Hypoglycaemia frequency and physiological response after double or triple doses of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study compared the frequency of hypoglycaemia, time to hypoglycaemia and recovery from hypoglycaemia after double or triple doses of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily insulin glargine U100. Furthermore, the symptomatic and counterregulatory responses to hypoglycaemia were compared between icodec and glargine U100 treatment. METHODS: In a randomised, single-centre (Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria), open-label, two-period crossover trial, individuals with type 2 diabetes (age 18-72 years, BMI 18.5-37.9 kg/m2, HbA1c ≤75 mmol/mol [≤9.0%]) treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs received once-weekly icodec (for 6 weeks) and once-daily glargine U100 (for 11 days). Total weekly doses were equimolar based on individual titration of daily glargine U100 during the run-in period (target fasting plasma glucose [PG]: 4.4-7.2 mmol/l). Randomisation was carried out by assigning a randomisation number to each participant in ascending order, which encoded to one of two treatment sequences via a randomisation list prepared prior to the start of the trial. At steady state, double and triple doses of icodec and glargine U100 were administered followed by hypoglycaemia induction: first, euglycaemia was maintained at 5.5 mmol/l by variable i.v. infusion of glucose; glucose infusion was then terminated, allowing PG to decrease to no less than 2.5 mmol/l (target PGnadir). The PGnadir was maintained for 15 min. Euglycaemia was restored by constant i.v. glucose (5.5 mg kg-1 min-1). Hypoglycaemic symptoms score (HSS), counterregulatory hormones, vital signs and cognitive function were assessed at predefined PG levels towards the PGnadir. RESULTS: Hypoglycaemia induction was initiated in 43 and 42 participants after double dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively, and in 38 and 40 participants after triple doses, respectively. Clinically significant hypoglycaemia, defined as PGnadir <3.0 mmol/l, occurred in comparable proportions of individuals treated with icodec vs glargine U100 after double (17 [39.5%] vs 15 [35.7%]; p=0.63) and triple (20 [52.6%] vs 28 [70.0%]; p=0.14) doses. No statistically significant treatment differences were observed in the time to decline from PG values of 5.5 mmol/l to 3.0 mmol/l (2.9-4.5 h after double dose and 2.2-2.4 h after triple dose of the insulin products). The proportion of participants with PGnadir ≤2.5 mmol/l was comparable between treatments after double dose (2 [4.7%] for icodec vs 3 [7.1%] for glargine U100; p=0.63) but higher for glargine U100 after triple dose (1 [2.6%] vs 10 [25.0%]; p=0.03). Recovery from hypoglycaemia by constant i.v. glucose infusion took <30 min for all treatments. Analyses of the physiological response to hypoglycaemia only included data from participants with PGnadir <3.0 mmol/l and/or the presence of hypoglycaemic symptoms; in total 20 (46.5%) and 19 (45.2%) individuals were included after a double dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively, and 20 (52.6%) and 29 (72.5%) individuals were included after a triple dose of icodec and glargine U100, respectively. All counterregulatory hormones (glucagon, adrenaline [epinephrine], noradrenaline [norepinephrine], cortisol and growth hormone) increased during hypoglycaemia induction with both insulin products at both doses. Following triple doses, the hormone response was greater with icodec vs glargine U100 for adrenaline at PG3.0 mmol/l (treatment ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.69, 3.82]; p<0.001), and cortisol at PG3.0 mmol/l (treatment ratio 1.64 [95% CI 1.13, 2.38]; p=0.01) and PGnadir (treatment ratio 1.80 [95% CI 1.09, 2.97]; p=0.02). There were no statistically significant treatment differences in the HSS, vital signs and cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Double or triple doses of once-weekly icodec lead to a similar risk of hypoglycaemia compared with double or triple doses of once-daily glargine U100. During hypoglycaemia, comparable symptomatic and moderately greater endocrine responses are elicited by icodec vs glargine U100. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945656. FUNDING: This study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

Sex differences in the complications, care and clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

AIM: To examine sex differences in the characteristics and outcomes in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD), randomized to once-weekly exenatide (EQW) or placebo in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline characteristics were summarized and compared by sex. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for clinical outcomes, including the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke (MACE3). Models including sex-by-treatment interaction were used to evaluate differences in effects of EQW. RESULTS: Overall, 5603 women and 9149 men were followed for a median of 3.2 years. Women were younger (mean 61.4 vs. 62.2 years, P < .001) and had a shorter duration of diabetes (mean 12.9 vs. 13.2 years, P = .039) and less coronary artery disease (35.2% vs. 61.0%, P < .001) than men, but also a less favourable metabolic risk profile and lower use of cardioprotective medications. MACE3 occurred in 9.1% of women and 13.5% of men, corresponding to 2.82 versus 4.40 events/100 participant-years (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93, P = .003). There was no difference in MACE3 with EQW compared with placebo, or evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect by sex. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of a large population of individuals with T2D, with or without established CVD, identified between-sex differences in clinical characteristics and care. Despite having worse management of CV risk factors, women had significantly lower rates of important CV events not attributable to the effects of study treatment.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly versus once-daily basal insulin analogues in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To summarize the evidence of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying efficacy, in terms of glycaemic control, and safety of the newly developed once-weekly basal insulin analogues. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted through Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library and Google Scholar until June 30, 2023. Double-independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Results were summarized with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3962 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among nine RCTs were analysed. All RCTs had low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Once-weekly insulins demonstrated better efficacy in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (mean difference [MD] -0.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23, -0.03; P = 0.08) and a significantly greater time in range compared with once-daily insulin analogues (MD 3.54%, 95% CI 1.56, 5.53; P = 0.005). Based on subgroup analyses, the reduction in HbA1c and the odds of achieving an end-of-treatment HbA1c <6.5% were significantly greater for icodec compared to the once-daily insulin (MD -0.18%, 95% CI -0.27, -0.09 [P < 0.001] and odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.34, 2.29 [P < 0.001], respectively). Once-weekly insulins were associated with higher odds of level 1 hypoglycaemia during the 24-hour period (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.04, 1.64; P = 0.02) but were safer in terms of level 2 or 3 nocturnal hypoglycaemic events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56, 0.97; P = 0.03). No difference was observed regarding serious adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The once-weekly basal insulin analogues seem to be at least equally efficient in glycaemic management and safe compared to once-daily injections in people with T2DM. Phase 4 RCTs are expected to shed further light on the effectiveness and safety of once-weekly insulin therapy over the long term.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label trial (COMING study).

AIM: To compare the clinical usefulness of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and semaglutide at the doses approved for use in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In total, 120 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7% were randomly assigned to dulaglutide (n = 59) or semaglutide group (n = 61), and 107 participants (dulaglutide/semaglutide = 53/54) completed the 24-week trial. The primary endpoint was the difference of HbA1c level between the two groups at 24 weeks. RESULTS: HbA1c level at 24 weeks was significantly lower in the semaglutide group (7.9 ± 0.5%-6.7 ± 0.5%) compared with the dulaglutide group (8.1 ± 0.6%-7.4 ± 0.8%) (p < .0001). Reduction in body mass index and visceral fat area were also more significant in the semaglutide group (p < .05, respectively). The achievement rate of HbA1c <7% was higher in the semaglutide group (p < .0001). The parameters such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase were decreased in the semaglutide group. Surprisingly, only semaglutide group significantly improved the apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, which is considered a useful myocardial infarction risk index. Using computed tomography, the liver to spleen ratio was significantly elevated only in the semaglutide group. In contrast, gastrointestinal symptoms were observed in 13.2% of dulaglutide and 46.3% of semaglutide group (p < .01). The Diabetes Treatment-Related Quality of Life scores related to pain and gastrointestinal symptoms were also superior in the dulaglutide group. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective trial showed that semaglutide has more pronounced glucose- and body mass index-lowering effects and reduces liver fat percentage and visceral fat area and that dulaglutide has less gastrointestinal symptoms and superior Diabetes Treatment-Related Quality of Life scores related to pain and gastrointestinal symptoms.

Effects of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on type 2 diabetes mellitus complicated with coronary artery disease: Potential role of the renin-angiotensin system.

AIM: To investigate the potential mechanism of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complicated with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We searched both Chinese and English databases for randomized controlled trials related to once-weekly GLP-1 RA for T2DM complicated with CAD to verify the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RA. The underlying mechanism was analysed by network pharmacology. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies with 35 563 participants were included in the analysis. The pooled analysis found that dulaglutide, exenatide and semaglutide outperformed placebo in cardiovascular outcomes in patients with T2DM, with a significant reduction in the incidence of non-fatal stroke (p < .00). Levels of cardiovascular risk factors were significantly reduced in the once-weekly GLP-1 RA group compared with the conventional treatment group (glycated haemoglobin: p < .00; fasting blood glucose: p < .00; weight: p < .00; systolic blood pressure: p < .00; total cholesterol: p < .00; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: p < .00). Network pharmacology results were enriched to the renin-angiotensin system, and matrix metalloproteinase 2 and renin (REN) may be the key targets. In addition, four key targets of dulaglutide, five key targets of exenatide and two key targets of semaglutide were enriched. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that once-weekly GLP-1 RA may have a potential protective effect on cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM combined with CAD, possibly through the renin-angiotensin system. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings and determine cause and effect.

Once Monthly Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma: A Multicenter Observation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Elotuzumab and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ERd) is a standard salvage chemotherapy for multiple myeloma, and elotuzumab is commonly administered every 2 weeks after cycle 3 (conventional ERd). Alternatively, elotuzumab may often be used every 4 weeks (monthly ERd) in real-world practice. The purpose of this multicenter observational study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of monthly ERd. METHODS: We investigated the efficacy and tolerability between conventional and monthly ERd regimens for the myeloma patients in six institutes retrospectively. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in this study. The median patient age was 68 years. The median number of prior chemotherapies was two (1-5). The number of patients with prior lenalidomide exposure was 57 (76.0%). The numbers of progressive disease (PD) and non-PD before ERd were 23 (30.7%) and 52 (69.3%), respectively. The frequency of PD before ERd was significantly lower in the monthly ERd group than in the conventional ERd group. In 26.9 months of median follow-up period, the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate in the monthly ERd group was significantly longer than that in the conventional ERd group (95.0% and 62.0%, hazard ratio 0.082, p = 0.002). However, no significant difference in PFS between these two ERd groups was found using multivariate analysis. The complete response rates were similar between the monthly and conventional ERd groups (55.0% and 32.7%, p = 0.109). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the monthly and conventional ERd groups (35.0% and 54.5%, p = 0.192). There was no significant difference in the kinetics of the mean absolute lymphocyte count, CD4, CD8, CD16, CD56, and CD57 positive lymphocyte counts, and CD4 to CD8 ratio between the monthly and conventional ERd groups. DISCUSSION: The efficacy and tolerability of monthly ERd were similar to those of conventional ERd. Thus, monthly ERd might be a reasonable option, considering the quality of life of patients and convenience.

[Sustaining molecular response with very low dose ponatinib and further response after hemodialysis initiation in a patient with chronic myeloid leukemia].

A 46-year-old man was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase. He was treated with imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib, but failed to achieve a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR). After tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, F317L BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutation was detected. At age 66, the patient started ponatinib (PON) at 45 mg/day, and achieved CCyR within three months. Subsequently, PON was tapered to 15 mg once weekly due to arterial-occlusive events. PON was discontinued after a 3-year deep molecular response (≥ MR4.5). However, the patient lost MR4.0 within two months, and PON (15 mg once weekly) was restarted. He achieved MR4.0 again within one month, and then a deeper molecular response (MR5.0) after starting dialysis therapy at the same PON dose. The trough value of PON (15 mg once weekly) was 5.8 ng/ml, which suppressed F317L mutation in the CML clone. Currently, the patient is 77 years old and is sustaining MR5.0. Chronic renal failure may cause hyperabsorption and metabolic retardation in patients receiving PON. Initiation of hemodialysis may improve homeostasis resulting in enhanced anti-tumor immunity against CML.

