A Review of Practical Issues on the Use of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Pharmacovigilance study of GLP-1 receptor agonists for metabolic and nutritional adverse events

Aims: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are employed extensively in the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. However, there is a paucity of real-world data on their safety and tolerability for metabolic and nutritional adverse events in large sample populations. This study aimed to analyse the metabolic and nutritional safety signatures of different GLP-1 RAs by exploring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: AEs data were extracted from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for each GLP-1 RA from the time of its launch until the second quarter of 2023. The reported odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean and Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network were employed to identify AE signals. Results: A system organ class of metabolism and nutrition disorders was employed to filter AE reports, resulting in the identification of 10,450 reports for exenatide, 2,860 reports for liraglutide, 240 reports for albiglutide, 4,847 reports for dulaglutide, 2,905 reports for semaglutide, 1,089 reports for tirzepatide, and 13 reports for lixisenatide. Semaglutide (ROR, 3.34; 95%CI, 3.22), liraglutide (ROR, 2.78; 95%CI, 2.69), and exenatide (ROR, 2.15; 95%CI, 2.11) were associated with metabolism and nutrition disorders. The number of AE signals detected were as follows: albiglutide (n = 1), lixisenatide (n = 2), tirzepatide (n = 11), exenatide (n = 12), liraglutide (n = 16), semaglutide (n = 20), dulaglutide (n = 22). Dehydration was the most frequent AE contributing to serious outcomes for liraglutide (n = 318, 23.93%), dulaglutide (n = 434, 20.90%), semaglutide (n = 370, 25.10%) and tirzepatide (n = 70, 32.86%). The time to onset (TTO) of AE was statistically different between exenatide and the other GLP-1 RAs (p < 0.001), and the Weibull parameters for dehydration for liraglutide, dulaglutide, and semaglutide analyses all showed an early failure-type profile. Conclusion: Our study suggests that exenatide, liraglutide, and semaglutide are more susceptible to metabolic and nutritional AEs than other GLP-1 RAs. Liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepaptide's potential to induce dehydration, necessitates special attention. Despite certain deficiencies, GLP-1 RAs have considerable potential for the treatment of eating disorders.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Semaglutide: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The aim of this review was to provide all the pharmacokinetic data for semaglutide in humans concerning its pharmacokinetics after subcutaneously and oral applications in healthy and diseased populations, to provide recommendations for clinical use.

Methodology

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to screen studies associated with the pharmacokinetics of semaglutide. The pharmacokinetic parameters included area under the curve plasma concentrations (AUC), maximal plasma concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax, half-life (t1/2), and clearance. The systematic literature search retrieved 17 articles including data on pharmacokinetic profiles after subcutaneously and oral applications of semaglutide, and at least one of the above pharmacokinetic parameter was reported in all included studies.

Results

Semaglutide has a predictable pharmacokinetic profile with a long t1/2 that allows for once-weekly subcutaneous administration. The AUC and Cmax of both oral and subcutaneous semaglutide increased with dose. Food and various dosing conditions including water volume and dosing schedules can affect the oral semaglutide exposure. There are limited drug-drug interactions and no dosing adjustments in patients with upper gastrointestinal disease, renal impairment or hepatic impairment. Body weight may affect semaglutide exposure, but further studies are needed to confirm this.

Conclusion

This review encompasses all the pharmacokinetic data for subcutaneous and oral semaglutide in both healthy and diseased participants. The existing pharmacokinetic data can assist in developing and evaluating pharmacokinetic models of semaglutide and will help clinicians predict semaglutide dosages. In addition, it can also help optimize future clinical trials.

Adverse events in different administration routes of semaglutide: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Background

With the continuously increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, known for their dual benefits of effectively controlling blood glucose levels while also reducing weight and lowering cardiovascular disease risks, have been widely employed in the treatment of this condition. In recent years, semaglutide has garnered significant attention as the only injectable and orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). However, it is important to note that different routes of administration may lead to varying adverse events in patients. The aim of this study is to compare the adverse event profiles of semaglutide across different routes of administration by analyzing the adverse event reporting system of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The findings from this analysis will provide valuable insights for clinical practice and drug surveillance.

Methods

Data was extracted from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, specifically focusing on the period from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2023. A comparative analysis was conducted using disproportionality analysis, reporting odds ratio (ROR), and stratified analysis methods to assess and compare the signals of adverse events (AE) and the time to onset of adverse reactions associated with different routes of administration of semaglutide from 2017 to 2023.

Results

A total of 22,287 adverse reaction records related to semaglutide were identified in the FAERS database. A comparative analysis was performed on 16,346 records of subcutaneous administration and 2,496 records of oral administration. Different routes of administration can lead to varying adverse reaction outcomes. Compared to oral administration, subcutaneous injection is more likely to result in adverse events related to the endocrine system. Oral administration is more likely to induce adverse events in the gastrointestinal system. Additionally, it significantly accelerates the onset of adverse reactions. The comparative analysis of all relevant results indicates that semaglutide can lead to different adverse reaction events depending on the route of administration. Furthermore, there are significant differences in the time of onset for these adverse reactions.

