Julio Rosenstock

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations. FUNDING Novo Nordisk A/S.

Use of Twice-Daily Exenatide in Basal Insulin–Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Insulin replacement in diabetes often requires prandial intervention to reach hemoglobin A₁(c) (HbA₁(c)) targets. OBJECTIVE To test whether twice-daily exenatide injections reduce HbA₁(c) levels more than placebo in people receiving insulin glargine. DESIGN Parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, blocked and stratified by HbA₁(c) level at site, performed from October 2008 to January 2010. Participants, investigators, and personnel conducting the study were masked to treatment assignments. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00765817) SETTING 59 centers in 5 countries. PATIENTS Adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA₁(c) level of 7.1% to 10.5% who were receiving insulin glargine alone or in combination with metformin or pioglitazone (or both agents). INTERVENTION Assignment by a centralized, computer-generated, random-sequence interactive voice-response system to exenatide, 10 µg twice daily, or placebo for 30 weeks. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was change in HbA₁(c) level. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of participants with HbA₁(c) values of 7.0% or less and 6.5% or less, 7-point self-monitored glucose profiles, body weight, waist circumference, insulin dose, hypoglycemia, and adverse events. RESULTS 112 of 138 exenatide recipients and 101 of 123 placebo recipients completed the study. The HbA₁(c) level decreased by 1.74% with exenatide and 1.04% with placebo (between-group difference, -0.69% [95% CI, -0.93% to -0.46%]; P < 0.001). Weight decreased by 1.8 kg with exenatide and increased by 1.0 kg with placebo (between-group difference, -2.7 kg [CI, -3.7 to -1.7]). Average increases in insulin dosage with exenatide and placebo were 13 U/d and 20 U/d. The estimated rate of minor hypoglycemia was similar between groups. Thirteen exenatide recipients and 1 placebo recipient discontinued the study because of adverse events (P < 0.010); rates of nausea (41% vs. 8%), diarrhea (18% vs. 8%), vomiting (18% vs. 4%), headache (14% vs. 4%), and constipation (10% vs. 2%) were higher with exenatide than with placebo. LIMITATIONS The study was of short duration. There were slight imbalances between groups at baseline in terms of sex, use of concomitant glucose-lowering medications, and HbA₁(c) levels, and more exenatide recipients than placebo recipients withdrew because of adverse events. CONCLUSION Adding twice-daily exenatide injections improved glycemic control without increased hypoglycemia or weight gain in participants with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine treatment. Adverse events of exenatide included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, headache, and constipation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Alliance of Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

Canagliflozin Compared With Sitagliptin for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Do Not Have Adequate Glycemic Control With Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea A 52-week randomized trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with sitagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin plus sulfonylurea. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study, subjects using stable metformin plus sulfonylurea (N = 755) received canagliflozin 300 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Primary end point was change from baseline in A1C at 52 weeks. Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and systolic blood pressure (BP), and percent change in body weight, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) reports. RESULTS At 52 weeks, canagliflozin 300 mg demonstrated noninferiority and, in a subsequent assessment, showed superiority to sitagliptin 100 mg in reducing A1C (−1.03% [−11.3 mmol/mol] and −0.66% [−7.2 mmol/mol], respectively; least squares mean difference between groups, −0.37% [95% CI, −0.50 to −0.25] or −4.0 mmol/mol [−5.5 to −2.7]). Greater reductions in FPG, body weight, and systolic BP were observed with canagliflozin versus sitagliptin (P < 0.001). Overall AE rates were similar with canagliflozin (76.7%) and sitagliptin (77.5%); incidence of serious AEs and AE-related discontinuations was low for both groups. Higher incidences of genital mycotic infections and osmotic diuresis–related AEs were observed with canagliflozin, which led to one discontinuation. Hypoglycemia rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Findings suggest that canagliflozin may be a new therapeutic tool providing better improvement in glycemic control and body weight reduction than sitagliptin, but with increased genital infections in subjects with type 2 diabetes using metformin plus sulfonylurea.

