Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide added onto pioglitazone and metformin versus exenatide in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-1)

Triple therapy combinations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes - A network meta-analysis

AIM

To estimate and compare the results from all randomised trials of triple combinations of anti-diabetes therapies that reported the reduction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and associated effects on body weight and hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for trials with at least one study arm on triple therapy and which reported the differences in mean change in HbA1c between two study arms. These were included in a network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Altogether, 15,182 participants from 40 trials with treatment duration of 6-12months were included. Compared with none/placebo added to dual therapy, the addition of a drug therapy from six of eight drug classes to existing dual therapy resulted in significant additional mean reductions in HbA1c from -0.56% (-6.2mmol/mol; dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors) to -0.94% (-10.3mmol/mol; thiazolidinediones). Of the six drug classes, three were associated with less favourable weight change and two were associated with more favourable weight change when compared with none/placebo added to dual therapy. Furthermore, five drug classes were associated with greater odds of hypoglycaemia. Similar results were observed in analyses of studies with a 6month treatment duration and after excluding study arms that contained insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall triple therapy combinations were similar in improving diabetes control although there were some differences in adverse effects. By balancing the risks and benefits of each therapy, the estimates of pairwise comparisons of triple therapies for HbA1c, body weight and hypoglycaemia provided in this study may further inform evidence based practice.

Relationship between weight change and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving once-weekly dulaglutide treatment

AIM

To assess the relationship between weight change and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change in dulaglutide-treated patients by analysing data from six head-to-head phase III AWARD clinical trials.

METHODS

At 26 weeks, the relationship between weight and HbA1c was analysed in each trial rather than by pooling data because of differences in design and background therapy. The effect of baseline characteristics was also evaluated with regard to weight and HbA1c response.

RESULTS

Across the studies, 87-97% and 83-95% of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg, respectively, had reductions in HbA1c levels, while 57-88% and 43-84% of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg, respectively, experienced weight loss. The majority (55-83%) of patients receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg experienced weight loss and HbA1c reductions, while 41-79% of patients in the dulaglutide 0.75 mg arm lost weight and had reductions in HbA1c level. A weak and inconsistent correlation was observed between the changes in weight and HbA1c (range from -0.223 to 0.267) in patients treated with dulaglutide. The baseline characteristics of gender, age, duration of diabetes, HbA1c, body weight and BMI were not related to different combinations of weight and HbA1c responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide is an effective treatment option across the type 2 diabetes treatment spectrum. Dulaglutide showed dose-dependent effects on both weight loss and HbA1c reduction. These effects had a weak correlation and appeared to be independent.

Efficacy and Acceptability of Glycemic Control of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists among Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

To synthesize current evidence of the impact of Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on hypoglycemia, treatment discontinuation and glycemic level in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data Sources

Literature search (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane library), website of clinical trial, bibliographies of published systematic reviews.

Eligibility Criteria

Randomized controlled trials with available data comparing GLP-1 RAs with placebo or traditional anti-diabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data Synthesis

Traditional pairwise meta-analyses within DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework were performed to calculate odds ratios for the incidence of hypoglycemia, treatment discontinuation, HbA1c<7.0% and HbA1c<6.5%. Ranking probabilities for all treatments were estimated to obtain a treatment hierarchy using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and mean ranks.

Results

78 trials with 13 treatments were included. Overall, all GLP-1 RAs except for albiglutide increased the risk of hypoglycemia when compared to placebo. Reduction in the incidence of hypoglycemia was found for all GLP-1 RAs versus insulin (except for dulaglutide) and sulphonylureas. For the incidence of treatment discontinuation, increase was found for exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide and taspoglutide versus placebo, insulin and sitagliptin. For glycemic level, decrease was found for all GLP-1 RAs versus placebo. Dulaglutide, exenatide long-acting release (exe_lar), liraglutide and taspoglutide had significant lowering effect when compared with sitagliptin (HbA1c<7.0%) and insulin (HbA1c<6.5%). Finally, according to SUCRAs, placebo, thiazolidinediones and albiglutide had the best decrease effect on hypoglycemia; sulphanylureas, sitagliptin and insulin decrease the incidence of treatment discontinuation most; exe_lar and dulaglutide had the highest impact on glycemic level among 13 treatments.

Conclusions

Among 13 treatments, GLP-1 RAs had a significant reduction with glycemic level but a slight increase effect on hypoglycemia and treatment discontinuation. While albiglutide had the best decrease effect on hypoglycemia and treatment discontinuation among all GLP-1 RAs. However, further evidence is necessary for more conclusive inferences on mechanisms underlying the rise in hypoglycemia.

Advances in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: impact of dulaglutide

The purpose of this review is to provide a review of current data of the most recently approved glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1-receptor agonist, dulaglutide, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. To complete this, a PubMed search was performed to identify manuscripts published from 1947 to July 2015. The search terms "Trulicity", "dulaglutide", and "LY2189265" were utilized, and publications were included if they evaluated the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, or patient-reported outcomes of dulaglutide. Dulaglutide is a GLP-1 receptor agonist that mimics endogenous GLP-1, the hormone produced in response to food intake. Modifications have been made to the molecule to delay breakdown and allow for once-weekly dosing. Dulaglutide has been studied as monotherapy and in combination with several agents, including metformin, glimepiride, pioglitazone, and insulin lispro. Dulaglutide has demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebo, metformin, insulin glargine, sitagliptin, and twice-daily exenatide. It was found to be noninferior to liraglutide. The most common adverse effects in clinical studies were gastrointestinal-related adverse events, and patient satisfaction was high with the use of dulaglutide. Dulaglutide is an appealing option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, based on its once-weekly dosing, A1c lowering comparable to liraglutide, weight reduction comparable to exenatide, and a similar adverse-effect profile to other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

A 24-week study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide added on to glimepiride in type 2 diabetes (AWARD-8)

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on glimepiride monotherapy.

METHODS

This phase III, randomized (4 : 1; dulaglutide:placebo), double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week study compared the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg with placebo in sulphonylurea-treated (≥half-maximal dose, stable ≥3 months) patients (N = 300) with T2D and inadequate glycaemic control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5 and ≤9.5% (≥58 mmol/mol and ≤80 mmol/mol)]. Analysis was carried out according to intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean participant age was 58 years; mean HbA1c was 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) and mean weight was 85.5 kg. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was superior to placebo at 24 weeks for HbA1c reduction from baseline with a between-group HbA1c difference of -1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6, -1.0] or -14 mmol/mol (95% CI -17, -11); p < 0.001. A greater proportion of participants in the dulaglutide group reached an HbA1c level of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) compared with placebo (55.3% vs 18.9%; p < 0.001). Dulaglutide significantly decreased fasting serum glucose from baseline compared with placebo (between-group difference -1.86 mmol/l (95% CI -2.58, -1.14) or -33.54 mg/dl (95% CI -46.55, -20.53); p < 0.001. Weight was decreased significantly from baseline in the dulaglutide group (p < 0.001); the between-group difference was not significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events for dulaglutide 1.5 mg were gastrointestinal: nausea (10.5%), diarrhoea (8.4%) and eructation (5.9%). Total hypoglycaemia was higher with dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs placebo (2.37 and 0.07 events/participant/year, respectively; p = 0.025). No severe hypoglycaemia was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg had a favourable benefit/risk profile when added to glimepiride monotherapy.

Low incidence of anti-drug antibodies in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide

Therapeutic administration of peptides may result in anti-drug antibody (ADA) formation, hypersensitivity adverse events (AEs) and reduced efficacy. As a large peptide, the immunogenicity of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist dulaglutide is of considerable interest. The present study assessed the incidence of treatment-emergent dulaglutide ADAs, hypersensitivity AEs, injection site reactions (ISRs), and glycaemic control in ADA-positive patients in nine phase II and phase III trials (dulaglutide, N = 4006; exenatide, N = 276; non-GLP-1 comparators, N = 1141). Treatment-emergent dulaglutide ADAs were detected using a solid-phase extraction acid dissociation binding assay. Neutralizing ADAs were detected using a cell-based assay derived from human endothelial kidney cells (HEK293). A total of 64 dulaglutide-treated patients (1.6% of the population) tested ADA-positive versus eight (0.7%) from the non-GLP-1 comparator group. Of these 64 patients, 34 (0.9%) had dulaglutide-neutralizing ADAs, 36 (0.9%) had native-sequence GLP-1 (nsGLP-1) cross-reactive ADAs and four (0.1%) had nsGLP-1 neutralization ADAs. The incidence of hypersensitivity AEs and ISRs was similar in the dulaglutide versus placebo groups. No dulaglutide ADA-positive patient reported hypersensitivity AEs. Because of the low incidence of ADAs, it was not possible to establish their effect on glycaemic control.

The placebo response of injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists vs. oral DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The size of the placebo response in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treatment and its relation to the route of drug administration have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to determine weight loss, change in HbA1c and incidence of adverse events after treatment with injectable placebo GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1ra), compared with oral placebo DPP-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) and placebo SGLT-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Central were searched up to September 2014 for randomized placebo controlled trials investigating GLP-1ra, DPP-4i or SGLT2-i. Data on placebo groups were extracted and pooled using a generic inverse variance random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials were included, involving 2522, 5290 and 2028 patients randomized to placebo GLP-1ra, placebo DPP-4i and placebo SGLT-2i, respectively. Body weight decreased by -0.67 kg (95% CI -1.03, -0.31) after treatment with placebo GLP-1ra (-0.76 kg [95% CI -1.10, -0.43] with placebo short acting GLP-1ra and -0.32 kg [95% CI -1.75, 1.10] with placebo long acting GLP-1ra) and by -0.31 kg (95% CI -0.64, 0.01) with placebo DPP-4i (P = 0.06 for difference with placebo short acting GLP-1ra). Placebo SGLT-2i resulted in an intermediate -0.48 kg (95% CI -0.81, -0.15) weight loss. Weight loss with placebo showed a strong correlation with the active comparator drug (r(2)  = 0.40-0.78). HbA1c changed little with placebo treatment (-0.23%, 0.10% and -0.13% for placebo GLP-1ra, DPP-4i and SGLT-2i). Adverse events occurred frequently with placebo, were often similar to the active comparator drug and led to drop-out in 2.0-2.7% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The response to placebo treatment was related to its active comparator, with injectable placebo GLP-1ra showing a relevant response on weight, whereas oral placebo DPP4i showed no significant response. These findings may suggest that subjective expectations influence T2DM treatment efficacy, which can possibly be employed therapeutically.

Cardiovascular Effect of Incretin-Based Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with the use of incretin-based therapy in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) primary prevention group with low CV risks.

METHODS

The clinical studies on incretin-based therapy published in medical journals until August 2014 were comprehensively searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL with no language restriction. The studies were systemically reviewed and evaluated for CV risks using a meta-analysis approach and where they meet the following criteria: clinical trial, incidence of predefined CV disease, T2DM with no comorbidities, age > 18 years old, duration of at least 12 weeks, incretin-based therapy compared with other antihyperglycaemic agents or placebo. Statistical analyses were performed using a Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) test. The odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated and displayed for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 75 studies comprising 45,648 patients with T2DM were selected. The pooled estimate demonstrated no significance in decreased CV risk with incretin-based therapy versus control (M-H OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that incretin-based therapy show no significant protective effect on CV events in T2DM primary prevention group with low CV risks. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this analysis.

Patient-reported outcome results in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD phase III clinical trial programme

We evaluated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures from the Assessment of Weekly AdministRation of LY2189265 (dulaglutide) in Diabetes (AWARD) clinical trial programme for dulaglutide (1.5 mg and 0.75 mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP), Impact of Weight on Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL), Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite, EQ-5D, Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised and Adult Low Blood Sugar Survey were administered and analysed for changes from baseline in one or more AWARD studies. Significant within-group changes from baseline to the primary time point were observed for several PRO measures across all studies. Compared with insulin glargine, significantly greater improvements in the IW-SP score were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with both dulaglutide doses in the APPADL score. Both dulaglutide doses resulted in significantly greater improvement in DTSQ scores (all subscales) compared with exenatide. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg also resulted in significantly greater improvement on the DTSQ hyperglycaemia subscale compared with metformin. Overall, these PRO results suggest that dulaglutide is beneficial in the treatment of T2D.

Incretin therapies: highlighting common features and differences in the modes of action of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

Over the last few years, incretin-based therapies have emerged as important agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). These agents exert their effect via the incretin system, specifically targeting the receptor for the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), which is partly responsible for augmenting glucose-dependent insulin secretion in response to nutrient intake (the 'incretin effect'). In patients with T2D, pharmacological doses/concentrations of GLP-1 can compensate for the inability of diabetic β cells to respond to the main incretin hormone glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and this is therefore a suitable parent compound for incretin-based glucose-lowering medications. Two classes of incretin-based therapies are available: GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. GLP-1RAs promote GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) signalling by providing GLP-1R stimulation through 'incretin mimetics' circulating at pharmacological concentrations, whereas DPP-4 inhibitors prevent the degradation of endogenously released GLP-1. Both agents produce reductions in plasma glucose and, as a result of their glucose-dependent mode of action, this is associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia; however, there are distinct modes of action resulting in differing efficacy and tolerability profiles. Furthermore, as their actions are not restricted to stimulating insulin secretion, these agents have also been associated with additional non-glycaemic benefits such as weight loss, improvements in β-cell function and cardiovascular risk markers. These attributes have made incretin therapies attractive treatments for the management of T2D and have presented physicians with an opportunity to tailor treatment plans. This review endeavours to outline the commonalities and differences among incretin-based therapies and to provide guidance regarding agents most suitable for treating T2D in individual patients.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: Past, present, and future

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)-based therapy improves glycaemic control through multiple mechanisms, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and the additional benefit of clinically relevant weight loss. Since Starling and Bayliss first proposed the existence of intestinal secretions that stimulate the pancreas, tremendous progress has been made in the area of incretins. As a number of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continue to become available, physicians will soon face the challenge of selecting the right option customized to their patient's needs. The following discussion, derived from an extensive literature search using the PubMed database, applying the terms incretin, GLP-1, exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and taspoglutide, provides a comprehensive review of existing and upcoming molecules in the GLP-1 RA class in terms of their structure, pharmacological profiles, efficacy, safety, and convenience. Search Methodology: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database, applying the terms incretin, GLP-1, exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and taspoglutide. Relevant articles were those that discussed structural, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences, classification, long-acting and short-acting GLP-1 RAs, phase 3 trials, and expert opinions. Additional targeted searches were conducted on diabetes treatment guidelines and reviews on safety, as well as the American Diabetes Association/European Society for Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) statement on pancreatic safety.

Early fasting glucose measurements can predict later glycaemic response to once weekly dulaglutide

AIMS

To assess whether early measures of fasting blood glucose predict later glycaemic response with once-weekly dulaglutide in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses were conducted separately for two phase 3 studies (AWARD-5 and AWARD-1) in patients assigned to once-weekly dulaglutide. Week 2 fasting blood glucose was used as a predictor variable, and glycaemic treatment response was defined by HbA1c response based on a composite efficacy endpoint. The association between fasting blood glucose and the glycaemic response was analysed using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

There was a strong association between fasting blood glucose < 7.9 mmol/l at week 2 and achieving the HbA1c composite efficacy endpoint at week 26 (P < 0.01). Higher fasting blood glucose at week 2, however, did not predict absence of glycaemic response and requires further assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Fasting blood glucose measured at 2 weeks may be an early and useful predictor of glycaemic response to once-weekly dulaglutide treatment.

Once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide significantly decreases glycated haemoglobin compared with once-daily liraglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: 52 weeks of treatment in a randomized phase III study

AIMS

To examine the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg monotherapy compared with once-daily liraglutide 0.9 mg in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) for 52 weeks.

METHODS

We conducted a phase III, randomized, 52-week (26-week primary endpoint), active- and placebo-controlled trial comparing 492 Japanese patients (dulaglutide, n = 281; liraglutide, n = 141; and placebo, n = 70). Participants and investigators were blinded to treatment assignment for dulaglutide and placebo but not for liraglutide (open-label comparator); after 26 weeks, patients randomized to placebo were switched to once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg (open-label). The present paper reports results for patients treated with dulaglutide and patients treated with liraglutide for 52 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 52, dulaglutide decreased HbA1c significantly from baseline compared with liraglutide [least squares mean difference: -0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39, -0.01; p = 0.04]. At week 52 (last observation carried forward), dulaglutide significantly decreased pre- and post-dinner blood glucose (BG) levels, the mean of seven-point self-monitored BG profiles, the mean of all postprandial BG levels and circadian variation compared with liraglutide. Body weight was generally stable in both groups through 52 weeks. The most frequently reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis, constipation, nausea and diarrhoea. Eight dulaglutide-treated (2.9%) and four liraglutide-treated (2.9%) patients reported hypoglycaemia, with no event being severe.

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy with once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was effective and safe in Japanese patients with T2D, with better glycaemic control compared with once-daily liraglutide 0.9 mg.

A systematic review of the safety of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that incretin-based therapies provide effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Long-term safety assessments are ongoing.

METHODS

This systematic review of incretin-based therapy safety is based on 112 randomized clinical trials of duration ≥26 weeks published between January 2000 and February 2015 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

As expected, hypoglycemia rates were lower with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) versus other oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin. The most common adverse events were infection and infestation (DPP-4is) and gastrointestinal (GLP-1 RAs). Pancreatitis cases were rare across all studies and, in the SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE trials, pancreatitis rates were similar in DPP-4i- and placebo-treated patients. No thyroid tumors were reported, and increased risk of cardiovascular events was not associated with DPP-4is in SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE, albeit over a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, incretin-based therapies were well tolerated; however, their long-term safety profile should continue to be periodically assessed.

Cardiovascular safety for once-weekly dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes: a pre-specified meta-analysis of prospectively adjudicated cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a substantial increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease and associated mortality than those without diabetes. Dulaglutide is a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that is approved for treatment of T2D.

METHODS

This meta-analysis evaluates the CV risk in patients with T2D treated with dulaglutide in 9 randomized safety and efficacy trials. Mean (median) treatment duration was 333 (358) days. Reported CV events were independently adjudicated by a treatment-blinded clinical endpoint committee. The primary measure was a 4-component major adverse CV event (4-component MACE) composite endpoint of death due to CV causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Additional pre-specified endpoints included adjudicated coronary revascularizations, hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified by study) was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI). Tests of treatment effects for the primary endpoint were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0198 and a corresponding 98.02 % CI was calculated. Statistical heterogeneity between the strata (studies) was tested by including in the Cox model an interaction term between treatment and strata.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6010 randomized patients [dulaglutide: 3885; comparator therapy (active or placebo): 2125]; cumulative exposure to dulaglutide or comparator therapy was 3941 and 2223 patient-years, respectively. The demographic and baseline CV disease characteristics were similar across groups. Twenty-six (0.67 %) patients in the dulaglutide group versus 25 (1.18 %) in the comparator group experienced a primary 4-component MACE (HR 0.57; adjusted 98.02 % CI 0.30, 1.10). Results for the 3-component MACE (composite endpoint of death due to CV causes, nonfatal MI or stroke), 6-component MACE (composite endpoint of death due to CV causes, nonfatal MI or stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure, or coronary revascularizations) and all-cause mortality were consistent with the primary analysis (HR < 1.0 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that dulaglutide does not increase the risk of major CV events in T2D patients. The ongoing CV outcomes study, Researching CV Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND), will further assess CV safety of dulaglutide.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis and systematic review

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and www. clinicaltrials. gov (up to February 15^th, 2015) were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing dulaglutide to other drugs for T2DM were collected. Twelve RCTs were included, and the overall bias was low. As the monotherapy, compared with control (placebo, metformin and liraglutide), dulaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c (WMD, −0.68%; 95% CI, −0.95 to −0.40), FPG (WMD, −0.90 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.28 to −0.52), a similar risk of hypoglycemia (7.8% vs. 10.6%), less body weight loss (WMD, 0.51 kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.75). As an add-on intervention with oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) and insulin, compared with control (placebo, sitagliptin, exenatide, liraglutide and glargine), dulaglutide lowered HbA1c (WMD, −0.51%; 95% CI, −0.68 to −0.35) and body weight significantly (WMD, −1.30 kg, 95% CI, −1.85 to −1.02) notably, and elicited a similar reduction in FPG (WMD, −0.19 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.20 to 0.82), an similar incidence of hypoglycemia (24.5% vs. 24.5%). This meta-analysis revealed the use of dulaglutide as a monotherapy or an add-on to OAM and lispro appeared to be effective and safe for adults with T2DM.

Treatment potential of the GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review

Over the last decade, the discovery of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) has increased the treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). GLP-1 RAs mimic the effects of native GLP-1, which increases insulin secretion, inhibits glucagon secretion, increases satiety and slows gastric emptying. This review evaluates the phase III trials for all approved GLP-1 RAs and reports that all GLP-1 RAs decrease HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and lead to a reduction in body weight in the majority of trials. The most common adverse events are nausea and other gastrointestinal discomfort, while hypoglycaemia is rarely reported when GLP-1 RAs not are combined with sulfonylurea or insulin. Treatment options in the near future will include co-formulations of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Update of Safety and Efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are increasingly being used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, but consideration of benefits and potential adverse events is required. This review examines the state of glycemic control, weight loss, blood pressure, and tolerability, as well as the current debate about the safety of GLP-1 RAs, including risk of pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and thyroid cancer.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search (2010-2015) identified publications that discussed longer-acting GLP-1 RAs. Search terms included GLP-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, efficacy, safety, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and thyroid cancer. Abstracts from the American Diabetes Association, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists from 2010 to 2015 were also searched. Efficacy and safety studies, pooled analyses, and meta-analyses were prioritized.

RESULTS

Research has confirmed that GLP-1 RAs provide robust glycemic control, weight loss, and blood pressure re-duction. Current studies do not prove increased risk of pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or thyroid cancer but more trials are needed since publications that indicate safety or suggest increased risk have methodological flaws that prevent firm conclusions to be drawn about these rare, long-term events.

CONCLUSION

GLP-1 RA therapy in the context of individualized, patient-centered care continues to be supported by current literature. GLP-1 RA therapy provides robust glycemic control, blood pressure reduction, and weight loss, but studies are still needed to address concerns about tolerability and safety, including pancreatitis and cancer.

Mode of administration of dulaglutide: implications for treatment adherence

BACKGROUND

Medication complexity/burden can be associated with nonadherence in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients' satisfaction with their treatment is an important consideration for physicians. Strategies like using longer acting efficacious agents with less frequent dosing may help adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the mode of administration of dulaglutide and its implications for treatment adherence in T2DM.

METHODS

PubMed search using the term "Dulaglutide" through October 31, 2015 was conducted. Published articles, press releases, and abstracts presented at national/international meetings were considered.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly glucagon like peptide-1 analog with a low intraindividual variability. Phase III trials demonstrated significant improvements in glycemia and weight, with a low hypoglycemia risk similar to liraglutide/exenatide, but with substantially fewer injections. A significant improvement was observed in the total Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score, Impact of Weight on Self-Perception, and perceived frequency of hyperglycemia with dulaglutide when compared with placebo, exenatide, liraglutide, or metformin. Treatment satisfaction scores showed an improvement with dulaglutide (34%-39%) when compared with exenatide (31%). A positive experience with a high initial (97.2%) and final (99.1%) injection success rate along with a significant reduction in patients' fear of self-injecting, as measured by the modified self-injecting subscale of the Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-Testing Questionnaire and Medication Delivery Device Assessment Battery, was found. Its acceptance was high (>96%) among a variety of patients including patients who fear injections and injection-naïve users. Dulaglutide is available as a single-dose automatic self-injecting device, which has a low volume, does not need reconstitution, and avoids patient handling of the needle. Dose adjustment based on weight, sex, age, race, ethnicity, or injection-site is not necessary. In chronic diseases like diabetes where patients need lifelong medications, the efficacy, safety, and convenience of a once-weekly, easy-to-use, self-injecting device should encourage patient adherence to dulaglutide therapy.

Achieving the composite endpoint of glycated haemoglobin <7.0%, no weight gain and no hypoglycaemia in the once-weekly dulaglutide AWARD programme

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg with active comparators and placebo with regard to a composite endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight and hypoglycaemia, using post hoc analyses.

METHODS

A logistic regression analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat population, using data from the last observation carried forward, and the composite endpoint of HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), no weight gain (≤0 kg) and no hypoglycaemia (glucose <3.0 mmol/l or severe hypoglycaemia) after 26 weeks for each trial in the AWARD programme separately.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, within each study, 37-58% of patients on dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 27-49% of patients on dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and 9-61% of patients on active comparators achieved the composite endpoint. Significantly more patients reached the composite endpoint with dulaglutide 1.5 mg than with metformin, sitagliptin, exenatide twice daily or insulin glargine: odds ratio (OR) 1.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0, 2.2; p < 0.05], OR 4.5 (95% CI 3.0, 6.6; p < 0.001), OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.8, 3.7; p < 0.001) and OR 7.4 (95% CI 4.4, 12.6; p < 0.001), respectively, with no difference between dulaglutide 1.5 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg. In addition, significantly more patients reached the composite endpoint with dulaglutide 0.75 mg than with sitagliptin or insulin glargine: OR 3.3 (95% CI 2.2, 4.8; p < 0.001) and OR 4.5 (95% CI 2.7, 7.8; p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide is an effective treatment option, resulting in a similar or greater proportion of patients reaching the HbA1c target of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), without weight gain or hypoglycaemia compared with active comparators.

Liraglutide Versus Exenatide Once Weekly: Persistence, Adherence, and Early Discontinuation

PURPOSE

This study examines real-world, evidence-based comparisons of persistence and adherence to daily versus weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used U.S. insurance claims data to compare persistence and adherence to GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with T2D initiating once weekly (QW) exenatide or daily liraglutide over a 6-month follow-up period. Eligible patients had ≥2 diagnoses of T2D, were 18 years of age or older, initiated a new prescription of either the index drug between February 1, 2012 (market availability launch date of exenatide QW) and March 31, 2013, and had ≥6 months continuous eligibility in the pre- and postindex periods. A 1:1 propensity score match was used to account for selection bias. Outcome measures included persistence as measured by the percentage of patients who continued to take the index drug over an index period of 182 days with an allowable gap of 60 days and adherence as measured by the proportion of days covered (PDC). The percentage of patients achieving PDC ≥0.8 and ≥0.9 was also calculated.

FINDINGS

There were no significant differences between baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. Each matched cohort included 12,306 patients. The overall persistence observed with liraglutide was 66% compared with 63% for exenatide QW. The mean (SD) PDC adherence during the 6-month follow-up period was 0.694 (0.309) for the exenatide QW cohort and 0.689 (0.286) for the liraglutide cohort. The PDC threshold of ≥0.8 during the 6-month follow-up period was met by 6309 (51%) and 5820 (47%) patients in the exenatide QW and liraglutide cohorts, respectively. For the exenatide QW cohort, 76% of patients treated previously with BID exenatide continued treatment in the 6-month follow-up period compared with 59% who were not previously treated with exenatide BID. For the liraglutide cohort, 77% of previous exenatide BID patients continued treatment versus 63% of patients who were not previously treated with exenatide BID.

IMPLICATIONS

These results reveal slight differences in persistence and adherence rates in patients receiving exenatide QW versus patients receiving liraglutide daily that vary by outcome and previous incretin-based therapy used. Differences may be due to dosing device differences for exenatide QW and liraglutide, which, in the case of liraglutide, allows the opportunity for daily self-titration dosing. Implications of these findings for clinical practice are that persistence is determined by the broader context of treatment and medications being used and should be considered when prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Dulaglutide Versus Insulin Glargine in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Metformin and Glimepiride (AWARD-2)

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, with daily insulin glargine, both combined with maximally tolerated doses of metformin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective was noninferiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg to glargine in the HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 78-week, open-label study, 810 patients were randomized to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, or glargine.

RESULTS

The baseline mean ± SD HbA1c was 8.1 ± 1.0% (65.5 ± 10.8 mmol/mol). The least squares mean ± SE HbA1c change from baseline to the primary end point was -1.08 ± 0.06% (-11.8 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, -0.76 ± 0.06% (-8.3 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and -0.63 ± 0.06% (-6.9 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for glargine, with an end point mean ± SD dose of 29 ± 26 units (0.33 ± 0.24 units/kg), and a fasting plasma glucose (mean ± SD) of 118 ± 23 mg/dL from self-monitored plasma glucose. Statistical criteria for superiority were met with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and for noninferiority with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. More patients on dulaglutide 1.5 mg achieved HbA1c targets <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) versus glargine (P < 0.001). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide and increased with glargine. Total hypoglycemia rates were lower with dulaglutide; severe hypoglycemia was minimal. Increases in pancreatic enzymes were observed for dulaglutide. Incidence of nausea (15.4, 7.7, and 1.5%) and diarrhea (10.6, 9.2, and 5.7%) were more common with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg than with glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, compared with daily insulin glargine without forced titration, demonstrated greater HbA1c reduction and weight loss, with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a lower risk of hypoglycemia.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of recently approved once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing any GLP-1 RA licensed for once-weekly dosing (albiglutide, dulaglutide or exenatide extended release) with placebo or other antidiabetic agents. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and grey literature for articles published up to December 2014 and extracted data in duplicate.

RESULTS

In our systematic review we included 33 trials with a total of 16 003 participants. Compared with placebo the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration was -0.66% [six studies; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to -0.19; I(2)  = 88%] with albiglutide, and -1.18% (seven studies; 95% CI -1.34 to -1.02; I(2)  = 65%) with dulaglutide. Based on data from placebo-controlled trials, we did not detect statistically significant weight-sparing benefits for albiglutide or dulaglutide. Compared with other antidiabetic agents, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs outperformed sitagliptin, daily exenatide and insulin glargine in terms of HbA1c-lowering (mean differences -0.40%; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; I(2)  = 85%, -0.44%; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.29; I(2)  = 40% and -0.28; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.10; I(2)  = 81%, respectively). The main adverse effects of treatment included gastrointestinal and injection site reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Given their dosing scheme and overall efficacy and safety profile, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs are a convenient therapeutic option for use as add-on to metformin.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to stable and inadequate metformin and thiazolidinedione therapy in type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Determine the efficacy and safety of antidiabetic agents added-on to metformin and a thiazolidinedione (TZD) in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the addition of an antidiabetic agent in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on stable, optimised metformin and TZD therapy (≥ 1500 mg metformin and ≥ 50% maximum TZD dose for ≥ 4 weeks). Frequentist network meta-analysis was performed on identified studies.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs evaluating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (linagliptin, sitagliptin), sulfonylureas (SUs) (glibenclamide, glimepiride), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues (exenatide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, taspoglutide) and sodium-glucose cotransporter2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (canagliflozin, empagliflozin) were identified. The mean reduction in HbA1c from baseline was significant for all agents (range, 0.55-1.17%) vs. placebo. SUs were associated with weight gain (range, 3.31-7.29 kg), while weight loss was seen with all GLP-1 analogues (range, 1.53-2.20 kg) and SGLT2 inhibitors (range, 2.08-2.95 kg) vs. placebo. Relative risk of hypoglycaemia was increased with dulaglutide, exenatide and glimepiride vs. placebo (RR range, 2.65-6.17); and trended higher with all other agents except linagliptin. GLP-1 analogues and canagliflozin reduced systolic blood pressure vs. placebo (range, 2.39-5.05 mmHg). No agent with available data increased the risk of urinary or genital tract infection vs. placebo.

CONCLUSION

When added to stable, optimised metformin and TZD, all evaluated antidiabetic agents reduced HbA1c; albeit not to the same degree. Moreover, agents differed in their effects on body weight, hypoglycaemia and systolic blood pressure.

Dulaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

The prevalence of diabetes continues to rise worldwide. Over the past five years, available treatment options have expanded to allow individualized management of patients with diabetes. The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have become an essential tool in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This class provides several advantages for glycemic control with minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Based on the most recent guidelines for T2DM, GLP-1 receptor agonists can be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with oral antidiabetic agents or insulin for the management of T2DM. Dulaglutide has become the most recent and available GLP-1 receptor agonist on the market. Dulaglutide is a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist that can be used as monotherapy or as a second-line agent for T2DM. This review article summarizes the efficacy, safety, and clinical attributes of dulaglutide among patients with T2DM.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Practical Considerations for Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) imparts an increased risk of adverse health outcomes in patients unable to achieve glycemic control. Patient education and individualization of treatment are important for effective management of T2D. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are a class of injectable glucose-lowering agents that lower A1C with added benefits of weight loss and improved cardiovascular risk markers. This review discusses the role of GLP-1RAs currently approved in the United States (exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) for T2D management and characterizes the efficacy and safety profiles of individual GLP-1RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1RAs are recommended as a preferred add-on agent to existing metformin monotherapy, as first-line therapy if metformin is contraindicated or poorly tolerated, and for use in combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents or basal insulin. Shorter-acting GLP-1RAs (exenatide and liraglutide) offer improved coverage of postprandial hyperglycemia, while longer-acting GLP-1RA formulations (exenatide extended-release, dulaglutide, and albiglutide) further improve fasting plasma glucose, which can result in additional A1C lowering. Reductions in body weight and blood pressure appear similar among individual agents, and small increases in heart rate are of unknown clinical relevance. Gastrointestinal adverse events abate over time with continued treatment and are less frequent with longer-acting GLP-1RAs. Hypoglycemia incidence is low but increased when GLP-1RAs are used with insulin secretagogues or insulin. GLP-1RAs target multiple pathophysiologic mechanisms in patients with T2D and improve glycemic control, although there are some differences within this drug class that may be relevant in clinical practice. Therefore, selection of the most appropriate treatment for individual patients is important.

Once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide is non-inferior to once-daily liraglutide and superior to placebo in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomized phase III study

AIMS

To examine the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide monotherapy (0.75 mg) compared with placebo and once-daily liraglutide (0.9 mg) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This was a phase III, 52-week (26-week primary endpoint), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, open-label comparator (liraglutide) trial comparing 492 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (dulaglutide, n = 281; liraglutide, n = 141; and placebo, n = 70) who were aged ≥20 years. Patients and investigators were blinded to treatment assignment for dulaglutide and placebo but not for liraglutide. The primary objective evaluated the superiority of dulaglutide versus placebo on change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 26 weeks. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, once-weekly dulaglutide was superior to placebo and non-inferior to once-daily liraglutide for HbA1c change from baseline [least squares mean difference: dulaglutide vs placebo -1.57% (95% confidence interval -1.79 to -1.35); dulaglutide vs liraglutide -0.10% (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 0.07)]. The most frequently reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis, constipation, diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal distension and decreased appetite; only decreased appetite was different between the dulaglutide and liraglutide groups [dulaglutide, n = 2 (0.7%); liraglutide, n = 8 (5.8%); p = 0.003]. Nine (1.8%) patients experienced hypoglycaemia [dulaglutide, n = 6 (2.1%); liraglutide, n = 2 (1.5%); placebo, n = 1 (1.4%)], with no event being severe.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly dulaglutide (0.75 mg) was superior to placebo and non-inferior to once-daily liraglutide (0.9 mg) for reduction in HbA1c at 26 weeks. Dulaglutide was safe and well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide in combination with sulphonylurea and/or biguanide compared with once-daily insulin glargine in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority study

AIMS

To evaluate 0.75 mg of dulaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, compared with once-daily insulin glargine for glycaemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

In this phase III, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 26-week study, 361 patients with inadequately controlled T2D receiving sulphonylureas and/or biguanides, aged ≥20 years, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol), inclusive, were randomized (1 : 1) to receive dulaglutide or glargine. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary measure was change from baseline in HbA1c at 26 weeks, analysed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.

RESULTS

At week 26, least-squares (LS) mean (standard error) reductions in HbA1c were -1.44 (0.05)% [-15.74 (0.55) mmol/mol] in the dulaglutide group and -0.90 (0.05)% [-9.84 (0.55) mmol/mol] in the glargine group. The mean between-group treatment difference in HbA1c was -0.54% (95% CI -0.67, -0.41) [-5.90 mmol/mol (95% CI -7.32, -4.48)]; p < 0.001. Dulaglutide significantly reduced body weight compared with glargine at week 26 (LS mean difference -1.42 kg, 95% CI -1.89, -0.94; p < 0.001). The most frequent adverse events with dulaglutide treatment were nasopharyngitis and gastrointestinal symptoms. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with dulaglutide [47/181 (26%)] compared with glargine [86/180 (48%)], p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

In Japanese patients with T2D uncontrolled on sulphonylureas and/or biguanides, once-weekly dulaglutide was superior to once-daily glargine for reduction in HbA1c at 26 weeks. Although dulaglutide increased gastrointestinal symptoms, it was well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile.

Treatment satisfaction in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD-1 and AWARD-3 clinical trials

AIMS

To compare treatment satisfaction among people with type 2 diabetes receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (a once-weekly, long-acting, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) with those receiving either exenatide or placebo (AWARD-1 study) or metformin (AWARD-3 study) over 52 weeks.

METHODS

The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) were used to evaluate total treatment satisfaction and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

In the AWARD-1 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed in total DTSQs score for both dulaglutide doses (26 and 52 weeks) and exenatide (26 weeks). The improvement was significantly greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with placebo (26 weeks) and exenatide (26 and 52 weeks). The perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline. The improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses and exenatide compared with placebo at 26 weeks, and was also greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with exenatide at 26 and 52 weeks. The exenatide group had an increase in perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia at 26 and 52 weeks. In the AWARD-3 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed for total DTSQs scores in all groups at 26 and 52 weeks. Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline, and this improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with metformin at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide was associated with improvements in treatment satisfaction and a decrease in perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia.

Safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 2 years in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-5): a randomized, phase III study

AIMS

To compare the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor dulaglutide with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin after 104 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

This AWARD-5 study was a multicentre, double-blind trial that randomized participants to dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or sitagliptin 100 mg for 104 weeks or placebo (reported separately) for 26 weeks. Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration from baseline was the primary efficacy measure. A total of 1098 participants with HbA1c concentrations ≥7.0% (≥53.0 mmol/mol) and ≤9.5% (≤80.3 mmol/mol) were randomized, and 657 (59.8%) completed the study. We report results for dulaglutide and sitagliptin at the final endpoint.

RESULTS

Changes in HbA1c at 104 weeks were (least squares mean ± standard error) -0.99 ± 0.06% (-10.82 ± 0.66 mmol/mol), -0.71 ± 0.07% (-7.76 ± 0.77 mmol/mol) and -0.32 ± 0.06% (-3.50 ± 0.66 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg and sitagliptin, respectively (p < 0.001, both dulaglutide doses vs sitagliptin). Weight loss was greater with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (p < 0.001) and similar with 0.75 mg versus sitagliptin (2.88 ± 0.25, 2.39 ± 0.26 and 1.75 ± 0.25 kg, respectively). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg versus sitagliptin (nausea 17 and 15% vs 7%, diarrhoea 16 and 12% vs 6%, vomiting 14 and 8% vs 4% respectively). Pancreatic, thyroid, cardiovascular and hypersensitivity safety were similar across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide doses provided superior glycaemic control and dulaglutide 1.5 mg resulted in greater weight reduction versus sitagliptin at 104 weeks, with acceptable safety.

Comparison Review of Short-Acting and Long-Acting Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are useful tools for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. In their recent position statement, the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend GLP1-RAs as add-on to metformin when therapeutic goals are not achieved with monotherapy, particularly for patients who wish to avoid weight gain or hypoglycemia. GLP1-RAs differ substantially in their duration of action, frequency of administration and clinical profile. Members of this class approved for clinical use include exenatide twice-daily, exenatide once-weekly, liraglutide and lixisenatide once-daily. Recently, two new once-weekly GLP1-RAs have been approved: dulaglutide and albiglutide. This article summarizes properties of short- and long-acting GLP-1 analogs, and provides useful information to help choose the most appropriate compound for individual patients.

A novel, long-acting glucagon-like peptide receptor-agonist: dulaglutide

BACKGROUND

Dulaglutide is a new, long-acting glucagon-like peptide analogue in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It is available in two doses, 0.75 and 1.5 mg, given by injection once weekly. This systematic review reports the effectiveness and safety of dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes in dual and triple therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, and conference abstracts were searched from 2005 to August 2014, and updated in January 2015. Company websites and references of included studies were checked for potentially relevant studies. European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration websites were searched.

RESULTS

Four trials were included. All were manufacturer-funded randomized controlled trials from the Assessment of Weekly Administration of Dulaglutide in Diabetes (AWARD) program. AWARD-1 compared dulaglutide 1.5 mg against exenatide 10 µg twice daily and placebo, AWARD-2 compared dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg against insulin glargine, AWARD-5 compared dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg against sitagliptin 100 mg and placebo, and AWARD-6 compared dulaglutide 1.5 mg against liraglutide 1.8 mg. The duration of follow-up in the trials ranged from 26 to 104 weeks. The primary outcome of all the included trials was change in HbA1c. At 26 weeks, greater HbA1c reductions were seen with dulaglutide than with twice daily exenatide (dulaglutide 1.5/0.75 mg: -1.5%/-1.3%; exe: 0.99%) and sitagliptin (1.5/0.75 mg -1.22%/-1.01%; sitagliptin: -0.6%). HbA1c change was greater with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (-1.08%) than with glargine (-0.63%), but not with dulaglutide 0.75 mg (-0.76%). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was found to be noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. More patients treated with dulaglutide achieved HbA1c targets of <7% and ≤6.5%. Reduction in weight was greater with dulaglutide than with sitagliptin and exenatide. Hypoglycemia was infrequent. The main adverse events were nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide is effective in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes but we need long follow-up data for safety concerns.

A clinical review of GLP-1 receptor agonists: efficacy and safety in diabetes and beyond

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing at an astounding rate. Many of the agents used to treat type 2 diabetes have undesirable adverse effects of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists represent a unique approach to the treatment of diabetes, with benefits extending outside glucose control, including positive effects on weight, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and beta-cell function. They mimic the effects of the incretin hormone GLP-1, which is released from the intestine in response to food intake. Their effects include increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon release, increasing satiety, and slowing gastric emptying. There are currently four approved GLP-1 receptor agonists in the United States: exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, and dulaglutide. A fifth agent, lixisenatide, is available in Europe. There are important pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and clinical differences of each agent. The most common adverse effects seen with GLP-1 therapy include nausea, vomiting, and injection-site reactions. Other warnings and precautions include pancreatitis and thyroid cell carcinomas. GLP-1 receptor agonists are an innovative and effective option to improve blood glucose control, with other potential benefits of preserving beta-cell function, weight loss, and increasing insulin sensitivity. Once-weekly formulations may also improve patient adherence. Overall, these are effective agents for patients with type 2 diabetes, who are either uncontrolled on metformin or intolerant to metformin.

Effects of the GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Dulaglutide on the Structure of the Exocrine Pancreas of Cynomolgus Monkeys

Clinical and nonclinical studies have implicated glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapy as a risk factor for acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, it is critical to understand the effect that dulaglutide, an approved GLP-1 receptor agonist, has on the exocrine pancreas. Dulaglutide 8.15 mg/kg (approximately 500 times the maximum recommended human dose based on plasma exposure) was administered twice weekly for 12 months to cynomolgus monkeys. Serum amylase and lipase activities were measured and 6 sections of each pancreas were examined microscopically. Ductal epithelial cell proliferation was estimated using Ki67 labeling. Dulaglutide administration did not alter serum amylase or lipase activities measured at the end of treatment compared to control values. An extensive histologic evaluation of the pancreas revealed no changes in the acinar or endocrine portions and no evidence of pancreatitis, necrosis, or pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. An increase in goblet cells noted in 4 of the 19 treated monkeys was considered an effect of dulaglutide but was not associated with dilation, blockage, or accumulation of mucin in the pancreatic duct. There was no difference in cell proliferation in ductal epithelium between control and dulaglutide-treated monkeys. These data reveal that chronic dosing of nondiabetic primates with dulaglutide does not induce inflammatory or preneoplastic changes in exocrine pancreas.

Glucagon-like polypeptide agonists in type 2 diabetes mellitus: efficacy and tolerability, a balance

Glucagon-like polypeptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist treatment has multiple effects on glucose metabolism, supports the β cell, and promotes weight loss. There are now five GLP-1 agonists in clinical use with more in development. GLP-1 treatment typically can induce a lowering of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 0.5-1.5% over time with weight loss of 2-5%. In some individuals, a progressive loss of weight occurs. There is evidence that GLP-1 therapy opposes the loss of β cells which is a feature of type 2 diabetes. The chief downside of GLP-1 treatment is the gastrointestinal motility disturbance which is one of the modes of action of the hormone; significant nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to discontinuation of treatment. Although daily injection of GLP-1 agents is successful, the development of extended release preparations allows for injection once weekly, and perhaps much longer in the future. The indication for GLP-1 use is diabetes, but now, liraglutide has been approved for primary treatment of obesity. When oral agents fail to control glucose levels in type 2 diabetes, there is a choice between long-acting insulin and GLP-1 agonists as additional treatments. The lowering of HbA1c by either modality is equivalent in most studies. Patients lose weight with GLP-1 treatment and gain weight on insulin. There is a lower incidence of hypoglycemia with GLP-1 therapy but a much higher incidence of gastrointestinal complaints. Insulin dosing is flexible while GLP-1 agents have historically been administered at fixed dosages. Now, the use of combined long-acting insulin and GLP-1 agonists is promising a major therapeutic change. Combined therapy takes advantage of the benefits of both insulin and GLP-1 agents. Furthermore, direct admixture of both in the same syringe will permit flexible dosing, improvement of glucose levels, and reduction of both hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal side effects.

The Role of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes: Understanding How Data Can Inform Clinical Practice in Korea

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) reduce glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c, 0.5% to 1.0%), and are associated with moderate weight loss and a relatively low risk of hypoglycemia. There are differences between Asian and non-Asian populations. We reviewed available data on GLP-1RAs, focusing on Korean patients, to better understand their risk/benefit profile and help inform local clinical practice. Control of postprandial hyperglycemia is important in Asians in whom the prevalence of post-challenge hyperglycemia is higher (vs. non-Asians). The weight lowering effects of GLP-1RAs are becoming more salient as the prevalence of overweight and obesity among Korean patients increases. The higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events amongst Asian patients in clinical trials may be caused by higher drug exposure due to the lower body mass index of the participants (vs. non-Asian studies). Data on the durability of weight loss, clinically important health outcomes, safety and optimal dosing in Korean patients are lacking. Use of GLP-1RAs is appropriate in several patient groups, including patients whose HbA1c is uncontrolled, especially if this is due to postprandial glucose excursions and patients who are overweight or obese due to dietary problems (e.g., appetite control). The potential for gastrointestinal adverse events should be explained to patients at treatment initiation to facilitate the promotion of better compliance.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus bedtime insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

For patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve target glycaemic control with conventional insulin treatment, advancing to a basal-bolus insulin regimen is often recommended. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We did this 52 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with an interactive voice-response system, to receive once-weekly dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine. Randomisation was stratified by country and metformin use. Participants and study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but were unaware of dulaglutide dose assignment. The primary outcome was a change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191268.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 9, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 884 patients to receive dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296). At 26 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was greater in patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg (-1·64% [95% CI -1·78 to -1·50], -17·93 mmol/mol [-19·44 to -16·42]) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (-1·59% [-1·73 to -1·45], -17·38 mmol/mol [-18·89 to -15·87]) than in those receiving glargine (-1·41% [-1·55 to -1·27], -15·41 mmol/mol [-16·92 to -13·90]). The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was -0·22% (95% CI -0·38 to -0·07, -2·40 mmol/mol [-4·15 to -0·77]; p=0·005) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·17% (-0·33 to -0·02, -1·86 mmol/mol [-3·61 to -0·22]; p=0·015) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg. Five (<1%) patients died after randomisation because of septicaemia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group); pneumonia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group). We recorded serious adverse events in 27 (9%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, 44 (15%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group. The most frequent adverse events, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting.

INTERPRETATION

Dulaglutide in combination with lispro resulted in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patients unable to achieve glycaemic targets with conventional insulin treatment.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes and Beyond - New Insights 2015

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were introduced for type 2 diabetes therapy nearly 10 years ago, among them short-acting compounds on the basis of the GLP-1-like peptide exendin-4 (exenatide and lixisenatide) and a long-acting GLP-1 RA based on the human GLP-1 sequence (liraglutide). Recently, two novel long-acting GLP-1 RAs on the basis of human GLP-1 sequence, for once-weekly application, have been approved for therapy of type 2 diabetes. Additionally, liraglutide has been approved for treatment of obesity at a higher dose than that used for diabetes therapy. This mini-review gives a short overview of the novel long-acting GLP-1 RAs albiglutide and dulaglutide and also reviews the studies of liraglutide in treatment of obesity leading to its approval for this use. These studies were largely presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in fall 2014.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To review the oral and injectable pharmacologic treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted using PubMed electronic database for studies published in English between 1993 and September 2014. Search terms included diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes, and the individual name for each antidiabetic medication reviewed. In addition, manual searches were performed for cross-references from publications. Package inserts, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site, Institute for Safe Medication Practices Web site, American Diabetes Association Web site and scientific session poster presentations, and individual drug company Web pages were also reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: This review focused on information elucidated over the past 10 years to assist prescribers in choosing optimal therapy based on individual patient characteristics. Studies leading to the approval of or raising safety concerns for the antidiabetic medications reviewed in this article were included. Data Synthesis: In the past 10 years, there have been 4 novel oral antidiabetic medication classes and 10 new injectable agents and insulin products approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as well as new information regarding the safety and use of several older antidiabetic medication classes. The distinctions were reviewed for each individual agent, and a comparison was completed if there was more than one agent in a particular therapeutic class. Using current information available, select investigational agents in phase III trials or with a pending new drug application were highlighted. Conclusion: There are now 9 distinct oral pharmacologic classes and a variety of insulin and noninsulin injectable medications available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Metformin remains the first-line treatment option for most patients. When considering options for alternative or additional treatment, prescribers must weigh the benefits and risks using individual patient characteristics.

Combination Therapy When Metformin Is Not an Option for Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: Consensus on combination options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) unable to use metformin is lacking. This review summarizes data describing–non-metformin based combination therapy. Data Sources: PubMed searches (January 1990 to August 2014) were conducted with terms for newer drug therapies alone and with the term combination; filters were applied for Clinical Trial, Meta Analysis, and English language. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Results were reviewed for multicenter, randomized controlled trials of non-metformin–based combination therapy conducted in the past 5 years and specific to the US or multinational populations. Data Synthesis: Although multiple injectable and oral agents have been studied in combination with metformin for management of T2DM, data are more limited for combinations without metformin. Combinations of incretins (injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors) with a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or insulin are well studied and provide greater glucose-lowering efficacy than monotherapy. Incretins are associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia when used as monotherapy; the dosage of sulfonylurea or insulin should be reduced when used in combination. Newer studies are investigating the combined use of an oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and a DPP-4 inhibitor. In a recent study, reductions in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) of 1.1% to 1.2% and reduced weight with no additive risk of hypoglycemia were observed. Conclusions: Selecting the most appropriate combination therapy for patients with T2DM requires balancing clinical benefits with the risks, such as weight gain and hypoglycemia. Treatment approaches should be individualized for vulnerable patient populations for whom metformin is not appropriate.

Adverse Effects of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a class of injective anti-diabetic drugs that improve glycemic control and many other atherosclerosis-related parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the use of this relatively new class of drugs may be associated with certain adverse effects. Concerns have been expressed regarding the effects of these drugs on pancreatic and thyroid tissue, since animal studies and analyses of drug databases indicate an association of GLP-1 receptor agonists with pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and thyroid cancer. However, several meta-analyses failed to confirm a cause-effect relation between GLP-1 receptor agonists and the development of these adverse effects. One benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they do not cause hypoglycemia when combined with metformin or thiazolidinediones, but the dose of concomitant sulphonylurea or insulin may have to be decreased to reduce the risk of hypoglycemic episodes. On the other hand, several case reports have linked the use of these drugs, mainly exenatide, with the occurrence of acute kidney injury, primarily through hemodynamic derangement due to nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The most common symptoms associated with the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists are gastrointestinal symptoms, mainly nausea. Other common adverse effects include injection site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis, but these effects do not usually result in discontinuation of the drug. Current evidence shows that GLP-1 receptor agonists have no negative effects on the cardiovascular risk of patients with T2D. Thus, GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have a favorable safety profile, but ongoing trials will further assess their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review is to analyze critically the available data regarding adverse events of GLP-1 receptor agonists in different anatomic systems published in Pubmed and Scopus. Whenever possible, certain differences between GLP-1 receptor agonists are described. The review also provides the reader with structured data that compare the rates of the most common adverse effects for each of the various GLP-1 receptor agonists.