1c interaction P value (0.001) demonstrated progressively greater HbA1c reduction in dulaglutide-treated compared with sitagliptin-treated patients as baseline HbA1c increased. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that dulaglutide is an appropriate therapeutic option for patients with T2DM across a wide range of baseline HbA1c values, including those with poor metabolic control. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. Plain language summary available for this article.

Short- and long-term responsiveness to low dose growth hormone (GH) in adult GH deficiency: Role of GH receptor polymorphism.

In patients with growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD), low doses of recombinant human GH (rhGH) have a similar or better long-term clinical effect than higher doses. Pharmacogenetic studies suggest that GH receptor (GHR) polymorphism only influences some metabolic parameters. Nonetheless, there is no clear scientific evidence proving the effects of lower rhGH dose regimens on metabolic parameters. The aim of our prospective study was to evaluate the effects of GHR polymorphism in adult GHD patients treated with low rhGH dose during short- (6 and 12 months) and long-term (5 years) follow-up. Sixty-nine GHD adult patients were studied, before and during treatment with rhGH, using a standardised low-dose protocol calculated on the basis of body weight (0.01-0.03 mg kg-1  week-1 ) and monitored by an insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I plasma assay, as well as anthropometric and metabolic parameters. The GHR genotype (flfl, fld3 or d3d3) was determined from the peripheral blood. d3-GHR carriers showed a more effective short- and long-term response to low rhGH dose with respect to low-density lipoprotein reduction, body composition and blood pressure (homozygous patients only); d3-GHR homozygosity is related to a significant IGF-I increase during short-term follow-up. Regression analysis demonstrated that rhGH dose, age at diagnosis and GHR genotype are the major determinants of IGF-I increase at 6 and 12 months of replacement therapy. The d3d3-GHR genotype may influence some metabolic effects during the short- and long-term follow-up of low rhGH dose and could be an independent determinant of the increase of IGF- I during short-term follow-up.

Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy.

Aims: Several glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are available as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes. These medications vary in their injection devices, and these differences could impact quality-of-life and patient preference. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with injection devices for two weekly GLP-1 therapies. Materials and methods: Participants with type 2 diabetes in Italy (Milan, Rome) valued three health state vignettes in time trade-off interviews. The health states had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process: (1) oral treatment regimen, (2) oral plus weekly dulaglutide injection, and (3) oral plus weekly semaglutide injection. Results: A total of 216 participants completed interviews (57.9% male; mean age = 60.5). Almost all patients (99.5%) preferred the oral health state over either injection health state. Comparing between the two injections, 88.4% preferred the dulaglutide health state, while 11.6% preferred the semaglutide state. Mean (SD) utilities were 0.907 (0.076) for oral, 0.894 (0.085) for dulaglutide, and 0.887 (0.087) for semaglutide. The mean (SD) utility difference between the injection device health states was 0.007 (0.019). Limitations: Although the health states were designed to match the injection device instructions for use as closely as possible, vignette-based methods are inherently limited because results are based on perceptions of the health states rather than actual patient experience with the devices. Conclusions: Results provide insight into patient preferences associated with injection devices for weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. The majority of patients preferred the dulaglutide device over the semaglutide device, and for some patients, this difference had an impact on utility valuations. Patient preferences for injection devices could be an important factor to consider when selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: clinical consequences and strategies for improvement.

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications is often suboptimal in patients with type 2 diabetes, and this can contribute to poor glycemic control, increased hospitalization, and the development of diabetic complications. Reported adherence rates to antihyperglycemics vary widely among studies, and this may be related to differences in methodology for measuring adherence, patient populations, and other factors. Poor adherence may occur regardless of the specific regimen used and whether therapy is oral or injectable, and can be especially common in chronic, asymptomatic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. More convenient drug-administration regimens and advances in formulations and delivery devices are among strategies shown to improve adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy, especially for injectable therapy. This is exemplified by technological developments made in the drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, which are a focus of this narrative review. Dulaglutide, albiglutide, and prolonged-release exenatide have an extended duration of action and can be administered once weekly, whereas such agents as liraglutide require once-daily administration. The convenience of once-weekly versus once-daily administration is associated with better adherence in real-world studies involving this class of agent. Moreover, provision of a user-friendly delivery device has been shown to overcome initial resistance to injectable therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that recent innovations in drug formulation (eg, ready-to-use formulations) and delivery systems (eg, single-dose prefilled pens and hidden, ready-attached needles) may be instrumental in encouraging patient acceptance. For physicians who aim to improve their patients' adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, it is thus important to consider the patient's therapeutic experience (treatment frequency, drug formulation, delivery device). Better adherence, powered by recent technological advances in the delivery of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, may thus lead to improved clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Patient preferences in Italy: health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are administered as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). These medications vary in their injection processes, and a recent study in the UK found that these differences had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to replicate the UK study in Italy to examine preferences of an Italian patient sample, while allowing for comparison between utilities in the UK and Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with T2D in Italy valued health states in time trade-off interviews. All health states had the same description of T2D, but differed in description of the treatment process. As in the original UK study, the first health state described an oral treatment regimen, while additional health states added a weekly injection. The injection health states differed in three injection-related attributes: requirements for reconstituting the medication, waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling. RESULTS: Interviews were completed by 238 patients (58.8% male; mean age = 60.2 years; 118 from Milan, 120 from Rome). The oral treatment health state had a mean (SD) utility of 0.90 (0.10). The injection health states had significantly (p < 0.0001) lower utilities, which ranged from 0.87 (requirements for reconstitution, waiting, and handling) to 0.89 (weekly injection with none of these requirements). Differences in health state utility scores suggest that each administration requirement was associated with a disutility (ie, negative utility difference): -0.006 (reconstitution), -0.006 (needle handling), -0.011 (reconstitution, needle handling), and -0.022 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling). CONCLUSION: Disutilities associated with the injection device characteristics were similar to those reported with the UK sample. Results suggest that injection device attributes may be important to some patients with T2D, and it may be useful for clinicians to consider these attributes when choosing medication for patients initiating these weekly treatments.

Insulin therapy in neonatal diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature.

AIMS: Neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM) is a rare disorder, and guidance is limited regarding its optimal management. We reviewed insulin usage in NDM, with a focus on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). METHODS: A PubMed search identified 40 reports of patients with NDM treated with insulin published between 1994 and 2016. RESULTS: Data concerning treatment of NDM are limited. CSII resolves some of the issues associated with insulin therapy in neonates. No clinical trials of CSII in NDM have been reported. Case reports suggest that CSII is a safe and effective means of treating NDM. CSII was initiated to improve glycaemic control, for practicality and convenience, and to overcome difficulties associated with the maintenance of long-term intravenous catheters. CSII can provide better glycaemic control than multiple daily injections, with few hypoglycaemic events. Continuous glucose monitoring integrated with the pump helps provide more precise control of blood glucose levels. CSII generally uses short-acting insulin or rapid-acting insulin analogues, and those that are approved for use in neonates appear to be appropriate for the treatment of NDM using an insulin pump. CONCLUSIONS: Information from case reports indicates that CSII is safe and effective for the management of NDM.

Fracture incidence and characterization in patients on osteoporosis treatment: the ICARO study.

UNLABELLED: None of the available osteoporosis therapies have been shown to completely abolish the risk of fractures. In clinical practice, the outcome may be even poorer. In 880 patients prescribed with antiresorptives (alendronate, risedronate, and raloxifene) for >1 year, a fragility fracture was recorded in 8.9%/year of them. This incidence is considerably higher than that observed in randomized clinical trials, and it was significantly related to poor compliance and lack of supplementation with calcium and vitamin D. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporotic fracture is one of the most important public health concerns among the elderly. Currently available therapies have been shown to significantly decrease the risk of fracture, although none of them completely abolishes this risk. In clinical practice, poor treatment response may also result from a number of other factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Incidence and ChAracterization of inadequate clinical Responders in Osteoporosis (ICARO) is a multicenter, observational study carried out in Italy. It aimed to analyze, in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, the risk factors for an "inadequate clinical response" to drug therapy, defined as the occurrence of new vertebral or nonvertebral fragility fractures in patients prescribed, for at least 1 year, alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene, with a compliance >50%. RESULTS: In 880 patients treated with antiresorptive agents for a median of 2.0 years (95% CI: 1.0-4.5) years, the "inadequate clinical responder (ICR)" subjects over the observation period were 220 (25%), with an annual incidence of 8.9%. ICRs, compared with "adequate clinical responders (ACRs)," had more pretreatment fractures and were treated longer (2.8 versus 1.8 years; p < 0.001). After multiple adjustment for these confounding factors, significant determinants of inadequate clinical response were a poorer treatment compliance and a less frequent co-administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of fractures during treatment with antiresorptive agents in a clinical setting is considerably higher than that observed in randomized clinical trials. Inadequate compliance to treatment and lack of supplementation of calcium and vitamin D are major determinants of this poor response.

Insulin lispro protamine suspension in the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of published data.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) is a protamine-based insulin lispro formulation that allows 24-h coverage while limiting the number of daily injections. ILPS was developed to be the basal insulin component of premixed biphasic formulations with insulin lispro, i.e., the lispro/ILPS 25/75 and 50/50 mixed compounds, but has recently also been marketed as a basal insulin analog formulation, with an indication for the therapy of diabetic patients. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the available literature on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy and safety of ILPS administered as basal insulin, or in premixed biphasic formulations, in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. EXPERT OPINION: The results of this review suggest that ILPS may be associated with a favorable time-action profile, basal and postprandial glycemic control, and efficacy in terms of rates of patients reaching glycosylated hemoglobin targets; an increased risk of hypoglycemic episodes, compared to other basal insulins, seems to be related to the percentage of patients upgrading from once- to twice-daily injections. This increased risk might be linked with the concomitant use of insulin secretagogues in patients on higher daily dosages and is generally not observed in patients using one injection of ILPS a day. Thus, ILPS can be considered a valid option both as basal insulin and as basal component of the actual premixed formulations of lispro for the therapy of diabetic patients.

Insulin lispro protamine suspension in intensive insulin treatment: an Italian observational study.

OBJECTIVE: This observational study examined the effects of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) given as basal insulin in intensive insulin regimens in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus who attended a reference outpatient centre for the treatment of diabetes due to poor glycaemic control, frequent hypoglycaemia or intolerance to previous therapy. METHODS: The study population included 64 patients, 33 male and 31 female, mean age 59.6 years; 50 patients were receiving an insulin regimen, while 14 had previously been treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The starting insulin dose for patients receiving OADs was 0.5-0.8 IU/kg which was titrated according to a standard algorithm. Patients also received an individualised programme for diet adjustment and physical activity. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), hypoglycaemic events, lipid profile, body weight and blood pressure were measured at baseline and thereafter. RESULTS: The mean duration of therapy was 229.3 days. Total insulin daily dosage did not change statistically in the observation period. FPG and HbA(1c) levels decreased significantly (p < 0.001) in this period, with no increase in hypoglycaemic episodes. Univariate analysis has shown that patients having higher HbA(1c) and FPG levels at baseline have higher improvement in HbA(1c) and FPG than those having better glycaemic control at baseline. Patients with concomitant pathologies at baseline had a significantly lower improvement in HbA(1c) and FPG, while females had a significantly higher improvement in HbA(1c). Frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes was significantly lower in those patients who had previously experienced hypoglycaemia, had previously used insulin therapy, had concomitant pathologies, had HbA(1c) above 6.5% at baseline and required higher total daily insulin doses. A significant improvement in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglyceride levels, together with a significant decrease in the cardiovascular risk index, were also observed, with no significant variation in body weight and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the use of ILPS as basal insulin in intensive insulin therapy, improved glycaemic control with no significant increase in hypoglycaemic episodes in the 64 patients observed undergoing treatment at the Potenza outpatient clinic. Because of the nature of this study, these results have to be confirmed in further randomised, controlled clinical trials.