Conclusion

Semaglutide exhibits variations in adverse reaction events and the time of onset across different routes of administration. Therefore, when selecting the route of administration for semaglutide, clinicians should consider the risk of adverse events and weigh them against the clinical benefits. Based on these considerations, appropriate guidance and recommendations can be provided to patients.

National trends in utilisation of glucose lowering medicines by older people with diabetes in long-term care facilities

AIMS

To examine national trends in glucose lowering medicine (GLM) use among older people with diabetes in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) during 2009-2019.

METHODS

A repeated cross-sectional study of individuals ≥65 years with diabetes in Australian LTCFs (n = 140,322) was conducted. Annual age-sex standardised prevalence of GLM use and number of defined daily doses (DDDs)/1000 resident-days were estimated. Multivariable Poisson or Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Prevalence of GLM use remained steady between 2009 (63.9%, 95 %CI 63.3-64.4) and 2019 (64.3%, 95 %CI 63.9-64.8) (aRR 1.00, 95 %CI 1.00-1.00). The percentage of residents receiving metformin increased from 36.0% (95 %CI 35.3-36.7) to 43.5% (95 %CI 42.9-44.1) (aRR 1.01, 95 %CI 1.01-1.01). Insulin use also increased from 21.5% (95 %CI 21.0-22.0) to 27.0% (95 %CI 26.5-27.5) (aRR 1.02, 95 %CI 1.02-1.02). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use increased from 1.0% (95 %CI 0.9-1.1) to 21.1% (95 %CI 20.7-21.5) (aRR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.24-1.25), while sulfonylurea use decreased from 34.4% (95 %CI 33.8-35.1) to 19.3% (95 %CI 18.9-19.7) (aRR 0.93, 95 %CI 0.93-0.94). Similar trends were observed in DDDs/1000 resident days.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing use of insulin and ongoing use of sulfonylureas suggests a need to implement evidence-based strategies to optimise diabetes care in LTCFs.

Screening and Management Recommendations for Type 2 Diabetes in Women With Breast Cancer

Breast cancer increases the risk of type 2 diabetes 1.07- to 4.27-fold, depending on patient and treatment characteristics, such as postmenopausal status, hormone therapy, and treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the current evidence and considered the role of increased screening for type 2 diabetes in this at-risk population. This narrative review was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases. Keywords including diabetes and breast cancer were used. Articles were limited to those published in English between 2000 and 2022. It appears that the increased risk of diabetes begins at or just after breast cancer diagnosis, and remains elevated for at least 10 to 15 years, with greatest risk in the first 2 years after diagnosis. Subsets of patients with breast cancer appear to be at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, including those who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy. Further investigation is needed to develop specific screening recommendations for this population. If screening is performed with a glycated hemoglobin test during breast cancer treatment, then hemoglobin should be measured at the same time given the association of breast cancer therapy with anemia. Presence of breast cancer should not be a major factor when choosing among available antihyperglycemic agents. Overall, patients with breast cancer appear to be at an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This increased risk suggests the need for further investigation to develop specific screening recommendations for this at-risk population.

Comparative analysis of physicochemical properties, bioequivalence, safety and tolerability of the first domestic semaglutide

Semaglutide is a representative of analogues of the incretin hormone human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and is currently used in Russia for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; in monotherapy and in combination therapy), including patients with obesity and overweight.

The aim of the work was to conduct a comparative assessment of the physicochemical properties, a biological activity, bioequivalence and safety, including tolerability and immunogenicity, of the drug Quincent® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) and the drug Ozempic® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark) when administered to healthy volunteers.

Materials and methods. To assess the degree of similarity of the study drug Quincenta® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) with a chemically synthesized active substance to the original (reference) drug Ozempic® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark), a comparative study of physicochemical properties and a biological activity was carried out. To assess the bioequivalence of the study drug and the reference drug, an open randomized parallel comparative study with the participation of healthy volunteers (n=54), 54 participants of which had been included in the population, was conducted. The volunteers were randomized into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio, and received a single dose subcutaneously either of the study drug (domestic semaglutide at a dose of 0.5 mg) or the reference drug (foreign semaglutide at a dose of 0.5 mg). The mode of administration was in the morning on an empty stomach. A semaglutide concentration was determined in serum samples using a previously validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. A quantitative determination of antibodies to semaglutide in the human serum by ELISA was carried out with a microplate photometer using ready-made kits pre-validated by the manufacturer. The conclusion about the bioequivalence of the compared drugs was made using an approach based on the assessment of 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric mean values of the parameters Cmax, AUC(0–t) of semaglutide in the measurement original units.

