Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the ONWARDS 1, 2 and 4 trials.

AIM: To explore the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) in Japanese adults (≥20 years old) with type 2 diabetes from the global ONWARDS 1, 2 and 4 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Insulin-naive (ONWARDS 1) and insulin-experienced (ONWARDS 2 and 4) individuals were randomized to icodec or a once-daily insulin comparator: insulin glargine U100 [ONWARDS 1 (basal insulin only) and 4 (basal-bolus regimen)] or insulin degludec [ONWARDS 2 (basal insulin only)]. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) (ONWARDS 1: Week 52; ONWARDS 2 and 4: Week 26). Here, we present the Japanese subgroup results. RESULTS: Similar reductions in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to EOT were observed in each trial for icodec and comparators. The proportion of time in range (blood glucose 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at EOT was also comparable across treatment groups (time in range: 58%-68%), as was time spent with blood glucose below 3.0 mmol/L (<1.0%). Combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L) or severe (requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycaemia rates were low, with no severe events (ONWARDS 1 and 2) or a single severe event (ONWARDS 4; icodec group) reported. These results generally aligned with findings from the respective global populations. No new safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Icodec improved glycaemic control to a similar degree as once-daily basal insulin comparators while maintaining low levels of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. The findings support icodec use in Japanese individuals with different levels of type 2 diabetes progression.

DUAL II China: Superior HbA1c reductions and weight loss with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin degludec in a randomized trial of Chinese people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin degludec (degludec) in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In DUAL II China, a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, Chinese adults with T2D and HbA1c of 7.5% or more on basal insulin and metformin, with or without other oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), were randomized 2:1 to 26 weeks of treatment with either IDegLira (max. dose 50 U degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide) or degludec (max. 50 U/day), respectively, combined with metformin. At 26 weeks, superiority of IDegLira over degludec was assessed for change in HbA1c (primary endpoint), and body weight and number of severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (confirmatory secondary endpoints). RESULTS: Overall, 453 participants were randomized to IDegLira (n = 302) or degludec (n = 151). Superiority was confirmed for IDegLira over degludec in HbA1c change (-1.9% vs. -1.0%, respectively, estimated treatment difference [ETD] [95% confidence interval]: -0.92% [-1.09; -0.75], P < .0001), body weight change (-0.7 vs. +0.4 kg, respectively, ETD [95% CI]: -1.08 kg [-1.63; -0.52], P = .0002) and severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycaemia (estimated rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.53 [0.30; 0.94], P = .0297). The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% without hypoglycaemia and/or weight gain were greater with IDegLira than degludec (P < .0001 for all). Daily insulin dose at 26 weeks was lower for IDegLira (34.3 U) than degludec (37.4 U) (P = .0014). No unexpected safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment intensification option for Chinese people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and OADs.

Superior efficacy with a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with insulin degludec and liraglutide in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes in a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its individual components in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 52-week, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target trial randomized participants (n = 819) 1:1:1 to IDegLira, liraglutide 1.8 mg or degludec, as add-on to their pre-trial OAD. The maximum IDegLira dose was 50 dose steps (50 U degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide), there was no maximum dose for degludec, and both were titrated based on individual blood glucose measurements. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased by 26 mmol/mol with IDegLira vs 20 mmol/mol with degludec and liraglutide: estimated treatment differences were -6.91 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.18; -5.64) and -5.30 mmol/mol (95% CI -6.58; -4.03), confirming non-inferiority of IDegLira to degludec and superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (P < .0001 for both [primary endpoint]). Mean body weight changes were 2.9 kg, 4.1 kg and -1.0 kg with IDegLira, degludec and liraglutide, respectively, showing superiority of IDegLira versus degludec (P = .0001), but a significant difference in favour of liraglutide (P < .0001). Rates of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia for IDegLira were lower versus degludec (rate ratio 0.48 [95% CI 0.35; 0.68]; P < .0001), but higher versus liraglutide (rate ratio 37.58 [95% CI 19.80; 71.31]; P < .0001). Mean daily total insulin dose was lower with IDegLira (27.7 U) versus degludec (34.8 U; P < .0001). Overall adverse event (AE) rates were similar. In total, 34.9%, 22.9% and 41.8% of IDegLira-, degludec- and liraglutide-treated participants experienced gastrointestinal AEs. CONCLUSION: IDegLira was superior to degludec and liraglutide in terms of HbA1c reduction and superior to degludec in terms of body weight change and rates of hypoglycaemia in Japanese people with T2D.