Dose-ranging effects of canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, as add-on to metformin in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, dose-ranging study in 451 subjects randomized to canagliflozin 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg once daily (QD) or 300 mg twice daily (BID), sitagliptin 100 mg QD, or placebo. Primary end point was change in A1C from baseline through week 12. Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, and overnight urinary glucose-to-creatinine ratio. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS Canagliflozin was associated with significant reductions in A1C from baseline (7.6–8.0%) to week 12: −0.79, −0.76, −0.70, −0.92, and −0.95% for canagliflozin 50, 100, 200, 300 mg QD and 300 mg BID, respectively, versus −0.22% for placebo (all P < 0.001) and −0.74% for sitagliptin. FPG was reduced by −16 to −27 mg/dL, and body weight was reduced by −2.3 to −3.4%, with significant increases in urinary glucose-to-creatinine ratio. Adverse events were transient, mild to moderate, and balanced across arms except for a non–dose-dependent increase in symptomatic genital infections with canagliflozin (3–8%) versus placebo and sitagliptin (2%). Urinary tract infections were reported without dose dependency in 3–9% of canagliflozin, 6% of placebo, and 2% of sitagliptin arms. Overall incidence of hypoglycemia was low. CONCLUSIONS Canagliflozin added onto metformin significantly improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetes and was associated with low incidence of hypoglycemia and significant weight loss. The safety/tolerability profile of canagliflozin was favorable except for increased frequency of genital infections in females.

Comparison of Vildagliptin and Rosiglitazone Monotherapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE—To compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin and rosiglitazone during a 24-week treatment in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This was a double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of 24-week treatment with vildagliptin (100 mg daily, given as equally divided doses; n = 519) or rosiglitazone (8 mg daily, given as a once-daily dose; n = 267). RESULTS—Monotherapy with vildagliptin and rosiglitazone decreased A1C (baseline = 8.7%) to a similar extent during the 24-week treatment, with most of the A1C reduction achieved by weeks 12 and 16, respectively. At end point, vildagliptin was as effective as rosiglitazone, improving A1C by −1.1 ± 0.1% (P < 0.001) and −1.3 ± 0.1% (P < 0.001), respectively, meeting the statistical criterion for noninferiority (upper-limit 95% CI for between-treatment difference ≤0.4%). Fasting plasma glucose decreased more with rosiglitazone (−2.3 mmol/l) than with vildagliptin (−1.3 mmol/l). Body weight did not change in vildagliptin-treated patients (−0.3 ± 0.2 kg) but increased in rosiglitazone-treated patients (+1.6 ± 0.3 kg, P < 0.001 vs. vildagliptin). Relative to rosiglitazone, vildagliptin significantly decreased triglycerides, total cholesterol, and LDL, non-HDL, and total-to-HDL cholesterol (−9 to −16%, all P ≤ 0.01) but produced a smaller increase in HDL cholesterol (+4 vs. +9%, P = 0.003). The proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event was 61.4 vs. 64.0% in patients receiving vildagliptin and rosiglitazone, respectively. Only one mild hypoglycemic episode was experienced by one patient in each treatment group, while the incidence of edema was greater with rosiglitazone (4.1%) than vildagliptin (2.1%). CONCLUSIONS—Vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in patients with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating similar glycemic reductions as rosiglitazone but without weight gain.

2-year efficacy and safety of linagliptin compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Addition of a sulphonylurea to metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes, but is associated with hypoglycaemia and weight gain. We aimed to compare a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (linagliptin) against a commonly used sulphonylurea (glimepiride). METHODS In this 2-year, parallel-group, non-inferiority double-blind trial, outpatients with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) 6·5-10·0% on stable metformin alone or with one additional oral antidiabetic drug (washed out during screening) were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated random sequence via a voice or web response system to linagliptin (5 mg) or glimepiride (1-4 mg) orally once daily. Study investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 104. Analyses included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of treatment, had a baseline HbA(1c) measurement, and had at least one on-treatment HbA(1c) measurement. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00622284. FINDINGS 777 patients were randomly assigned to linagliptin and 775 to glimepiride; 764 and 755 were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Reductions in adjusted mean HbA(1c) (baseline 7·69% [SE 0·03] in both groups) were similar in the linagliptin (-0·16% [SE 0·03]) and glimepiride groups (-0·36% [0·03]; difference 0·20%, 97·5% CI 0·09-0·30), meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion of 0·35%. Fewer participants had hypoglycaemia (58 [7%] of 776 vs 280 [36%] of 775 patients, p<0·0001) or severe hypoglycaemia (1 [<1%] vs 12 [2%]) with linagliptin compared with glimepiride. Linagliptin was associated with significantly fewer cardiovascular events (12 vs 26 patients; relative risk 0·46, 95% CI 0·23-0·91, p=0·0213). INTERPRETATION The results of this long-term randomised active-controlled trial advance the clinical evidence and comparative effectiveness bases for treatment options available to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The findings could improve decision making for clinical treatment when metformin alone is insufficient. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