Effect of race on cardiometabolic responses to once-weekly exenatide: insights from the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

BACKGROUND: To determine whether there were racial differences in short-term cardiometabolic responses to once-weekly exenatide (EQW) in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL). METHODS: EXSCEL enrolled 14,752 patients with type 2 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 6.5-10.0% [48-86 mmol/mol]) with or without cardiovascular disease who were randomized double-blind to EQW or placebo. Background glucose-lowering/other cardiovascular therapies were unaltered for 6 months post-randomization unless clinically essential, facilitating comparison of EQW-associated effects in 14,665 evaluable participants self-identifying as White (n = 11,113), Asian (n = 1444), Black (n = 870), or Other Race (n = 1,238. Placebo-adjusted 6 month absolute changes in cardiometabolic variables were assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Mean 6-month placebo-adjusted HbA1c reductions were similar in the four groups (range 0.54-0.67% [5.9 to 7.3 mmol/mol], P = 0.11 for race×treatment interaction), with no significant difference in Asians (reference) versus other groups after covariate adjustment (all P ≥ 0.10). Six-month placebo-adjusted mean changes in systolic (-1.8 to 0.0 mmHg) and diastolic (0.2 to 1.2 mmHg) blood pressure, serum LDL (- 0.06 to 0.02 mmol/L) and HDL (0.00 to 0.01 mmol/L) cholesterol, and serum triglycerides (-0.1 to 0.0 mmol/L) were similar in the racial groups (P ≥ 0.19 for race×treatment interaction and all P ≥ 0.13 for comparisons of Asians with other races). Resting pulse rate increased more in Asians (4 beats/min) than in other groups (≤ 3 beats/min, P = 0.016 for race×treatment interaction and all P ≤ 0.050 for comparisons of Asians with other races). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term cardiometabolic responses to EQW were similar in the main racial groups in EXSCEL, apart from a greater pulse rate increase in Asians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov NCT01144338.

Real-world evaluation of weekly subcutaneous treatment with semaglutide in a cohort of Italian diabetic patients.

PURPOSE: Registered trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies provided evidence on the efficacy of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide on hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular risk factors as add-on or de-novo treatment in type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of electronic data files from 258 T2D patients, this RWE study aimed to explore the impact of OW semaglutide on biochemical and anthropometric outcomes after 6 and 12 months in patients receiving at least one prescription of OW semaglutide between September 2019 and May 2021. RESULTS: During the study period, 154 and 56 consecutive patients completed the 6 and 12 months of OW semaglutide treatment. HbA1c levels decreased by -1.02±0.1% after 6 months and -1.1±0.1% after 12 months of OW semaglutide (p<0.0001 for both). At these time-points, HbA1c values were <7% in 61% and 57% of cases. HbA1c reduction was greater in patients with higher baseline HbA1c levels and it occurred irrespective of gender, age, insulin therapy and complications. The residual number of cases with HbA1c ≥9% by the study end was low (5.3% vs 18.9% at baseline). Weight loss occurred in 73.5% and 78.1% of cases and, compared to baseline, it was ≥5% in 21.2- 25.4% and ≥10% in 6.8-18.2% after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Significant predictors of HbA1c reduction after 6 months of OW semaglutide treatment were baseline HbA1c (p<0.0001), bodyweight reduction (p<0.0001) and disease duration (p<0.001), while baseline HbA1c was the only predictor of HbA1c response after 12 months (p<0.0001). Reported adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evaluation of weekly subcutaneous treatment with semaglutide in a cohort of Italian diabetic patients.

Efficacy of once-weekly teriparatide for primary prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: A post hoc analysis of the TOWER-GO study.

OBJECTIVES: A post hoc analysis of the Teriparatide Once-Weekly Efficacy Research for Glucocorticoid-induced Osteoporosis (TOWER-GO) study was performed to examine the effect of once-weekly administration of 56.5 µg teriparatide on primary prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: Of the subjects of the TOWER-GO study, 73 were included. The percentage changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers were evaluated over 72 weeks with once-weekly teriparatide and once-weekly alendronate. RESULTS: The percentage change of lumbar spine BMD from baseline at 72 weeks was significantly increased in both groups. Bone formation markers were significantly increased by teriparatide administration, although they were slightly decreased by alendronate administration. Bone resorption markers were gradually decreased by teriparatide, whereas alendronate markedly decreased them within 4 weeks. No major safety concerns arose. CONCLUSIONS: In this primary prevention study of GIOP, comparable increases in BMD were observed between alendronate and once-weekly teriparatide. More desirable changes in bone markers were observed with teriparatide administration. These data suggest that once-weekly teriparatide is effective in primary prevention of GIOP.

Efficacy and safety of PEGylated exenatide injection (PB-119) in treatment-naive type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a Phase II randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) such as exenatide are used as monotherapy and add-on therapy for maintaining glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The current study investigated the safety and efficacy of once-weekly PB-119, a PEGylated exenatide injection, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this Phase II, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, we randomly assigned treatment-naive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous placebo or one of three subcutaneous doses of PB-119 (75, 150, and 200 µg) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12, and other endpoints were fasting plasma glucose, 2 h postprandial glucose (PPG), and proportion of patients with HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 251 patients to one of the four treatment groups (n = 62 in placebo and 63 each in PB-119 75 µg, 150 µg and 200 µg groups). At the end of 12 weeks, mean differences in HbA1c in the treatment groups were -7.76 mmol/mol (95% CI -9.23, -4.63, p < 0.001) (-0.72%, 95% CI -1.01, -0.43), -12.89 mmol/mol (95% CI -16.05, -9.72, p < 0.001) (-1.18%, 95% CI -1.47, -0.89) and -11.14 mmol/mol (95% CI -14.19, -7.97, p <0 .001) (-1.02%, 95% CI -1.30, -0.73) in the 75 µg, 150 µg and 200 µg PB-119 groups, respectively, compared with that in the placebo group after adjusting for baseline HbA1c. Similar results were also observed for other efficacy endpoints across different time points. There was no incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse event, severe hypoglycaemia or death. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: All tested PB-119 doses had superior efficacy compared with placebo and were safe and well tolerated over 12 weeks in treatment-naive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03520972 FUNDING: The study was funded by National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for Significant New Drugs Development and PegBio.

Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide treatment for persons with type 2 diabetes: Real-world data from a diabetes out-patient clinic.

AIMS: The once-weekly administered glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide, has, in clinical trials, demonstrated significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) and body weight in persons with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the real-world clinical effects of semaglutide once weekly in a hospital-based diabetes out-patient clinic. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study included persons with type 2 diabetes (n = 119) on a broad range of antidiabetic medicine: GLP-1RA naïve persons (n = 37) and GLP-1RA-experienced persons (n = 82). Person characteristics at inclusion: age [median (quartiles)]: 65 (57, 72) years; body weight 99 (86, 118) kg; body mass index (BMI) 33 (29, 38) kg/m²; HbA1c 61 (54, 69) mmol/mol/(7.7 (7.1, 8.5) %). Data were collected at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months of semaglutide treatment. Data were analysed using a general linear mixed model for repeated measurements. RESULTS: After 12 months, the reductions in HbA1c were (mean [95% confidence interval]: GLP-1RA naïve: -12.8 [-17.0, -8.5] mmol/mol/ -1.2 [-1.6, -0.8]% (p < 0.01) and GLP-1RA experienced: -6.4 [-9.0, -3.8] mmol/mol/ -0.6 [-0.8, -0.4]% (p < 0.01), respectively. Body weight reductions in GLP-1RA naïve: -5 [-6.9, -3.1] kg (p < 0.01) and GLP-1RA experienced: -3.2 [-4.4, -2.0] kg (p < 0.01), respectively. Seventy-five percent received 1 mg QW semaglutide. CONCLUSION: We observed effects of semaglutide once weekly on HbA1c and body weight comparable with the effects observed in clinical studies with fewer persons in our cohort receiving maximum dose of semaglutide.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin to treatment of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on insulin monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 52-week clinical trial, Japanese patients on insulin monotherapy were randomized to once-weekly omarigliptin 25 mg (N = 123) or placebo (N = 61) for a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period. After Week 16, patients continued or switched to omarigliptin for a 36-week open-label period. RESULTS: From a mean baseline of approximately 8.8%, the Week 16 least squares mean changes in HbA1c were -0.61% (omarigliptin) and 0.29% (placebo); the between-group difference was -0.90% (p < .001). At Week 52, the mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.57% in both the group on omarigliptin for 52 weeks and the group on omarigliptin for 36 weeks (switched from placebo at Week 16). During the first 16 weeks of treatment, the incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuation from trial medication because of an AE were similar in both groups. A slight increase in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was observed in the omarigliptin group (n = 13 [10.6%]) compared with placebo (n = 4 [6.6%]). No severe hypoglycaemia was reported during the study. No new safety signals emerged with treatment beyond Week 16 through Week 52. CONCLUSION: The addition of once-weekly omarigliptin to insulin therapy for up to 52 weeks was generally well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control throughout the trial period. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02906709.

Efficacy of once-weekly teriparatide in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: the TOWER-GO study.

INTRODUCTION: Bisphosphonates are the standard treatment for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) with teriparatide being another option. While daily teriparatide has been shown to be effective in increasing bone mineral density (BMD), the efficacy of once-weekly teriparatide (56.5 µg) has not yet been evaluated. The TOWER-GO study, a 72-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, was conducted in patients with GIOP to compare the effects of once-weekly teriparatide and once-weekly alendronate 35 mg on BMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 180) with GIOP for whom drug treatment was indicated according to the 2004 guidelines in Japan were randomized to receive once-weekly teriparatide (n = 89) or once-weekly alendronate (n = 91). The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of percentage change in lumbar spine BMD at final follow-up. The secondary endpoints were the percentage change in BMD from baseline, incidence of bone fractures, and changes in bone turnover markers. RESULTS: While the non-inferiority of teriparatide to alendronate was not confirmed, BMD increased significantly from baseline with teriparatide and alendronate by 5.09% and 4.04%, respectively (both p < 0.05), at 72 weeks. The incidence of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures was similar in both groups. Bone formation markers increased in the teriparatide group and decreased in the alendronate group. CONCLUSIONS: The non-inferiority of once-weekly teriparatide versus once-weekly alendronate in BMD change at 72 weeks was not shown, but the increase in bone formation markers over time and the increase of BMD in GIOP patients treated with once-weekly teriparatide were confirmed.

Once-weekly prophylaxis with glycoPEGylated recombinant factor VIII (N8-GP) in severe haemophilia A: Safety and efficacy results from pathfinder 2 (randomized phase III trial).

INTRODUCTION: Turoctocog alfa pegol (N8-GP) is a site-specific, 40 kDa glycoPEGylated recombinant factor VIII (FVIII) product with an extended half-life. The comprehensive main phase of the pivotal pathfinder 2 trial showed N8-GP dosed every 4 days (Q4D) provided favourable safety and efficacy for preventing bleeds in 175 patients with haemophilia A. AIM AND METHODS: We investigated the safety and efficacy of N8-GP prophylaxis when administered weekly (Q7D) for 24 weeks to patients with low bleeding rates in the pathfinder 2 extension trial. Patients (≥12 years) with ≤2 bleeds during the preceding 6 months of the pathfinder 2 main phase were eligible for randomization to receive N8-GP 50 IU/kg Q4D or 75 IU/kg Q7D. Safety and efficacy endpoints were incidence of FVIII inhibitors and annualized bleeding rate (ABR), respectively. RESULTS: Fifty-five of 143 (38.5%) patients on prophylaxis who continued into the extension phase were randomized to receive 50 IU/kg Q4D (n = 17) or 75 IU/kg Q7D (n = 38). Nine patients in the Q7D cohort reverted to 50 IU/kg Q4D. No inhibitors were detected. In both cohorts, >50% of patients experienced no bleeds. Median ABR for overall, joint, spontaneous, traumatic and muscle was 0.00 for both cohorts. Overall estimated success rate for treating bleeding episodes was 87.5%; 94.7% of bleeds were controlled with ≤2 injections. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly N8-GP was well tolerated and efficacious and may benefit selected "low bleeder" patients with haemophilia A.

IHDIP: a controlled randomized trial to assess the security and effectiveness of the incremental hemodialysis in incident patients.