Results. The results of the comparative analysis of the study drug and the reference drug demonstrate the comparability of their physicochemical properties and biological activity. The results of the clinical study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the test drug and the reference drug. Thus, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs were comparable to each other: the Cmax value for the study drug was 42.088±8.827 ng/ml, for the reference drug Ozempic® it was 42.2556±7.84. Herewith, the half-life for the study drug and the reference drug was 168.39±39.47 and 157.99±28.57 hours, respectively. The resulting 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the Cmax and AUC0–t values of the study drug and the reference drug were 90.89–109.15 and 91.66–111.27%, respectively. The tolerability of the drugs in the volunteers was notified as good. No adverse events were recorded during the study. No serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. According to the results of the immunogenicity analysis, no antibodies to Russian-made semaglutide were detected in the blood serum of the volunteers, which indicated the lack of Results. The results of a comparative analysis of the study drug and the reference drug demonstrate the comparability of physicochemical properties and biological activity. The results of the clinical study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the study drug and the reference drug. Thus, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs were comparable to each other: the Cmax value for the study drug was 42.088±8.827 ng/ml, for the reference drug Ozempic® this figure was 42.2556±7.84. At the same time, the half-life for the study drug and the reference drug was 168.39±39.47 and 157.99±28.57 hours, respectively. The resulting 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the Cmax and AUC0–t values of the study drug and the reference drug were 90.89–109.15 and 91.66–111.27%, respectively. Tolerability of the drugs in volunteers was noted as good. No adverse events were recorded during the study. No serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. According to the results of the immunogenicity analysis, no antibodies to Russian-made semaglutide were detected in the blood serum of the volunteers, which indicated the lack of the drug immunogenicity.

Conclusion. In the course of the study, the comparability of the physicochemical properties and biological activity of the studied Russian drug with the chemically synthesized active substance Quincenta® to the reference drug Ozempic® was confirmed: the activity range of the studied drugs was within 80–120% in relation to the standard sample of semaglutide. The bioequivalence and a similar safety profile, including the immunogenicity and tolerability of the Russian drug Quincenta® (semaglutide 1.34 mg/ml, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) were shown in comparison with the foreign drug Ozempic® (semaglutide 1.34 mg/ml, Novo Nordisk A/C, Denmark).

11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Blockbuster Medications for Obesity: A Primer for Nephrologists

The prevalence of obesity in the United States and across the world continues to climb, imparting increased risk of chronic disease. This impact is doubly felt in nephrology because obesity not only increases the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) but also exacerbates existing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The role of medical weight loss therapy in CKD has been debated, but increasing evidence suggests that intentional weight loss is protective against adverse kidney and cardiovascular outcomes. This may be particularly true with the advent of novel pharmacotherapies taking advantage of the incretin system, resulting in weight loss approaching that seen with surgical interventions. Moreover, these novel therapies have repeatedly demonstrated protective effects on the cardiovascular system. Here, we review the impact of obesity and weight loss on CKD, and the biological basis and clinical evidence for incretin therapy. This perspective provides recommended prescribing practices as a practical tool to engage nephrologists and patients with CKD in the treatment of obesity-related morbidity.

Efficacy and safety of oral orforglipron in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, dose-response, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Orforglipron, an oral, non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is in development for type 2 diabetes and obesity. We assessed the efficacy and safety of orforglipron versus placebo or dulaglutide in participants with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 26-week, phase 2, double-blind, randomised, multicentre study, participants were recruited from 45 centres (private clinics, hospitals, and research centers) in the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Adult participants aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with diet and exercise, with or without metformin, and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5%, and stable BMI of 23 kg/m2 or more, were randomly assigned (5:5:5:5:5:3:3:3:3) via an interactive web-response system to placebo, dulaglutide 1·5 mg once per week, or orforglipron 3 mg, 12 mg, 24 mg, 36 mg (group 1), 36 mg (group 2), 45 mg (group 1), or 45 mg (group 2) once per day with no food or water restrictions. Two different dose escalation regimens were evaluated for each of the 36 mg and 45 mg cohorts. Participants were masked to the study drug, dulaglutide, and placebo. The primary efficacy outcome The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in HbA1c from baseline with orforglipron versus placebo at week 26. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and excluded data after the permanent discontinuation of study drug or initiation of rescue medication. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05048719) and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 15, 2021, and Sept 30, 2022, 569 participants were screened and 383 were enrolled and randomly assigned to a group. 352 (92%) completed the study and 303 (79%) completed 26 weeks of treatment. At baseline, the mean age was 58·9 years, HbA1c was 8·1%, BMI was 35·2 kg/m2, 226 (59%) were men, and 157 (41%) were women. At week 26, mean change in HbA1c with orforglipron was up to -2·10% (-1·67% placebo adjusted), versus -0·43% with placebo and -1·10% with dulaglutide. HbA1c reduction was statistically superior with orforglipron versus placebo (estimated treatment difference -0·8% to -1·7%). Change in mean bodyweight at week 26 was up to -10·1 kg (95% CI -11·5 to -8·7; 7·9 kg placebo adjusted [-9·9 to -5·9]) with orforglipron versus -2·2 kg (-3·6 to -0·7) for placebo and -3·9 kg (-5·3 to -2·4) for dulaglutide. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events ranged from 61·8% to 88·9% in orforglipron-treated participants, compared with 61·8% with placebo and 56·0% with dulaglutide. The majority were gastrointestinal events (44·1% to 70·4% with orforglipron, 18·2% with placebo, and 34·0% with dulaglutide) of mild to moderate severity. Three participants receiving orforglipron and one participant receiving dulaglutide had clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia and no participants had severe hypoglycaemia. One death occurred in the placebo group and was not related to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In this phase 2 trial the novel, oral, non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonist orforglipron at doses of 12 mg or greater showed significant reductions in HbA1c and bodyweight compared with placebo or dulaglutide. The adverse event profile was similar to other GLP-1 receptor agonists in similar stage of development. Orforglipron might provide an alternative to injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists and oral semaglutide, with the prospect of less burdensome administration to achieve treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in diabetic kidney disease: A review of their kidney and heart protection

Importance

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, testing for albuminuria among patients with T2D is substantially underutilized in clinical practice; many patients with CKD go unrecognized. For patients with T2D at high cardiovascular risk, or with established CVD, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) have been shown to reduce ASCVD in cardiovascular outcome trials, while potential kidney outcomes are being explored.

Observations

A recent meta-analysis found that GLP1-RA reduced 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events by 14% [HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93)] in patients with T2D. The benefits of GLP1-RA to reduce ASCVD were at least as large among people with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m². GLP1-RA also conferred a 21% reduction in the composite kidney outcome [HR, 0.79 (0.73-0.87)]; however, this result was achieved largely through reduction in albuminuria. It remains uncertain whether GLP1-RA would confer similar favorable results for eGFR decline and/or progression to end-stage kidney disease. Postulated mechanisms by which GLP1-RA confer protection against CVD and CKD include blood pressure lowering, weight loss, improved glucose control, and decreasing oxidative stress. Ongoing studies in T2D and CKD include a kidney outcome trial with semaglutide (FLOW, NCT03819153) and a mechanism of action study (REMODEL, NCT04865770) examining semaglutide's effect on kidney inflammation and fibrosis. Ongoing cardiovascular outcome studies are examining an oral GLP1-RA (NCT03914326), GLP1-RA in patients without T2D (NCT03574597), and dual GIP/GLP1-RA agonists (NCT04255433); the secondary kidney outcomes of these trials will be informative.

Conclusions and relevance

Despite their well-described ASCVD benefits and potential kidney protective mechanisms, GLP1-RA remain underutilized in clinical practice. This highlights the need for cardiovascular clinicians to influence and implement use of GLP1-RA in appropriate patients, including those with T2D and CKD at higher risk for ASCVD.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Obese Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: from Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Considerations and Practical Recommendations for Safe and Effective Use

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss current literature and provide practical recommendations for the safe and effective use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) and/or obesity. The molecular mechanisms that justify the potential benefits of GLP-1 RA in IBD and the links between IBD, obesity, and cardiovascular disease are also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Preliminary data suggest that GLP-1 RA can modulate crucial pathways in the pathogenesis of IBD, such as chronic inflammation circuits, intestinal tight junctions, and gut microbiome dysbiosis, setting the stage for human trials to investigate the role of these agents in the treatment of IBD among people with or without diabetes and obesity. However, gastrointestinal side effects related to GLP-1 RA need appropriate clinical management to mitigate risks and maximize the benefits of therapy in people with IBD. GLP-1 RA originally emerged as drugs for the treatment of hyperglycemia and are currently licensed for the management of T2D and/or overweight/obesity. However, their wealth of pleiotropic actions soon raised expectations that they might confer benefits on non-metabolic disorders. Future studies are expected to clarify whether GLP-1 RA deserve an adjunct place in the arsenal of drugs against IBD.

GLP-1 RAs in Spain: A Short Narrative Review of Their Use in Real Clinical Practice

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of drugs with potent glucose-lowering activity. Additionally, some GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated cardiovascular and renal benefits. Current guidelines recommend their use in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk of or with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of glycaemic control, with lifestyle modification and metformin. However, several studies have recently highlighted the limited number of patients with T2D benefiting from these medications worldwide. Given the huge burden of CVD among patients with T2D, efforts should be made to bring clinical practice closer to expert guidelines. This review describes the current situation of GLP-1 RA use in Spain and the reasons behind the gap between guidelines and real-world practice and suggests possible solutions. Administrative issues, lack of awareness of the cardiovascular benefits, clinical inertia, rejection of injectable medication and costs could be some of the reasons for the current situation. Possible strategies that could help to close the gap include encouraging a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of diabetes which involves cardiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, primary care providers and pharmacists; improved awareness of comorbidities and earlier evaluation and treatment or risks; and better education of healthcare providers regarding the cardioprotective benefits of these drugs.

Early type 2 diabetes treatment intensification with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in primary care: An Australian perspective on guidelines and the global evidence

Early and intensive management of type 2 diabetes has been shown to delay disease progression, reduce the risk of cardiorenal complications and prolong time to treatment failure. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are being increasingly recognized for their potential in early disease management, with recent guideline updates recommending second-line use of this injectable drug class alongside oral glucose-lowering drugs. GLP-1RAs target at least six of the eight core defects implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes and offer significant glycaemic and weight-related improvements over other second-line agents in head-to-head trials. In addition, placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown cardiovascular protection with GLP-1RA use. Even so, this therapeutic class is underused in primary care, largely owing to clinical inertia and patient-related barriers to early intensification with GLP-1RAs. Fortunately, clinicians can overcome barriers to treatment acceptance through patient education and training, and management of treatment expectations. In this review we comment on global and Australian guideline updates and evidence in support of early intensification with this therapeutic class, and provide clinicians with practical advice for GLP-1RA use in primary care.

Effect of dulaglutide injection on weight beyond glycemic control: Real-world observational study

Dulaglutide is an effective Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonist (RA) in optimizing weight and glycemic control in obese patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). The study's objective was the real-world evaluation of the metabolic effect of Dulaglutide on weight and glycemic control in patients with T2DM from Southern Iraq. This study is a six-month observational prospective longitudinal evaluation of 185 obese individuals with T2DM. They were initiated on Dulaglutide as an add-on drug with Oral Antidiabetic (OAD) or insulin therapy. General characteristics of the patients, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood glucose, lipid profile, and side effects profile were evaluated at the enrollment and the end of the study. The enrolled 185 obese patients with T2DM, had a T2DM duration (2 -14 years) and initial HbA1c range (6 - 19.5%), with different treatment modalities, including insulin, OADs, or both. The study showed a significant reduction in weight, HbA1c, and serum cholesterol, with minimal hypoglycemic events in 5% of patients (n=9). The gastrointestinal side effects were mild to moderate and self-limited in >96% of patients (n=178), while they were so severe in 4% (n=7) and caused discontinuation of Dulaglutide. Therefore, the insulin regimen was either stopped (n=28), changed (n=7), or reduced (n=9). No change on oral medications was performed in 141 patients. In conclusion, Dulaglutide 1.5 mg administered once a week significantly reduced the weight, HbA1c, Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG), and cholesterol levels with minimal hypoglycemic risk.

11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Tirzepatide: A New Generation Therapeutic for Diabetes Type 2

Tirzepatide (mounjaro®) is a derivative of the human glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) hormone with a position-20 being modified with 1,20- eicosanedioic acid via a chemical linker. It acts as a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and GIP receptor agonist. It has recently been approved by FDA as an adjunct therapy to exercise and diet to improve glycemic control in patients with type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It represents a new transforming paradigm in the management of T2DM. This mini-review will shed light on its different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects.

[Modern strategies for the treatment of childhood obesity]

The prevalence of obesity and related metabolic disorders in children and adolescents in the Russian Federation is steadily increasing, which requires healthcare professionals to search for new methods of treatment and prevention. The treatment of childhood obesity should be based on a comprehensive approach, including diet therapy, increased physical activity, behavioral therapy and psychological support. To increase the effectiveness of the formation of new eating habits and proper eating behavior, as well as to increase the adherence of children and adolescents to treatment, drug therapy of obesity is used, aimed primarily at reducing appetite. Considering the efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide 1 analog (Liraglutide) in adolescents, as well as a small number of gastrointestinal side effects, this drug is promising in the complex treatment of childhood obesity. This review presents an analysis of the literature on non-medicated and drug-based methods of treatment of childhood obesity.

The Real-World Observational Prospective Study of Health Outcomes with Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (TROPHIES): Patient disposition, clinical characteristics and treatment persistence at 12 months

AIMS

The primary objective of the TROPHIES observational study is to estimate the duration of treatment on dulaglutide or liraglutide without a significant treatment change by 24 months in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating their first injectable treatment with these glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). This manuscript presents 12-month interim data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TROPHIES is a prospective, non-comparative, observational study of patients with T2D in Europe, naïve to injectable antihyperglycaemic treatments and initiating dulaglutide or liraglutide. Data on clinical characteristics, GLP-1 RA persistence and treatment patterns of glucose-lowering medication were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and by 12 months.

RESULTS

By 12 months, 1014 dulaglutide and 991 liraglutide patients were eligible across France, Germany and Italy. Both cohorts presented a high probability [95% confidence interval (CI)] of GLP-1 RA persistence [dulaglutide, 0.88 (0.86 to 0.90); liraglutide, 0.83 (0.80 to 0.85)] and reduction in mean glycated haemoglobin percentage (95% CI) from baseline [dulaglutide, -1.18 (-1.27 to -1.08); liraglutide, -1.15 (-1.26 to -1.05)] with 48.2% of dulaglutide and 41.2% of liraglutide patients reaching their individualized glycated haemoglobin percentage target set by the physician at baseline. Mean weight (95% CI) change from baseline was -3.2 kg (-3.6 to -2.8) for dulaglutide and -3.4 kg (-3.9 to -3.0) for liraglutide. Slight changes in concomitant medications were observed compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real-world setting, dulaglutide and liraglutide cohorts achieved good persistence with similarly improved glycaemic control that was accompanied by weight loss at 12 months, consistent with previous clinical trial results.