Safety and efficacy of linagliptin as add‐on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor linagliptin administered as add‐on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control.

Efficacy and tolerability of initial combination therapy with vildagliptin and pioglitazone compared with component monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Aim:  The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of initial combination therapy with vildagliptin/pioglitazone to component monotherapy.

Effects of Dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 Inhibitor, on HbA1c, Body Weight, and Hypoglycemia Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Pioglitazone Monotherapy

OBJECTIVE To examine the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, added on to pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Treatment-naive patients or those receiving metformin, sulfonylurea, or thiazolidinedione entered a 10-week pioglitazone dose-optimization period with only pioglitazone. They were then randomized, along with patients previously receiving pioglitazone ≥30 mg, to 48 weeks of double-blind dapagliflozin 5 (n = 141) or 10 mg (n = 140) or placebo (n = 139) every day plus open-label pioglitazone. The primary objective compared HbA1c change from baseline with dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone versus placebo plus pioglitazone at week 24. Primary analysis was based on ANCOVA model using last observation carried forward; all remaining analyses used repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS At week 24, the mean reduction from baseline in HbA1c was −0.42% for placebo versus −0.82 and −0.97% for dapagliflozin 5 and 10 mg groups, respectively (P = 0.0007 and P < 0.0001 versus placebo). Patients receiving pioglitazone alone had greater weight gain (3 kg) than those receiving dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone (0.7–1.4 kg) at week 48. Through 48 weeks: hypoglycemia was rare; more events suggestive of genital infection were reported with dapagliflozin (8.6–9.2%) than placebo (2.9%); events suggestive of urinary tract infection showed no clear drug effect (5.0–8.5% for dapagliflozin and 7.9% for placebo); dapagliflozin plus pioglitazone groups had less edema (2.1–4.3%) compared with placebo plus pioglitazone (6.5%); and congestive heart failure and fractures were rare. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone, the addition of dapagliflozin further reduced HbA1c levels and mitigated the pioglitazone-related weight gain without increasing hypoglycemia risk.

The 11-β-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 Inhibitor INCB13739 Improves Hyperglycemia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled by Metformin Monotherapy

OBJECTIVE 11-β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11βHSD1) converts inactive cortisone into active cortisol, thereby amplifying intracellular glucocorticoid action. The efficacy and safety of the 11βHSD1 inhibitor INCB13739 were assessed when added to ongoing metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes exhibiting inadequate glycemic control (A1C 7–11%). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This double-blind placebo-controlled paralleled study randomized 302 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean A1C 8.3%) on metformin monotherapy (mean 1.5 g/day) to receive one of five INCB13739 doses or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the change in A1C at study end. Other end points included changes in fasting glucose, lipids, weight, adverse events, and safety. RESULTS After 12 weeks, 200 mg of INCB13739 resulted in significant reductions in A1C (−0.6%), fasting plasma glucose (−24 mg/dl), and homeostasis model assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (−24%) compared with placebo. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were all significantly decreased in hyperlipidemic patients. Body weight decreased relative to placebo after INCB13739 therapy. A reversible dose-dependent elevation in adrenocorticotrophic hormone, generally within the normal reference range, was observed. Basal cortisol homeostasis, testosterone in men, and free androgen index in women were unchanged by INCB13739. Adverse events were similar across all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS INCB13739 added to ongoing metformin therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin alone. 11βHSD1 inhibition offers a new potential approach to control glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes.