Serge Jabbour

Dapagliflozin is effective as add-on therapy to sitagliptin with or without metformin: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor with or without metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study with a 24-week blinded extension period, 432 patients were randomized to receive dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo added to sitagliptin (100 mg/day) ± metformin (≥1,500 mg/day). RESULTS Baseline HbA1c and FPG levels were 7.9% (63.0 mmol/mol) and 162.2 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) for the dapagliflozin group and 8.0% (64.0 mmol/mol) and 163 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) for placebo. At week 24, dapagliflozin significantly reduced mean HbA1c levels (–0.5% [–4.9 mmol/mol]) versus placebo (0.0% [+0.4 mmol/mol]). Dapagliflozin reduced body weight versus placebo (–2.1 and –0.3 kg) and reduced HbA1c levels in patients with baseline values ≥8.0% (–0.8% [8.7 mmol/mol] and 0.0% [0.3 mmol/mol]) and fasting plasma glucose levels (–24.1 mg/dL [–1.3 mmol/L] and 3.8 mg/dL [0.2 mmol/L]). Similar results were observed when data were stratified by background therapy. Glycemic and weight benefits observed at week 24 were maintained through week 48. Changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 8 were not significantly different between treatment groups. Over 48 weeks, fewer patients receiving dapagliflozin were discontinued or rescued for failing to achieve glycemic targets compared with placebo. Adverse events were balanced between groups, and discontinuation rates were low. At week 48, signs and symptoms suggestive of genital infection were more frequent with dapagliflozin (9.8%) than with placebo (0.4%). Signs and symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infection were balanced between dapagliflozin (6.7%) and placebo (6.2%). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that in patients with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on sitagliptin with or without metformin, add-on treatment with dapagliflozin provides additional clinical benefit and is well tolerated.

Cutaneous manifestations of endocrine disorders: a guide for dermatologists.

Thyrotoxicosis may lead to multiple cutaneous manifestations, including hair loss, pretibial myxedema, onycholysis and acropachy. In patients with hypothyroidism, there is hair loss, the skin is cold and pale, with myxedematous changes, mainly in the hands and in the periorbital region.The striking features of Cushing syndrome are centripetal obesity, moon facies, buffalo hump, supraclavicular fat pads, and abdominal striae. In Addison disease, the skin is hyperpigmented, mostly on the face, neck and back of the hands.Virtually all patients with acromegaly have acral and soft tissue overgrowth, with characteristic findings, like macrognathia and enlarged hands and feet. The skin is thickened, and facial features are coarser.Conditions leading to hyperandrogenism in females present as acne, hirsutism and signs of virilization (temporal balding, clitoromegaly).A prominent feature of hypopituitarism is a pallor of the skin with a yellowish tinge. The skin is also thinner, resulting in fine wrinkling around the eyes and mouth, making the patient look older.Primary hyperparathyroidism is rarely associated with pruritus and chronic urticaria. In hypoparathyroidism, the skin is dry, scaly and puffy. Nails become brittle and hair is coarse and sparse. Pseudohypoparathyroidism may have a special somatic phenotype known as Albright osteodystrophy. This consists of short stature, short neck, brachydactyly and subcutaneous calcifications.Some of the cutaneous manifestations of diabetes mellitus include necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, diabetic dermopathy, scleredema adultorum and acanthosis nigricans.

Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors: blocking renal tubular reabsorption of glucose to improve glycaemic control in patients with diabetes

Background:  The kidney plays a central role in the regulation of plasma glucose levels, although until recently this has not been widely appreciated or considered a target for therapeutic intervention. The sodium glucose co‐transporter type 2 (SGLT2) located in the plasma membrane of cells lining the proximal tubule mediates the majority of renal glucose reabsorption from the tubular fluid, which normally prevents the loss of glucose in the urine. Competitive inhibitors of SGLT2 that provoke the renal excretion of glucose have been discovered, thereby providing a unique mechanism to potentially lower the elevated blood glucose levels in patients with diabetes.

Exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin once daily versus exenatide or dapagliflozin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy (DURATION-8): a 28 week, multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce glycaemia and weight, and improve cardiovascular risk factors via different mechanisms. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of co-initiation of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide and the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin with exenatide or dapagliflozin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin. METHODS DURATION-8 was a 28 week, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled phase 3 trial done at 109 sites in six countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 8-12% [64-108 mmol/mol]) despite stable metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via an interactive voice and web-response system, to receive once-weekly exenatide 2 mg by subcutaneous injection plus once-daily dapagliflozin 10 mg oral tablets, exenatide with dapagliflozin-matched oral placebo, or dapagliflozin with exenatide-matched placebo injections. Randomisation was stratified by baseline HbA1c (<9·0% vs ≥9·0% [<75 mmol/mol vs ≥75 mmol/mol]). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 28. Secondary endpoints were the change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at week 2 and week 28, and 2 h postprandial glucose at week 28; the proportion of patients with an HbA1c less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 28; change in weight at week 28; the proportion of patients with weight loss of 5% or more at week 28; and change in systolic blood pressure at week 28. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02229396. FINDINGS Between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 695 patients to receive exenatide plus dapagliflozin (n=231), exenatide alone (n=231; n=1 untreated), or dapagliflozin alone (n=233). The intention-to-treat population comprised 685 participants (mean HbA1c 9·3% [SD 1·1]; 78 mmol/mol [12]), of whom 611 (88%) completed the study. After 28 weeks, the change in baseline HbA1c was -2·0% (95% CI -2·1 to -1·8) in the exenatide plus dapagliflozin group, -1·6% (-1·8 to -1·4) in the exenatide group, and -1·4% (-1·6 to -1·2) in the dapagliflozin group. Exenatide plus dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c from baseline to week 28 compared with exenatide alone (-0·4% [95% CI -0·6 to -0·1]; p=0·004) or dapagliflozin alone (-0·6% [-0·8 to -0·3]; p<0·001). Exenatide plus dapagliflozin was significantly superior to either drug alone for all secondary efficacy endpoints, with greater reductions in fasting plasma and postprandial glucose, more patients with an HbA1c less than 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol), greater weight loss, a greater proportion of patients with weight loss of 5% or more, and greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (all p≤0·025). Adverse events were recorded in 131 (57%) of 231 patients in the exenatide plus dapagliflozin group, 124 (54%) of 230 patients in the exenatide group, and 121 (52%) of 233 patients in the dapagliflozin group. The most common adverse events (≥5% of patients in any group) were diarrhoea, injection-site nodules, nausea, and urinary tract infections. No episodes of major hypoglycaemia or minor hypoglycaemia were reported. INTERPRETATION Co-initiation of exenatide and dapagliflozin improved various glycaemic measures and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. The dual treatment regimen was well tolerated, with the expected safety profile for this combination. Additional data from an ongoing study (eg, AWARD-10; NCT02597049) will further inform the use of these drug classes in combination. FUNDING AstraZeneca.

Gastrointestinal tolerability of extended-release metformin tablets compared to immediate- release metformin tablets: results of a retrospective cohort study

SUMMARY Objective: Metformin, a biguanide antihyperglycemic medication, lowers blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes with minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Most common side effects include diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. Extended-release metformin (Glucophage XR)*, a once-daily tablet using the patented GelShield Diffusion System release mechanism, may be better tolerated than immediate-release metformin (Glucophage). This retrospective chart review examined the overall gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of both formulations. Research design and methods: Patient charts were reviewed and data were collected from October 2001 to May 2002. Adult patients with type 2 diabetes started on extended-release metformin (metformin-XR) or switched from immediate-release metformin to metformin-XR within the previous 2 years were eligible for inclusion in the metformin-XR cohort. Patients started on immediate-release metformin within the previous 2 years were eligible for inclusion in the immediate-release metformin cohort. Previous experience of GI side effects while taking immediate-release metformin did not prevent inclusion in either cohort, though patients with significant underlying GI disease or moderate to severe hepatic or renal impairment were excluded. GI tolerability was assessed during the first year of treatment with immediate-release metformin or metformin-XR. Primary endpoints were overall GI tolerability and frequency of diarrhea during the first year of treatment. Results: A total of 471 patients’ charts were reviewed and data were collected from four diabetes clinics; 310 (metformin-XR) and 158 (immediate-release metformin) eligible patients were included. Patients were, on average, 56 years old, and overweight (mean body mass index 33 kg/m2). The majority of patients were Caucasian (50%), Hispanic (24%) or Black (19%). Mean daily doses were 1258 mg (range 500–2500 mg) for metformin-XR and 1282 mg (range 500–2550 mg) for immediate-release metformin. About 25% of the metformin-XR cohort had been switched from immediate-release metformin due to a history of GI adverse events (AE). Despite this, the frequency of any GI AE was similar between metformin-XR and immediate-release metformin (11.94 vs. 11.39%, p = 0.86). The incidence of individual GI AE also did not differ significantly between cohorts. In a cohort of 205 patients started on immediate-release metformin and switched to metformin-XR, the frequency of any GI AE was 26.34% (while taking immediate-release metformin; n = 205) vs. 11.71% (after switching to metformin-XR; n = 205) ( p = 0.0006) and the frequency of diarrhea was 18.05% (while taking immediate-release metformin) vs. 8.29% (after switching to metformin-XR) ( p = 0.0084). Conclusions: In this retrospective chart review, patients switched from immediate-release metformin to metformin-XR experienced fewer GI side effects on comparable doses of the extended-release metformin.

Diabetes Knowledge: Are Resident Physicians and Nurses Adequately Prepared to Manage Diabetes?

OBJECTIVE To assess and compare the diabetes knowledge of nurses and residents in surgery, internal medicine, and family practice. METHODS A 21-question survey based on current diabetes standards of care was developed and administered. The results were stratified by type of participant and analyzed statistically. RESULTS A total of 52 internal medicine residents (IMR), 21 family practice residents (FPR), 42 surgery residents (SR), and 48 registered nurses (RN) participated. The survey had good overall internal consistency (Cronbach a of 0.78) and test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.71). The total mean percent correct for all participants was 61%. The total scores of IMR, FPR, and RN groups were similar (69%, 64%, and 66%) and significantly greater (P<0.001) than the SR score (44%). Collectively, all survey participants averaged less than 50% correct on several items. The IMR scored higher than the SR and FPR on several items. The nurses outscored the physicians on items regarding insulin preparations, treatment of hypoglycemia, and perioperative insulin management. A subgroup of 13 RN with additional diabetes training earned the highest total score (82%). CONCLUSION Our novel survey was shown to be a statistically valid tool for assessment of diabetes knowledge. IMR, FPR, and inpatient RN have similar but insufficient levels of knowledge about diabetes. SR may have a more profound deficit of diabetes knowledge. Previous additional diabetes training among nurses was associated with greater diabetes knowledge. Most nurses and residents require additional education in order to provide optimal care to patients with diabetes.

Insulin resistance, diabetes and cardiovascular risk: approaches to treatment.

Abstract:  The prevalence of diabetes is increasing worldwide. Insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus are major predictors of cardiovascular ischaemic disease. Other risk factors for cardiovascular death including hypertension, dyslipidaemia, smoking and visceral obesity are especially lethal in diabetics. C‐reactive protein, plasminogen activator inhibitor‐1, matrix metalloproteinases and other emerging risk factors and their roles are continually being researched and discovered.

Primary care physicians and insulin initiation: multiple barriers, lack of knowledge or both?

S. Saha, G. P. Currie Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK Chest Clinic C, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK Email: graeme.currie@nhs.net References 1 Gill JM, Fleischut P, Haas S, Pellini B, Crawford A, Nash DB. Use of antibiotics for adult upper respiratory infections in outpatient settings: a national ambulatory network study. Fam Med 2006; 38: 349–54. 2 Gonzales R, Bartlett JG, Besser RE et al. Principles of appropriate antibiotic use for treatment of acute respiratory tract infections in adults: background, specific aims, and methods. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 479–86. 3 Bergus GR, Weber CA, Ernst ME, Ernst EJ. Do antibiotics affect the quality of life of patients with upper respiratory tract illnesses?: it might depend on one’s luck. Int J Clin Pract 2008; 62: 855–9.

Effect of Oral Semaglutide Compared With Placebo and Subcutaneous Semaglutide on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and are all currently available as an injection. Objectives To compare the effects of oral semaglutide with placebo (primary) and open-label subcutaneous semaglutide (secondary) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Patients Phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, dosage-finding, 26-week trial with 5-week follow-up at 100 sites (hospital clinics, general practices, and clinical research centers) in 14 countries conducted between December 2013 and December 2014. Of 1106 participants assessed, 632 with type 2 diabetes and insufficient glycemic control using diet and exercise alone or a stable dose of metformin were randomized. Randomization was stratified by metformin use. Interventions Once-daily oral semaglutide of 2.5 mg (n = 70), 5 mg (n = 70), 10 mg (n = 70), 20 mg (n = 70), 40-mg 4-week dose escalation (standard escalation; n = 71), 40-mg 8-week dose escalation (slow escalation; n = 70), 40-mg 2-week dose escalation (fast escalation, n = 70), oral placebo (n = 71; double-blind) or once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide of 1.0 mg (n = 70) for 26 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was change in hemoglobing A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26. Secondary end points included change from baseline in body weight and adverse events. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Of the 632 randomized patients (mean age, 57.1 years [SD, 10.6]; men, 395 (62.7%); diabetes duration, 6.3 years [SD, 5.2]; body weight, 92.3 kg [SD, 16.8]; BMI, 31.7 [SD, 4.3]), 583 (92%) completed the trial. Mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 26 decreased with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, −0.7% to −1.9%) and subcutaneous semaglutide (−1.9%) and placebo (−0.3%); oral semaglutide reductions were significant vs placebo (dosage-dependent estimated treatment difference [ETD] range for oral semaglutide vs placebo, –0.4% to –1.6%; P = .01 for 2.5 mg, <.001 for all other dosages). Reductions in body weight were greater with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, −2.1 kg to −6.9 kg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (−6.4 kg) vs placebo (−1.2 kg), and significant for oral semaglutide dosages of 10 mg or more vs placebo (dosage-dependent ETD range, –0.9 to –5.7 kg; P < .001). Adverse events were reported by 63% to 86% (371 of 490 patients) in the oral semaglutide groups, 81% (56 of 69 patients) in the subcutaneous semaglutide group, and 68% (48 of 71 patients) in the placebo group; mild to moderate gastrointestinal events were most common. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide resulted in better glycemic control than placebo over 26 weeks. These findings support phase 3 studies to assess longer-term and clinical outcomes, as well as safety. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01923181

Advantages of extended-release metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Abstract Metformin is a first-line pharmacological treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus because of its favorable overall profile, including its glucose-lowering ability, weight-neutral effects, and low risk of hypoglycemia; however, gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance may limit use in some patients. Extended-release metformin improves GI tolerability, allows once-daily dosing, and is currently available in multiple branded and generic formulations; however, it is more expensive than immediate-release metformin. Maximum plasma metformin concentrations are reached more slowly with the extended-release formulation compared with conventional immediate-release metformin, although both provide similar exposure at a given total daily dose. Extended-release metformin is as effective as immediate-release metformin in patients newly started on metformin and those switched from the immediate-release formulation, with similar weight-neutral effects. Tolerability is generally comparable, although patients switched from the immediate-release formulation—even those switched due to GI intolerance—are often better able to tolerate the extended-release formulation. Based on studies of extended-release formulations in other disease states, metformin extended-release formulation has the potential to improve patient adherence with a simpler dosing regimen and increased tolerability. Increased adherence may result in greater glycemic control, and in turn, improve outcomes and lower health care usage and costs. Extended-release metformin provides an appropriate option for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who require several medications to achieve glycemic control or manage comorbid conditions, and for those who have GI intolerance with the immediate-release formulation.