To compare the efficacy and safety of two doses of once-weekly dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, to sitagliptin in uncontrolled, metformin-treated patients with type 2 ...diabetes. The primary objective was to compare (for noninferiority and then superiority) dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus sitagliptin in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 52 weeks.
This multicenter, adaptive, double-blind, parallel-arm study randomized patients (N = 1,098; mean baseline age 54 years; HbA1c 8.1% 65 mmol/mol; weight 86.4 kg; diabetes duration 7 years) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo (placebo-controlled period up to 26 weeks). The treatment period lasted 104 weeks, with 52-week primary end point data presented.
The mean HbA1c changes to 52 weeks were (least squares mean ± SE): -1.10 ± 0.06% (-12.0 ± 0.7 mmol/mol), -0.87 ± 0.06% (9.5 ± 0.7 mmol/mol), and -0.39 ± 0.06% (4.3 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and sitagliptin, respectively. Both dulaglutide doses were superior to sitagliptin (P < 0.001, both comparisons). No events of severe hypoglycemia were reported. Mean weight changes to 52 weeks were greater with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (-3.03 ± 0.22 kg) and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (-2.60 ± 0.23 kg) compared with sitagliptin (-1.53 ± 0.22 kg) (P < 0.001, both comparisons). The most common gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events in dulaglutide 1.5- and 0.75-mg arms were nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.
Both dulaglutide doses demonstrated superior glycemic control versus sitagliptin at 52 weeks with an acceptable tolerability and safety profile.
To provide evidence-based options on how to intensify basal insulin, we explored head-to-head prandial interventions in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal ...insulin glargine with or without 1-3 oral antidiabetic agents (OADs).
Patients were randomized to lixisenatide once daily or insulin glulisine given once or thrice daily, added to glargine, with or without metformin, if HbA1c remained ≥7 to ≤9% (≥53 to ≤75 mmol/mol) after 12 weeks of glargine optimization with OADs other than metformin stopped at the start of optimization. Coprimary end points at 26 weeks were 1) noninferiority (95% CI upper bound <0.4% <4.4 mmol/mol) in HbA1c reduction with lixisenatide versus glulisine once daily, and either 2a) noninferiority in HbA1c reduction for lixisenatide versus glulisine thrice daily or 2b) superiority in body weight change for lixisenatide versus glulisine thrice daily. Fasting and postprandial plasma glucose, composite efficacy/safety end points, and adverse events were also assessed.
Baseline characteristics were similar between arms (n = 298, diabetes and basal insulin duration of 12.2 and 3.2 years, respectively; BMI 32.2 kg/m(2)). HbA1c improved from 8.5% to 7.9% (69 to 63 mmol/mol) with glargine optimization and further to 7.2%, 7.2%, and 7.0% (55, 55, and 53 mmol/mol) with lixisenatide and glulisine once daily and thrice daily, respectively; all coprimary end points were met. Symptomatic hypoglycemia and body weight were lower in lixisenatide versus glulisine patients. More gastrointestinal events occurred with lixisenatide.
Short-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists as add-on to basal insulin may become a preferred treatment intensification option, attaining meaningful glycemic targets with fewer hypoglycemic events without weight gain versus basal-plus or basal-bolus in uncontrolled basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.
The recent results of Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials (CVOTs) in type 2 diabetes have clearly established the cardiovascular (CV) safety or even the benefit of two therapeutic classes, Glucagon-Like ...Peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i). Publication of the latest CVOTs for these therapeutic classes also led to an update of ESC guidelines and ADA/EASD consensus report in 2019, which considers using GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i with proven cardiovascular benefit early in the management of type 2 diabetic patient with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at high risk of atherosclerotic CVD. The main beneficial results of these time-to event studies are supported by conventional statistical measures attesting the effectiveness of GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i on cardiovascular events (absolute risk, absolute risk difference, relative risk, relative risk reduction, odds ratio, hazard ratio). In addition, another measure whose clinical meaning appears to be easier, the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), is often mentioned while discussing the results of CVOTs, in order to estimating the clinical utility of each drug or sometimes trying to establish a power ranking. While the value of the measure is admittedly of interest, the subtleties of its computation in time-to-event studies are little known. We provide in this article a clear and practical explanation on NNT computation methods that should be used in order to estimate its value, according to the type of study design and variables available to describe the event of interest, in any randomized controlled trial. More specifically, a focus is made on time-to-event studies of which CVOTs are part, first to describe in detail an appropriate and adjusted method of NNT computation and second to help properly interpreting NNTs with the example of CVOTs conducted with GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i. We particularly discuss the risk of misunderstanding of NNT values in CVOTs when some specific parameters inherent in each study are not taken into account, and the following risk of erroneous comparison between NNTs across studies. The present paper highlights the importance of understanding rightfully NNTs from CVOTs and their clinical impact to get the full picture of a drug’s effectiveness.