Superior HbA1c control with the fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with a maximum dose of 50 units of insulin degludec in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes in a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with 50 U insulin degludec (degludec) or less in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, Japanese individuals with T2D that was uncontrolled with basal or pre-mix insulin (20-50 units) were randomized (1:1) to receive IDegLira or degludec, both with metformin. The maximum dose was 50 dose steps (IDegLira) or 50 units (degludec). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c with IDegLira vs degludec after 26 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: In total, 210 Japanese individuals were randomized to IDegLira or degludec and completion rates were 100% and 93%, respectively. IDegLira was superior to degludec with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) (95% confidence interval), -13.98 mmol/Mol (-16.41; -11.55); P < 0.0001. The change in mean HbA1c was from 70.6 by -21.3 mmol/Mol with IDegLira and from 70.1 by -7.1 mmol/Mol with degludec. Mean change in body weight was -0.7 kg with IDegLira and 0.7 kg with degludec: ETD (95% CI) -1.41 kg (-2.26; -0.56); P = 0.0012. Mean daily total insulin dose was significantly lower with IDegLira (37.6 U) as compared to that with degludec (41.2 U) at Week 26. Overall rates of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia and adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira provided superior reductions in HbA1c compared with ≤50 U degludec, with weight loss and similar hypoglycaemia rates and no unexpected safety or tolerability issues. These results suggest that this treatment could be an attractive intensification option for Japanese subjects with T2D that was uncontrolled with basal or pre-mixed insulin.

Safety and efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide vs additional oral antidiabetic drugs in Japanese people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial.

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide as monotherapy or combined with an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) vs an additional OAD added to background therapy in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on diet/exercise or OAD monotherapy. METHODS: In this phase III, open-label trial, adults with T2D were randomized 2:2:1 to semaglutide 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, or one additional OAD (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, biguanide, sulphonylurea, glinide, α-glucosidase inhibitor or thiazolidinedione) with a different mode of action from that of background therapy. The primary endpoint was number of adverse events (AEs) after 56 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms (601 randomized). More AEs were reported in the semaglutide 0.5 mg (86.2%) and 1.0 mg (88.0%) groups than in the additional OAD group (71.7%). These were typically mild/moderate. Gastrointestinal AEs were most frequent with semaglutide, which diminished over time. The mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration (baseline 8.1%) was significantly reduced with semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg vs additional OAD (1.7% and 2.0% vs 0.7%, respectively; estimated treatment difference [ETD] vs additional OAD -1.08% and -1.37%, both P < .0001). Body weight (baseline 71.5 kg) was reduced by 1.4 kg and 3.2 kg with semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg, vs a 0.4-kg increase with additional OAD (ETD -1.84 kg and -3.59 kg; both P < .0001). For semaglutide-treated participants, >80% achieved an HbA1c concentration <7.0% (Japanese Diabetes Society target). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was well tolerated, with no new safety issues identified. Semaglutide treatment significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight vs additional OAD treatment in Japanese people with T2D.

Safety and efficacy of semaglutide once weekly vs sitagliptin once daily, both as monotherapy in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide vs sitagliptin in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: In this phase IIIa randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled, multicentre trial, Japanese adults with T2D treated with diet and exercise only or oral antidiabetic drug monotherapy (washed out during the run-in period) received once-weekly s.c. semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after 30 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 308 participants were randomized and exposed to treatment, with similar baseline characteristics across the groups. In total, 2.9% of participants in both the semaglutide 0.5 mg and the sitagliptin group prematurely discontinued treatment, compared with 14.7% in the semaglutide 1.0 mg group. The majority of discontinuations in the semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg groups were attributable to adverse events (AEs). More TEAEs were reported in semaglutide- vs sitagliptin-treated participants (74.8%, 71.6% and 66.0% in the semaglutide 0.5 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin groups, respectively). AEs were mainly mild to moderate. Gastrointestinal AEs, most frequently reported with semaglutide, diminished in frequency over time. The mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c [baseline 8.1%]) decreased by 1.9% and 2.2% with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs 0.7% with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference [ETD] vs sitagliptin -1.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.32; -0.94, and -1.44%, 95% CI -1.63; -1.24; both P < .0001). Body weight (baseline 69.3 kg) was reduced by 2.2 and 3.9 kg with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively (ETD -2.22 kg, 95% CI -3.02; -1.42 and -3.88 kg, 95% CI -4.70; -3.07; both P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese people with T2D, more TEAEs were reported with semaglutide than with sitagliptin; however, the semaglutide safety profile was similar to that of other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight compared with sitagliptin.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based metrics and the duration of hypoglycaemia events with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis of ONWARDS 1.

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can provide a comprehensive assessment of glycaemic control. This exploratory analysis of the ONWARDS 1 trial assessed CGM-based metrics and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia duration in insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with subcutaneous once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100). METHODS: ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week (52-week main treatment phase and a 26-week treatment extension phase plus a 5-week follow-up), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial done at 143 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across 12 countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c: 7·0-11·0%) who had not previously received insulin were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web-response system to once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100. Double-masked CGM data were collected during treatment initiation (weeks 0-4), midtrial (weeks 22-26), end of main phase (weeks 48-52), end of extension phase (weeks 74-78), and follow-up (weeks 78-83). Secondary and exploratory outcomes were CGM-based metrics, including the mean percentages of time in glycaemic range (TIR; sensor glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]), time in tight range (TITR; 3·9-7·8 mmol/L [70-140 mg/dL]), time above range (TAR; >10·0 mmol/L [>180 mg/dL]), and time below range (TBR; <3·9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL] and <3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]), and CGM-derived hypoglycaemic episode durations (episodes defined by sensor glucose <3·9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL for ≥15 consecutive minutes]). Analyses were done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). The ONWARDS 1 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04460885, and is complete. FINDINGS: Participants were enrolled and randomly assigned in ONWARDS 1 between Nov 25, 2020, and Dec 1, 2022 (n=492 in each treatment group). During treatment initiation, we observed no statistically significant differences in the mean percentages of TIR, TITR, TAR, and TBR with icodec versus glargine U100. During the midtrial, end of main phase, and end of extension phase periods, the mean percentages of TIR and TITR were statistically significantly greater and the mean percentages of TAR statistically significantly lower with icodec versus glargine U100. The mean percentages of TIR met the internationally recommended CGM target (>70%) with icodec but not with glargine U100 during the three periods. TBR (<3·9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL] and <3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) was low and below recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across all study periods in both treatment groups, with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for the lower threshold (<3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]). During the follow-up period, mean percentages of TIR, TITR, TAR, and TBR did not statistically significantly differ with icodec versus glargine U100. The duration of overall hypoglycaemic episodes was similar between treatment groups throughout the trial (median duration ≤35 min). INTERPRETATION: These CGM data support the long-term efficacy and safety of icodec versus glargine U100 during treatment and indicated no increase in the duration of individual hypoglycaemic episodes with icodec versus glargine U100 in insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 1, 2, 5 and 9 trials: Post-hoc analysis.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The etiology and treatment of type 2 diabetes might differ between specific populations. This post-hoc exploratory analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide vs comparators in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes in comparison with the total population from four phase III studies in the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes with Semaglutide in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN) program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis was carried out with data from the SUSTAIN 1, 2, 5 and 9 trials. Post-hoc analyses were carried out to assess outcomes in all participants and in Japanese participants in each study. The primary end-point was the change from baseline to end of study in glycated hemoglobin (%). The confirmatory secondary end-point was change from baseline to end of study in bodyweight (kg). RESULTS: Change from baseline to end of study in glycated hemoglobin with once-weekly semaglutide ranged from -1.32 to -1.85% points in the overall populations, and -1.69 to -2.49% points in Japanese participants. With once-weekly semaglutide, relative bodyweight was reduced from baseline to end of study by 4.0-7.3% in the overall populations, and 2.7-10.4% in Japanese participants. In the Japanese subpopulation, no new safety concerns were identified with once-weekly semaglutide, and there were no adverse events leading to death or severe hypoglycemic episodes. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, participants with type 2 diabetes initiating once-weekly semaglutide experienced improvements in glycated hemoglobin and bodyweight in both the overall and Japanese population, and no new safety concerns were identified among Japanese participants, supporting the efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide in this population.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes by baseline age and body mass index.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Many East Asians with type 2 diabetes are elderly and have a low body mass index (BMI), especially in 'super-aged' populations, such as Japan. This post-hoc analysis assessed once-weekly semaglutide efficacy and safety in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes across baseline age and BMI subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN) Japan monotherapy and SUSTAIN Japan oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) combination trials comparing once-weekly semaglutide with sitagliptin or OADs, respectively. Participants were grouped by baseline age (<65 and ≥65 years) and/or BMI (<25 and ≥25 kg/m2 ). Reductions from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin and bodyweight (efficacy), and adverse events (safety) were assessed. RESULTS: In this analysis, participants from the SUSTAIN Japan monotherapy trial (n = 308; n per subgroup; range, 8-73) and SUSTAIN Japan OAD combination trial (n = 601; n per subgroup; range, 20-168) were included. Reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin and bodyweight were numerically greater with semaglutide versus comparators across all age and BMI subgroups. Reductions from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin ranged from -1.7 to -2.1 with semaglutide 0.5 mg, -1.8 to -2.4 with semaglutide 1.0 mg and -0.6 to -1.0 with comparators. Corresponding ranges for bodyweight (kg) were -1.0 to -2.5, -2.4 to -4.3 and 1.0 to -1.0 kg, respectively. The safety profile of semaglutide was broadly similar across BMI and age subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis with modest subgroup numbers, once-weekly semaglutide appeared consistently more efficacious versus comparators across age and BMI subgroups in Japanese patients, with a similar safety profile.

Semaglutide once a week in adults with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes in an east Asian population (STEP 6): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, phase 3a trial.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide 2·4 mg once weekly has been investigated for weight management in global populations. Differences exist between Asian and non-Asian populations in terms of body composition and definitions of obesity. In the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) 6 trial, we assessed the effect of semaglutide versus placebo for weight management in adults from east Asia with obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, phase 3a superiority trial was done at 28 outpatient clinics in Japan and South Korea. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years in South Korea; ≥20 years in Japan) with a BMI of at least 27·0 kg/m2 with two or more weight-related comorbidities or a BMI of 35·0 kg/m2 or more with one or more weight-related comorbidity (one comorbidity had to be either hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or, in Japan only, type 2 diabetes) who had at least one self-reported unsuccessful dietary attempt to lose bodyweight. Participants were randomly assigned (4:1:2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg or matching placebo, or semaglutide 1·7 mg or matching placebo, plus lifestyle recommendations for 68 weeks. Data for the placebo groups were pooled in statistical analyses. The primary endpoints were percentage change in bodyweight from baseline at week 68 and the proportion of participants who had achieved a reduction of at least 5% of baseline bodyweight at week 68. Change in abdominal visceral fat area was assessed as a supportive secondary endpoint using computed tomography scanning in a subset of participants. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned participants according to the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03811574. FINDINGS: Between Jan 21, 2019 and June 4, 2019, 437 participants were screened, of whom 401 were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2·4 mg (n=199), semaglutide 1·7 mg (n=101), or placebo (n=101) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Estimated mean change in bodyweight from baseline to week 68 was -13·2% (SEM 0·5) in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group and -9·6% (0·8) in the semaglutide 1·7 mg group versus -2·1% (0·8) in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -11·1 percentage points [95% CI -12·9 to -9·2] for semaglutide 2·4 mg vs placebo; -7·5 percentage points [95% CI -9·6 to -5·4] for semaglutide 1·7 mg vs placebo; both p<0·0001). At week 68, a larger proportion of participants had achieved a 5% or higher reduction in baseline bodyweight in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group (160 [83%] of 193 participants) and semaglutide 1·7 mg group (71 [72%] of 98 participants) than in the placebo group (21 [21%] of 100 participants); odds ratio [OR] 21·7 [95% CI 11·3 to 41·9] for semaglutide 2·4 mg vs placebo; OR 11·1 [95% CI 5·5 to 22·2] for semaglutide 1·7 mg vs placebo; both p<0·0001). Abdominal visceral fat area was reduced by 40·0% (SEM 2·6) among participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group and 22·2% (3·7) among participants in the semaglutide 1·7 mg group versus 6·9% (3·8) in the placebo group (ETD -33·2% [95% CI -42·1 to -24·2] for semaglutide 2·4 mg vs placebo; -15·3% [95% CI -25·6 to -4·9] for semaglutide 1·7 mg vs placebo). 171 (86%) of 199 participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group, 82 (82%) of 100 participants in the semaglutide 1·7 mg group, and 80 (79%) of 101 participants in the placebo group reported adverse events. Gastrointestinal disorders, which were mostly mild to moderate, were reported in 118 (59%) of 199 participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group, 64 (64%) of 100 participants in the semaglutide 1·7 mg group, and 30 (30%) of 101 participants in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to trial product discontinuation occurred in five (3%) of 199 participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group, three (3%) of 100 participants in the semaglutide 1·7 mg group, and one (1%) of 101 participants in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Adults from east Asia with obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes, given semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week had superior and clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, and greater reductions in abdominal visceral fat area compared with placebo, representing a promising treatment option for weight management in this population. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. TRANSLATIONS: For the Korean and Japanese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Efficacy and safety of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide by baseline glycated hemoglobin, body mass index and age in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of two phase III trials.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes across different baseline characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from two randomized controlled trials were used: DUAL I Japan (n = 819 insulin-naïve participants) and DUAL II Japan (n = 210 insulin-experienced participants). Outcomes were assessed according to baseline glycated hemoglobin ( HbA1c ; <8.0%, ≥8.0-<9.0%, ≥9.0%), body mass index (<25, ≥25-<30, ≥30 kg/m2 ) and age (<65, ≥65 years). RESULTS: In DUAL I Japan, reductions in HbA1c with IDegLira versus degludec and liraglutide were observed across all subgroups (treatment differences: -0.48% to -0.72% vs degludec, -0.29% to -0.73% vs liraglutide). Results were similar with IDegLira versus degludec in DUAL II Japan (treatment differences: -0.82% to -1.61%). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions were significant for IDegLira versus liraglutide for baseline HbA1c and age in DUAL I Japan, and for IDegLira versus degludec for baseline HbA1c in DUAL II Japan. In DUAL I Japan, IDegLira was associated with less weight gain than degludec in most subgroups. In DUAL II Japan, IDegLira was associated with a small mean weight loss (except for baseline HbA1c ≥9.0%) versus a small gain for degludec (except for age ≥65 years subgroup); treatment-by-subgroup interactions were not significant. Total daily insulin dose was lower with IDegLira versus degludec across all categories, except for age >65 years in DUAL II Japan. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira reduced HbA1c in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes across baseline HbA1c , body mass index and age categories, without unexpected safety issues.

Effects of ultrasonic frequency and liquid height on sonochemical efficiency of large-scale sonochemical reactors.

The sonochemical efficiency of a cylindrical sonochemical reactor has been investigated as a function of frequency and liquid height. The irradiation frequencies were 45, 129, 231 and 490 kHz. The liquid height was varied from 10 to 700 mm. The sonochemical efficiency of the cylindrical reactor was evaluated by potassium iodide (KI) dosimetry and calorimetry. In our study, the sonochemical efficiency depended on the frequency and liquid height; further, the plots of sonochemical efficiency against liquid height exhibit one or two peaks for each frequency. The sonochemical efficiency up to the first peak increased monotonically with the logarithm of the frequency, and the liquid height for the first peak was inversely proportional to the frequency. From these results, the optimum frequency for a sonochemical reactor can be determined if the liquid height is specified for scale-up of the sonochemical reactor.

Fast-acting insulin aspart in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes: Faster onset, higher early exposure and greater early glucose-lowering effect relative to insulin aspart.

INTRODUCTION: Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart (IAsp) in a new formulation with two added excipients (niacinamide and L-arginine) in order to obtain accelerated absorption after subcutaneous dosing. The present study compared the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics of faster aspart vs IAsp in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, 43 participants were given faster aspart and IAsp (0.2 U/kg single dose) at two separate dosing visits. Frequent pharmacokinetic blood sampling was carried out, and pharmacodynamics were assessed using an automated euglycemic clamp lasting for a maximum of 12 h after dosing (target 5.5 mmol/L). RESULTS: Faster aspart showed onset of appearance approximately twice-as-fast vs IAsp (least squares means: 3.0 vs 7.1 min; estimated treatment difference -4.1 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.0, -3.2; P < 0.001) and onset of action occurring approximately 5 min earlier (20.2 vs 25.5 min; estimated treatment difference -5.3 min, 95% CI: -8.4, -2.2; P = 0.001). Within the first 30 min post-dose, both exposure (area under the curve [AUC]IAsp,0-30 min ) and glucose-lowering effect (AUCGIR,0-30 min ) were approximately twofold greater for faster aspart vs IAsp (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Bioavailability of faster aspart was similar to IAsp (AUCIAsp,0-t ; estimated treatment ratio 0.99, 90% CI: 0.96-1.02), whereas the total glucose-lowering effect (AUCGIR,0-t ) was slightly lower for faster aspart vs IAsp (estimated treatment ratio 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart showed faster onset, higher early exposure and a greater early glucose-lowering effect relative to IAsp in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes, in accordance with previous findings in Caucasian type 1 diabetes patients.

A Randomized Trial Investigating the Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety of Subcutaneous Semaglutide Once-Weekly in Healthy Male Japanese and Caucasian Subjects.

INTRODUCTION: Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue for once-weekly subcutaneous treatment of type 2 diabetes. This trial compared the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of semaglutide in Japanese and Caucasian subjects. METHODS: In this single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, 13-week trial, 44 healthy male subjects (22 Japanese, 22 Caucasian) were randomized within each race to semaglutide 0.5 mg (n = 8), 1.0 mg (n = 8), placebo 0.5 mg (n = 3) or 1.0 mg (n = 3). The primary endpoint was semaglutide exposure at steady state [area under the curve (AUC0-168h)]. RESULTS: Steady-state exposure of semaglutide was similar for both populations: AUC0-168h estimated race ratio (ERR), Japanese/Caucasian: 0.5 mg, 1.06; 1.0 mg, 0.99; maximum concentration (Cmax) ERR: 0.5 mg, 1.06; 1.0 mg, 1.02. Exposure after the first dose (0.25 mg) was slightly higher in Japanese versus Caucasian subjects (AUC0-168h ERR 1.11; Cmax ERR 1.14). Dose-dependent increases in AUC0-168h and Cmax occurred in both populations. Accumulation was as expected, based on the half-life (t1/2, ~ 1 week) and dosing interval of semaglutide. Significant body weight reductions were observed with semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg in Japanese (both p ≤ 0.05) and Caucasian (both p ≤ 0.05) subjects versus placebo. No new safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety profiles of semaglutide were similar in Japanese and Caucasian subjects, suggesting that no dose adjustment is required for the clinical use of semaglutide in Japanese subjects. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02146079. Japanese trial registration number JapicCTI-142550.

Insulin degludec in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin degludec is an ultra-long-acting insulin with a flat time-action profile and duration of action >42 h. Data from several studies have shown insulin degludec to have a favorable therapeutic profile in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 6-week, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial carried out in 65 Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes, previously treated with mealtime insulin aspart and either insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Patients were randomized to receive either insulin degludec or insulin detemir, each once daily and at the same unit dose as pretrial basal insulin. During the trial, basal insulin was titrated according to a prespecified algorithm in order to achieve a fasting plasma glucose target of 80-109 mg/dL. RESULTS: No severe hypoglycemia occurred; there was no significant difference in confirmed hypoglycemia rates with insulin degludec and insulin detemir (rate ratio degludec/detemir 0.78; 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.34). The rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia was 69% lower with insulin degludec than with insulin detemir (rate ratio 0.31; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.78). Final fasting plasma glucose levels were similar (insulin degludec 147 mg/dL, insulin detemir 136 mg/dL), despite differing baseline fasting plasma glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, no concerns relating to hypoglycemia or general safety were observed when initiating insulin degludec in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes at the same unit dose as previous basal insulin. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00841087).

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide in combination with sulfonylurea safely improves blood glucose measures vs sulfonylurea monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a 52-week, randomized, multicenter trial.

UNLABELLED: Aims/Introduction: Sulfonylurea (SU) agents are the most effective drugs at lowering blood glucose when used alone. However, their effectiveness declines after a certain period. The addition of liraglutide to existing SU therapy might reverse some of the known drawbacks of SU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, 52-week study assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide at 0.6 or 0.9 mg/day to existing SU therapy in Japanese patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: In total, 264 patients were enrolled and received treatment. At week 52, HbA1c in the liraglutide 0.6 mg, liraglutide 0.9 mg and placebo groups was reduced from 9.00 to 7.91%, from 8.61 to 7.33%, and from 8.85 to 8.79%, respectively. The mean difference of HbA1c (95% CI) in the liraglutide 0.6 and 0.9 mg groups vs the placebo group was 0.96 (-1.25 to -0.67) and -1.33 (-1.62 to -1.04), respectively. For the liraglutide 0.6 mg, 0.9 mg and placebo groups, the Japanese Diabetes Society target HbA1c of <6.9% was achieved by 15.1, 39.1 and 4.5% of patients, respectively. Mean fasting plasma glucose at week 52 was lower in the liraglutide groups compared with the placebo group, and mean bodyweight remained unchanged in the liraglutide groups. Most subjects in all three treatment groups reported mild adverse events. No major hypoglycemic episode was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily administration of liraglutide in combination with SU for 52 weeks provided favorable metabolic control, a safety profile and did not alter bodyweight. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (no. NCT00395746). (J Diabetes Invest,doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2011.00103.x, 2011).

Fifty-two-week, randomized, multicenter trial to compare the safety and efficacy of the novel glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide vs glibenclamide in patients with type 2 diabetes.

UNLABELLED: Aims/Introduction: We compared the safety and efficacy of liraglutide vs glibenclamide in patients with poorly controlled (HbA1c, 7.4-10.4%) type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned at a 1:2 ratio to receive 1-year treatment with glibenclamide 1.25-2.5 mg/day or liraglutide 0.9 mg/day. Other oral anti-diabetic drugs (OAD) were prohibited during the trial. Adverse events (AE) were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients (liraglutide group, n = 268; glibenclamide group, n = 132) were randomized and exposed to trial products. At week 52 vs baseline, HbA1c in the liraglutide and glibenclamide groups was reduced from 9.3 to 7.8% and from 9.2 to 8.2%, respectively. Treatment difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) at the end of the study was -0.49 (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.27). In the liraglutide and glibenclamide groups, Japan Diabetes Society target HbA1c < 6.9% was achieved by 22.1 and 8.5% of patients, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose fell from 202.8 and 202.1 mg/dL, respectively, to 145.3 and 156.7 mg/dL, respectively. Mean plasma glucose and mean postprandial plasma glucose increment were lower in the liraglutide group. Mean bodyweight was reduced by -0.8 kg in the liraglutide group and increased by 1.0 kg in the glibenclamide group. The proportion of patients reporting at least one treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) in the liraglutide and glibenclamide groups was 91.4 and 91.7%, respectively. Most TEAE were mild in severity. No major hypoglycemic episode was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily administration of liraglutide 0.9 mg for 52 weeks provides more favorable metabolic control and safety profile compared with glibenclamide. Patients on liraglutide lost bodyweight, whereas those on glibenclamide gained weight. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (no. NCT00393718). (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2011.00128.x, 2011).

28-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group phase III trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70 thrice-daily injections vs twice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

UNLABELLED: Aims/Introduction: An insulin analogue formulation with a 7:3 ratio of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting fractions, biphasic insulin aspart 70 (BIAsp70) was developed to supplement basal insulin between meals and mimic the physiological pattern of postprandial insulin secretion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a randomized, open-label study to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of BIAsp70 and an insulin analogue formulation with a 3:7 ratio of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting fractions (BIAsp30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Patients were randomized and received either thrice-daily BIAsp70 (n = 145) or twice-daily BIAsp30 (n = 144) for 28 weeks. The primary end-point was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 16 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of BIAsp70 vs BIAsp30 was confirmed and superiority was established with a between-group difference (BIAsp70-BIAsp30) in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment of -0.35% (95% CI: -0.51 to -0.19; P < 0.0001 for superiority). The mean postprandial glucose increment (19.96 vs 54.35 mg/dL; P < 0.0001) and M-value (12.99 vs 17.94; P < 0.0001) at 16 weeks were smaller in the BIAsp70 group than in the BIAsp30 group, and were maintained at 28 weeks. Pre-breakfast glucose (157.9 vs 140.7 mg/dL), total insulin dose (46.8 vs 38.1 U/day) and weight gain (+1.94 vs 1.23 kg) at week 28 were greater in the BIAsp70 group. Incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with BIAsp70 vs BIAsp30 (1.23 vs 3.21 events/subject year; P = 0.0002) at week 28. CONCLUSIONS: Thrice-daily BIAsp70 was superior to twice-daily BIAsp30 in terms of HbA1c change, with less variation in daytime plasma glucose profiles. BIAsp70 was well tolerated, with a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia vs BIAsp30. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (no. NCT00318786). (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2010.00015.x, 2010).