BACKGROUND: Most people who make the transition to renal replacement therapy (RRT) are treated with a fixed dose thrice-weekly hemodialysis réegimen, without considering their residual kidney function (RKF). Recent papers inform us that incremental hemodialysis is associated with preservation of RKF, whenever compared with conventional hemodialysis. The objective of the present controlled randomized trial (RCT) is to determine if start HD with one sessions per week (1-Wk/HD), it is associated with better patient survival and other safety parameters. METHODS/DESIGN: IHDIP is a multicenter RCT experimental open trial. It is randomized in a 1:1 ratio and controlled through usual clinical practice, with a low intervention level and non-commercial. It includes 152 incident patients older than 18 years, with a RRF of ≥4 ml/min/1.73 m2, measured by renal clearance of urea (KrU). The intervention group includes 76 patients who will start with incremental HD (1-Wk/HD). The control group includes 76 patients who will start with thrice-weekly hemodialysis régimen. The primary outcome is assessing the survival rate, while the secondary outcomes are the morbidity rate, the clinical parameters, the quality of life and the efficiency. DISCUSSION: This study will enable to know the number of sessions a patient should receive when starting HD, depending on his RRF. The potentially important clinical and financial implications of incremental hemodialysis warrant this RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: U.S. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov . Number: NCT03239808 , completed 13/04/2017. SPONSOR: Foundation for Training and Research of Health Professionals of Extremadura.

[Semaglutide, once weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist (Ozempic®)]. / Le médicament du mois. Le sémaglutide, agoniste des récepteurs du GLP-1 en injection sous-cutanée hebdomadaire (Ozempic®).

Semaglutide (Ozempic®) is a new once-weekly agonist of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors (GLP-1 AR) indicated in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Phase III clinical trials of the SUSTAIN programme demonstrated both the efficacy and safety of semaglutide in patients with T2D treated by diet and exercise, oral antidiabetic agents or even insulin. Direct and indirect comparative clinical trials showed that semaglutide (subcutaneous 0.5 or 1.0 mg once weekly) exerts a better glucose-lowering activity and a greater weight loss than other GLP-1 AR. Presented as prefilled pens for subcutaneous injection, semaglutide is currently reimbursed in Belgium after failure of antidiabetic therapy including metformin (HbA1c superior to 7,5 % or 58 mmol/mol) in T2D patients with body mass index ? 30 kg/m².

Le sémaglutide (Ozempic®) est un nouvel agoniste des récepteurs du glucagon-like peptide-1 (AR GLP-1), en injection sous-cutanée hebdomadaire, indiqué dans le traitement du diabète de type 2 (DT2). Les études cliniques du programme de phase 3 SUSTAIN ont démontré l'efficacité et la sécurité d'emploi du sémaglutide chez des patients DT2 traités par régime et exercice, par antidiabétiques oraux ou encore par insuline. Les études comparatives directes et indirectes indiquent que le sémaglutide (0,5 ou 1,0 mg une fois par semaine) exerce un effet anti-hyperglycémiant plus puissant et provoque une perte pondérale plus importante que les autres AR GLP-1. Le sémaglutide a démontré sa sécurité cardiovasculaire chez des patients DT2 à risque. Présenté sous forme d'un stylo pré-rempli pour injection sous-cutanée, Ozempic® est actuellement remboursé en Belgique après échec d'un traitement antidiabétique (dont la metformine; HbA1c sup�rieur a 7,5 % ou 58 mmol/mol) chez des patients DT2 avec un indice de masse corporelle ? 30 kg/m².

Effect of exenatide QW or placebo, both added to titrated insulin glargine, in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: The DURATION-7 randomized study.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of adding the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide once weekly (QW) 2 mg or placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled despite titrated insulin glargine (IG) ± metformin. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02229383) randomized (1:1) patients with persistent hyperglycaemia after an 8-week titration phase (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0%-10.5% [53-91 mmol/mol]) to exenatide QW or placebo. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 28. Secondary endpoints included body weight, 2-hour postprandial glucose, and mean daily IG dose. RESULTS: Of 464 randomized patients (mean: age, 58 years; HbA1c, 8.5% [69 mmol/mol]; diabetes duration, 11.3 years), 91% completed 28 weeks. Exenatide QW + IG vs placebo + IG significantly reduced HbA1c (least-squares mean difference, -0.73% [-8.0 mmol/mol]; 95% confidence interval, -0.93%, -0.53% [-10.2, -5.8 mmol/mol]; P < .001; final HbA1c, 7.55% [59 mmol/mol] and 8.24% [67 mmol/mol], respectively); body weight (-1.50 kg; -2.17, -0.84; P < .001); and 2-hour postprandial glucose (-1.52 mmol/L [-27.5 mg/dL]; -2.15, -0.90 [-38.7, -16.2]; P < .001). Significantly more exenatide QW + IG-treated patients vs placebo + IG-treated patients reached HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) (32.5% vs 7.4%; P < .001); daily IG dose increased by 2 and 4 units, respectively. Gastrointestinal and injection-site adverse events were more frequent with exenatide QW + IG (15.1% and 7.8%, respectively) than with placebo + IG (10.8% and 3.0%, respectively); hypoglycaemia incidence was similar between the exenatide QW + IG (29.7%) and placebo + IG (29.0%) groups, with no major hypoglycaemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with inadequate glycaemic control, exenatide QW significantly improved glucose control and decreased body weight, without increased hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings.

Absorption, metabolism and excretion of [14C]omarigliptin, a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, in humans.

1. Omarigliptin (MARIZEV®) is a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor approved in Japan for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The objective of this study was to investigate the absorption, metabolism and excretion of omarigliptin in humans. 2. Six healthy subjects received a single oral dose of 25 mg (2.1 µCi) [14 C]omarigliptin. Blood, plasma, urine and fecal samples were collected at various intervals for up to 20 days post-dose. Radioactivity levels in excreta and plasma/blood samples were determined by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). 3. [14 C]Omarigliptin was rapidly absorbed, with peak plasma concentrations observed at 0.5-2 h post-dose. The majority of the radioactivity was recovered in urine (∼74.4% of the dose), with less recovered in feces (∼3.4%), suggesting the compound was well absorbed. 4. Omarigliptin was the major component in urine (∼89% of the urinary radioactivity), indicating renal excretion of the unchanged drug as the primary clearance mechanism. Omarigliptin accounted for almost all the circulating radioactivity in plasma, with no major metabolites detected. 5. The predominantly renal elimination pathway, combined with the fact that omarigliptin is not a substrate of key drug transporters, suggest omarigliptin is unlikely to be subject to pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions with other commonly prescribed agents.

Once-weekly hemodialysis combined with low-protein and low-salt dietary treatment as a favorable therapeutic modality for selected patients with end-stage renal failure: a prospective observational study in Japanese patients.

BACKGROUND: For patients with end-stage renal failure (ESFR), thrice-weekly hemodialysis is a standard care. Once-weekly hemodialysis combined with low-protein and low-salt dietary treatment (OWHD-DT) have been rarely studied. Therefore, here, we describe our experience on OWHD-DT, and assess its long-term effectiveness. METHODS: We instituted OWHD-DT therapy in 112 highly motivated patients with creatinine clearance below 5.0 mL/min. They received once-weekly hemodialysis on a diet of 0.6 g/kg/day of protein adjusted for sufficient energy intake, and less than 6 g/day of salt intake. Serial changes in their clinical, biochemical and nutritional parameters were prospectively observed, and the weekly time spent for hospital visits as well as their monthly medical expenses were compared with 30 age, sex- and disease-matched thrice-weekly hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: The duration of successfully continued OWHD-DT therapy was more than 4 years in 11.6% of patients, 3 years in 16.1%, 2 years in 24.1% and 1 year in 51.8%. Time required per week for hospital attendance was 66.7% shorter and monthly medical expenses were 50.5% lower in the OWHD-DT group than in the thrice-weekly hemodialysis group (both p < 0.001). Patient survival rates in the OWHD-DT group were better than those in the Japan Registry (p < 0.001). Serum urea nitrogen significantly decreased; hemoglobin significantly increased; and albumin and body mass index were not significantly different from baseline values. In the OWHD-DT patients, serum albumin at 1 and 2 years after initiation of therapy was significantly higher compared with prevalent thrice-weekly hemodialysis patients. Furthermore, residual urine output was significantly higher in the OWHD-DT patients than in those receiving thrice-weekly hemodialysis (p < 0.05). Interdialytic weight gain over the course of the entire week between treatments in patients on OWHD-DT were 0.9 ± 1.0, 2.0 ± 1.3, 1.9 ± 1.2, 1.9 ± 1.5 and 1.8 ± 1.0 kg at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, respectively, though the weekly weight gain for thrice-weekly hemodialysis group (summed over all 3 treatments) was 8.6 ± 0.63 kg, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: OWHD-DT may be a favorable therapeutic modality for selected highly motivated patients with ESRF. However, this treatment cannot be seen as a general maintenance strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000027555 , May 30, 2017 (retrospectively registered).