Due to their cardiovascular protective effect, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) represent breakthrough therapies for type 2 ...diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this review article, we discuss the mechanistic and clinical synergies that make the combined use of GLP-1RAs and SGLT2is appealing in patients with T2DM. Overall, the presented cumulative evidence supports the benefits of GLP-1RA plus SGLT2i combination therapy on metabolic-cardiovascular-renal disease in patients with T2DM, with a low hypoglycemia risk. Accordingly, we encourage the adoption of GLP-1RA plus SGLT2i combination therapy in patients with T2DM and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple risk factors for ASCVD (i.e., age ≥ 55 years, overweight/obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, current tobacco use, left ventricular hypertrophy, and/or proteinuria). Regarding renal effects, the evidence of SGLT2is in preventing kidney failure is more abundant than for GLP-1RAs, which showed a beneficial effect on albuminuria but not on hard kidney endpoints. Hence, in case of persistent albuminuria and/or uncontrolled metabolic risks (i.e., inadequate glycemic control, hypertension, overweight/obesity) on SGLT2i therapy, GLP-1RAs should be considered as the preferential add-on therapy in T2DM patients with chronic kidney disease. Despite the potential clinical benefits of GLP-1RA plus SGLT2i combination therapy in patients with T2DM, several factors may delay this combination to become a common practice soon, such as reimbursement and costs associated with polypharmacy. Altogether, when administering GLP-1RA plus SGLT2i combination therapy, it is important to adopt an individualized approach to therapy taking into account individual preferences, costs and coverage, toxicity profile, consideration of kidney function and glucose-lowering efficacy, desire for weight loss, and comorbidities.
The primary aim of this study was to identify predictive factors associated with onset of
clinically significant pituitary insufficiencies following endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) for pituitary ...adenomas. The secondary objective explored the predictive factors of surgical success.
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 211 patients who underwent EES. Logistic regression models were employed for the primary and secondary objectives. Patients were stratified into specific groups based on surgical indications and prolactin levels for nuanced analysis.
Significant predictors for
pituitary insufficiencies included male sex (OR 3.3, CI95% 1.3-8.1, p=0.01), immediate postoperative insufficiencies (OR 5.6, CI95% 2.8-11.1, p<0.001), and HYPRONOS criteria (OR 5.7, CI95% 1.6-20.9, p=0.008). For surgical success, preoperative insufficiencies (OR 0.7, CI95% 0.5-0.9, p=0.008), repeat surgeries (OR 0.1, CI95% 0-0.4, p=0.001), and gonadotroph or somatotroph adenomas were significant. Age and adenoma size were not predictive in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, we observed a "dip and recover" effect of prolactin after surgery and lower prolactin levels at follow-up (< 3 ng/ml) are correlated with more anterior pituitary insufficiencies than normoprolactinemic patients (p = 0.004).
This study identifies key predictors for outcomes in pituitary surgery. Our research is the first to employ individualized success criteria for EES, challenging existing perceptions about the role of age and adenoma size. These findings open avenues for nuanced, individualized preoperative risk assessment and postoperative management.
When patients with type 2 diabetes start their first injectable therapy, clinicians can choose between glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and basal insulins. In DURATION-3, exenatide ...once weekly was compared with insulin glargine (henceforth, glargine) as first injectable therapy. Here, we report the results of the final 3-year follow-up.
DURATION-3 was an open-label randomised trial done between May 13, 2008, and Jan 30, 2012. Patients with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years or older were enrolled at 72 sites worldwide. They were eligible when they had suboptimum glycaemic control (HbA1c 7.1-11.0% 54-97 mmol/mol) despite maximum tolerated doses of metformin alone or with a sulfonylurea for at least 3 months, a stable bodyweight for at least 3 months, and a BMI of 25-45 kg/m(2) (23-45 kg/m(2) in South Korea and Taiwan). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice-response system (block size four, stratified by country and concomitant therapy) to once-weekly exenatide (2 mg subcutaneous injection) or once-daily glargine (titrated to target) to be given in addition to their existing oral glucose-lowering regimens. The primary efficacy measure at 3 years was change in HbA1c from baseline in patients given at least one dose of the assigned drug (ie, analyses by modified intention to treat). Patients, investigators, and data analysts were not masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00641056.
456 patients underwent randomisation and received at least one dose of the assigned drug (233 given exenatide, 223 glargine). At 3 years, least-squares mean HbA1c change was -1.01% (SE 0.07) in the exenatide group versus -0.81% (0.07) in the glargine group (least-squares mean difference -0.20%, SE 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; p=0.03). Transient gastrointestinal adverse events characteristic of GLP-1 receptor agonists were more frequent with exenatide than glargine (nausea: 36 15% of 233 patients vs five 2% of 223; vomiting: 15 6% vs six 3%; diarrhoea: 32 14% vs 15 7%), although frequency of these events did decrease after week 26 in the exenatide group. The proportion of patients who reported serious adverse events in the exenatide group (36 patients 15%) was the same as that in the glargine group (33 15%). The exposure-adjusted rate of overall hypoglycaemia was three times higher in patients given glargine (0.9 events per patient per year) than in those given exenatide (0.3 events per patient per year).
Efficacy of once-weekly exenatide is sustained for 3 years. GLP-1 receptor agonists could be a viable long-term injectable treatment option in patients with type 2 diabetes who have not yet started taking insulin.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.
Summary Background Glycaemic control deteriorates progressively over time in patients with type 2 diabetes. Options for treatment escalation remain controversial after failure of first-line treatment ...with metformin. We compared add-on exenatide with glimepiride for durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. Methods We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial at 128 centres in 14 countries between Sept 5, 2006, and March 29, 2011. Patients aged 18–85 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated by metformin were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive exenatide twice daily or glimepiride once daily as add-on to metformin. Randomisation was stratified by predetermined categories of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C ) concentration. The primary outcome was time to inadequate glycaemic control and need for alternative treatment, defined as an HbA1c concentration of more than 9% after the first 3 months of treatment, or more than 7% at two consecutive visits after the first 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-005448-21, and ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00359762. Findings We randomly assigned 515 patients to the exenatide group and 514 to the glimepiride group, of whom 490 versus 487 were the intention-to-treat population. 203 (41%) patients had treatment failure in the exenatide group compared with 262 (54%) in the glimepiride group (risk difference 12·4 95% CI 6·2–18·6, hazard ratio 0·748 0·623–0·899; p=0·002). 218 (44%) of 490 patients in the exenatide group, and 150 (31%) of 487 in the glimepiride group achieved an HbA1c concentration of less than 7% (p<0·0001), and 140 (29%) versus 87 (18%) achieved concentrations of 6·5% and less (p=0·0001). We noted a significantly greater decrease in bodyweight in patients given exenatide than in those given glimepiride (p<0·0001). Five patients in each treatment group died from causes unrelated to treatment. Significantly fewer patients in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group reported documented symptomatic (p<0·0001), nocturnal (p=0·007), and non-nocturnal (p<0·0001) hypoglycaemia. Discontinuation because of adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) was significantly higher (p=0·0005) in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group in the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. Interpretation These findings provide evidence for the benefits of exenatide versus glimepiride for control of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type-2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. Funding Eli Lilly and Company; Amylin Pharmaceuticals.
Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are expected to become a standard treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether the Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) hybrid closed-loop ...artificial pancreas system improved glucose control compared with sensor-assisted pump therapy.
In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with at least a 2 year history of type 1 diabetes, who had been treated with external insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months, had glycated haemoglobin (HbA
) of 10% or less (86 mmol/mol), and preserved hypoglycaemia awareness. After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based system in randomly permuted blocks of two, to receive insulin via the hybrid closed-loop system (DBLG1; using a machine-learning-based algorithm) or sensor-assisted pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living, followed by an 8-week washout period and then the other intervention for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of time that the sensor glucose concentration was within the target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) during the 12 week study period. Efficacy analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who completed both 12 week treatment periods. Safety analyses were done in all patients who were exposed to either of the two treatments at least once during the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02987556.
Between March 3, 2017, and June 19, 2017, 71 patients were screened, and 68 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the DBLG1 group (n=33) or the sensor-assisted pump therapy group (n=35), of whom five dropped out in the washout period (n=1 pregnancy; n=4 withdrew consent). 63 patients completed both 12 week treatment periods and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of time that the glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the DBLG1 group (68·5% SD 9·4 than the sensor-assisted pump group (59·4% 10·2; mean difference 9·2% 95% CI 6·4 to 11·9; p<0·0001). Five severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in the DBLG1 group and three episodes occurred in the sensor-assisted pump therapy group, which were associated with hardware malfunctions or human error.
The DBLG1 system improves glucose control compared with sensor-assisted insulin pumps. This finding supports the use of closed-loop technology combined with appropriate health care organisation in adults with type 1 diabetes.
French Innovation Fund, Diabeloop.
Obesity surgery elicits complex changes in glucose metabolism that are difficult to observe with discontinuous glucose measurements. We aimed to evaluate glucose variability after gastric bypass by ...continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in a real-life setting.
CGM was performed for 4.2 ± 1.3 days in three groups of 10 subjects each: patients who had undergone gastric bypass and who were referred for postprandial symptoms compatible with mild hypoglycemia, nonoperated diabetes controls, and healthy controls.
The maximum interstitial glucose (IG), SD of IG values, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions (MAGE) were significantly higher in operated patients and in diabetes controls than in healthy controls. The time to the postprandial peak IG was significantly shorter in operated patients (42.8 ± 6.0 min) than in diabetes controls (82.2 ± 11.1 min, P = 0.0002), as were the rates of glucose increase to the peak (2.4 ± 1.6 vs. 1.2 ± 0.3 mg/mL/min; P = 0.041). True hypoglycemia (glucose <60 mg/dL) was rare: the symptoms were probably more related to the speed of IG decrease than to the glucose level achieved. Half of the operated patients, mostly those with a diabetes background before surgery, had postprandial glucose concentrations above 200 mg/dL (maximum IG, 306 ± 59 mg/dL), in contrast to the normal glucose concentrations in the fasting state and 2 h postmeal.
Glucose variability is exaggerated after gastric bypass, combining unusually high and early hyperglycemic peaks and rapid IG decreases. This might account for postprandial symptoms mimicking hypoglycemia but often seen without true hypoglycemia. Early postprandial hyperglycemia might be underestimated if glucose measurements are done 2 h postmeal.
PDF