Translating results from the cardiovascular outcomes trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists into clinical practice: Recommendations from a Eastern and Southern Europe diabetes expert group

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists mimic the action of the endogenous GLP-1 incretin hormone, improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by increasing insulin secretion and decreasing glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. However, as cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality is common in patients with T2DM, several trials with the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists (RAs) have been performed focusing on endpoints related to cardiovascular disease rather than metabolic control of T2DM. Following the positive cardiovascular effects of liraglutide, dulaglutide and semaglutide observed in these trials, major changes in T2DM management guidelines have occurred. This document from a Eastern and Southern European Diabetes Expert Group discusses the results of GLP-1 RA CV outcomes trials, their impact on recent clinical guidelines for the management of T2DM, and some selected combination regimens utilising GLP-1 RAs. We also propose an algorithm for guiding GLP-1 RA-based treatment according to patients' characteristics, which can be easily applied in every day clinical practice.

Biomedical Applications of polymeric micelles in the treatment of diabetes mellitus: Current success and future approaches

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is the most common metabolic disease and multifactorial, harming patients worldwide. Extensive research has been carried out in the search for novel drug delivery systems offering reliable control of glucose levels for diabetics, aiming at efficient management of DM.

AREAS COVERED

Polymeric micelles (PMs) as smart drug delivery nanocarriers are discussed, focusing on oral drug delivery applications for the management of hyperglycemia. The most recent approaches used for the preparation of smart PMs employ molecular features of amphiphilic block copolymers (ABCs), such as stimulus sensitivity, ligand conjugation, and as a more specific example the ability to inhibit islet amyloidosis.

EXPERT OPINION

PMs provide a unique platform for self-regulated or spatiotemporal drug delivery, mimicking the working mode of pancreatic islets to maintain glucose homeostasis for prolonged periods. This unique characteristic is achieved by tailoring the functional chemistry of ABCs considering the physicochemical traits of PMs, including sensing capabilities, hydrophobicity, etc. In addition, the application of ABCs for the inhibition of conformational changes in islet amyloid polypeptide garnered attention as one of the root causes of DM. However, research in this field is limited and further studies at the clinical level are required.

Semaglutide, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist with cardiovascular benefits for management of type 2 diabetes

Semaglutide, a glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is available as monotherapy in both subcutaneous as well as oral dosage form (first approved oral GLP-1 receptor agonist). It has been approved as a second line treatment option for better glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes and currently under scrutiny for anti-obesity purpose. Semaglutide has been proved to be safe in adults and elderly patients with renal or hepatic disorders demanding no dose modification. Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials established that it can reduce various CV risk factors in patients with established CV disorders. Semaglutide is well tolerated with no risk of hypoglycaemia in monotherapy but suffers from gastrointestinal adverse effects. A large population affected with COVID-19 infection were diabetic; therefore use of semaglutide in diabetes as well as CV patients would be very much supportive in maintaining health care system during this pandemic situation. Hence, this peptidic drug can be truly considered as a quintessential of GLP-1 agonists for management of type 2 diabetes.

2022 update to the position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe: a disease state approach to the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in primary care

Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities are growing more prevalent, and the complexity of optimising glycaemic control is increasing, especially on the frontlines of patient care. In many countries, most patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in a primary care setting. However, primary healthcare professionals face the challenge of the growing plethora of available treatment options for managing hyperglycaemia, leading to difficultly in making treatment decisions and contributing to treatment and therapeutic inertia. This position statement offers a simple and patient-centred clinical decision-making model with practical treatment recommendations that can be widely implemented by primary care clinicians worldwide through shared-decision conversations with their patients. It highlights the importance of managing cardiovascular disease and elevated cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes and aims to provide innovative risk stratification and treatment strategies that connect patients with the most effective care.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review of the Key Evidence with Practical Considerations

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are incretin-mimetic agents that are effective adjuncts in the treatment of diabetes. This class of medications is also associated with promoting weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycemia, and some have been shown to be associated with a significant reduction of major cardiovascular events. Mounting evidence suggests that GLP-1 RAs have benefits beyond reducing blood glucose that include improving kidney function in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a common microvascular complication of T2DM. Several large clinical studies, the majority of which are cardiovascular outcome trials, indicate that GLP-1 RA therapy is safe and tolerable for people living with T2DM and compromised renal function, and also suggest that GLP-1 RAs may have renoprotective properties. Although evidence from clinical trials has shown GLP-1 RAs to be safe and efficacious in people living with T2DM and renal impairment, their use is uncommon in this patient population. With continuing developments in the field of GLP-1 RA therapy, it is important for physicians to understand the benefits and practical use of GLP-1 RAs, as well as the clinical evidence, in order to achieve positive patient outcomes. Here, we review evidence on GLP-1 RA use in people living with T2DM and CKD and summarize renal outcomes from clinical studies. We provide practical considerations for GLP-1 RA use to provide an added benefit to guide treatment in this high-risk patient population.

Determination of the Peptide AWRK6 in Rat Plasma by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and Its Application to Pharmacokinetics

AWRK6 was a synthesized peptide developed based on the natural occurring peptide dybowskin-2CDYa, which was discovered in frog skin in our previous study. Here, a quantitative determination method for AWRK6 analysis in rat plasma by using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was established and validated following U.S. FDA guidelines. A combination of plasma precipitation and liquid–liquid extraction was applied for the extraction. For pharmacokinetics study, the rats were administrated with AWRK6 via intraperitoneal and intravenous injection. The prepared plasma samples were separated on an ODS column and analyzed by tandem MS using precursor-to-product ion pairs of m/z: 533.4→84.2 for AWRK6 and m/z: 401.9→101.1 for internal standard Polymyxin B sulfate in multiple reaction monitoring mode. AWRK6 concentrations in rat plasma peaked at about 1.2 h after intraperitoneal injections at 2.35, 4.7 and 9.4 mg/kg bodyweight. The terminal half-life was around 2.8 h. The absolute bioavailability of AWRK6 was 50% after 3 doses via injection, and the apparent volume of distribution was 4.884 ± 1.736 L. The obtained determination method and pharmacokinetics profiles of AWRK6 provides a basis for further development, and forms a benchmark reference for peptide quantification.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Usage in Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care for the UK and Beyond: A Narrative Review

The scientific landscape of treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) has changed rapidly in the last decade with newer treatments becoming available. However, a large proportion of people with T2D are not able to achieve glycaemic goals because of clinical inertia. The majority of T2D management is in primary care, where clinicians (medical, nursing and pharmacist staff) play an important role in addressing patient needs and achieving treatment goals. However, management of T2D is challenging because of the heterogeneity of T2D and complexity of comorbidity, time constraints, guidance overload and the evolving treatments. Additionally, the current coronavirus disease pandemic poses additional challenges to the management of chronic diseases such as T2D, including routine access to patients for monitoring and communication. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of agents that have evolved rapidly in recent years. These agents act in a glucose-dependent manner to promote insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion, as well as enhancing satiety and reducing hunger. As a result, they are effective treatment options for people with T2D, achieving glycated haemoglobin reductions, weight loss and potential cardiovascular benefit, as monotherapy or as add-on to other glucose-lowering therapies. However, given the complexity of managing T2D, it is important to equip primary care clinicians with clear information regarding efficacy, safety and appropriate positioning of GLP-1 RA therapies in clinical practice. This review provides a summary of clinical and real-world evidence along with practical guidance, with the aim of aiding primary care clinicians in the initiation and monitoring of GLP-1 RAs to help ensure that desired outcomes are realised. Furthermore, a benefit/risk tool has been developed on the basis of current available evidence and guidelines to support primary care clinicians in selecting individuals who are most likely to benefit from GLP-1 RA therapies, in addition to indicating clinical situations where caution is needed.

The therapeutic potential of GLP-1 analogues for stress-related eating and role of GLP-1 in stress, emotion and mood: a review

Stress and low mood are powerful triggers for compulsive overeating, a maladaptive form of eating leading to negative physical and mental health consequences. Stress-vulnerable individuals, such as people with obesity, are particularly prone to overconsumption of high energy foods and may use it as a coping mechanism for general life stressors. Recent advances in the treatment of obesity and related co-morbidities have focused on the therapeutic potential of anorexigenic gut hormones, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), which acts both peripherally and centrally to reduce energy intake. Besides its appetite suppressing effect, GLP-1 acts on areas of the brain involved in stress response and emotion regulation. However, the role of GLP-1 in emotion and stress regulation, and whether it is a viable treatment for stress-induced compulsive overeating, has yet to be established. A thorough review of the pre-clinical literature measuring markers of stress, anxiety and mood after GLP-1 exposure points to potential divergent effects based on temporality. Specifically, acute GLP-1 injection consistently stimulates the physiological stress response in rodents whereas long-term exposure indicates anxiolytic and anti-depressive benefits. However, the limited clinical evidence is not as clear cut. While prolonged GLP-1 analogue treatment in people with type 2 diabetes improved measures of mood and general psychological wellbeing, the mechanisms underlying this may be confounded by associated weight loss and improved blood glucose control. There is a paucity of longitudinal clinical literature on mechanistic pathways by which stress influences eating behavior and how centrally-acting gut hormones such as GLP-1, can modify these. (250).

Safety of Semaglutide

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide is the most recently approved agent of this drug class, and the only GLP-1RA currently available as both subcutaneous and oral formulation. While GLP-1RAs effectively improve glycemic control and cause weight loss, potential safety concerns have arisen over the years. For semaglutide, such concerns have been addressed in the extensive phase 3 registration trials including cardiovascular outcome trials for both subcutaneous (SUSTAIN: Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) and oral (PIONEER: Peptide InnOvatioN for the Early diabEtes tReatment) semaglutide and are being studied in further trials and registries, including real world data studies. In the current review we discuss the occurrence of adverse events associated with semaglutide focusing on hypoglycemia, gastrointestinal side effects, pancreatic safety (pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer), thyroid cancer, gallbladder events, cardiovascular aspects, acute kidney injury, diabetic retinopathy (DRP) complications and injection-site and allergic reactions and where available, we highlight potential underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, we discuss whether effects are specific for semaglutide or a class effect. We conclude that semaglutide induces mostly mild-to-moderate and transient gastrointestinal disturbances and increases the risk of biliary disease (cholelithiasis). No unexpected safety issues have arisen to date, and the established safety profile for semaglutide is similar to that of other GLP-1RAs where definitive conclusions for pancreatic and thyroid cancer cannot be drawn at this point due to low incidence of these conditions. Due to its potent glucose-lowering effect, patients at risk for deterioration of existing DRP should be carefully monitored if treated with semaglutide, particularly if also treated with insulin. Given the beneficial metabolic and cardiovascular actions of semaglutide, and the low risk for severe adverse events, semaglutide has an overall favorable risk/benefit profile for patient with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy of Semaglutide in a Subcutaneous and an Oral Formulation

Despite the benefits of early and effective glycemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets is challenging in some patients. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) provide effective reductions in HbA1c and body weight. Semaglutide is the only GLP-1RA that is available in both an injectable and oral formulation. The efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and once-daily oral semaglutide has been investigated in the global SUSTAIN and PIONEER phase III clinical trial programs in a range of clinical settings, including early T2D managed with diet and exercise only, more established T2D uncontrolled on one to three oral antidiabetic drugs, and advanced disease treated with insulin. Across the SUSTAIN program, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.5-1.8% after 30-56 weeks, which was significantly more than sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide extended release, dulaglutide, canagliflozin, or insulin glargine. Across the PIONEER program, once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.0-1.4%, significantly more than sitagliptin or empagliflozin, and to a similar extent as liraglutide after 26 weeks. In addition, subcutaneous semaglutide reduced body weight significantly more than all active comparators tested, while oral semaglutide reduced body weight more than sitagliptin and liraglutide, and to a similar extent as empagliflozin. Neither formulation of semaglutide has been associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and both improve various measures of health-related quality of life. Semaglutide offers the benefits of a highly effective GLP-1RA in both injectable and oral formulations. Selection of the most appropriate formulation can be made on an individual basis to best suit the patient's preferences and needs.

Challenges in Implementing Evidence Based Cross-Disciplinary Therapies: Are Cardiovascular Specialists Ready to Claim SGLT-2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Analogs?

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and financial burden to the United States health system. A change in focus towards preventive medicine along with advances in pharmacologic and invasive therapies, has led to improved cardiac death rates. These benefits however, come with increased prevalence of heart failure and soaring readmission rates. Reducing burden of hospitalizations has therefore, been a focus of clinicians and researchers over the years. An improvement in clinical outcomes has been demonstrated in multiple trials investigating HF therapies, however, execution of guideline recommendations has been trailing. Over the past decade, 2 classes of hypoglycemic agents, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have been recognized for their cardiovascular morbidity and mortality benefits. Studies have shown that there has been a steady increase in prescription rates of these medications, however, overall usage remains quite low. Various patient, physician and system-based factors have been identified that cause barriers to translation of trial data to real-world clinical outcomes. A strategy focused on physician and patient education, quality improvement, multi-disciplinary team approach, and patient centered care is essential to meet treatment goals.

Exploring Why People With Type 2 Diabetes Do or Do Not Persist With Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Despite the demonstrated benefits of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapy, adherence and persistence with this therapy is often challenging. The purpose of this study was to expand current understanding of patients' experiences, motivations, and challenges relevant to their persistence with GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This noninterventional, cross-sectional, qualitative study used face-to-face interviews with 36 adults with type 2 diabetes who had been treated with at least one GLP-1 receptor agonist medication. Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years of age, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and currently treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist for ≥1 month at the time of screening ("continuers") or discontinued use of a GLP-1 receptor agonist ≤1 year of screening but with a total ≥1 month of treatment ("discontinuers"). Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured qualitative interview guide that included open-ended questions and probes to obtain both spontaneous and prompted input from participants about their current and past treatment experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

RESULTS

Among continuers (n = 16), the most commonly identified facilitators supporting the decision to continue were the observations of improved glucose control (50%) and weight loss (55%). Among discontinuers (n = 20), the most commonly identified challenges leading to treatment discontinuation were side effects (55%) and high cost (50%). Continuers were more likely than discontinuers to receive clinically relevant information from their health care team, including facts about GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, likely treatment benefits, the importance of gradual dose titration, and the need to adjust diet after initiation.

CONCLUSION

Although cost is a major obstacle to treatment continuation, it can only be resolved through changes in ongoing reimbursement coverage and policies. However, many other obstacles could potentially be addressed (e.g., reducing side effects with gradual dosage titration and setting appropriate expectations regarding efficacy) through more collaborative patient-clinician interactions before initiating therapy.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Data from a Real-World Study in Spain

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to describe utilization patterns, persistence, resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in routine clinical practice in Spain.

METHODS

This retrospective study of medical records in the Big-Pac database identified adults starting treatment with once-weekly (QW) dulaglutide, exenatide-QW or once-daily liraglutide between 1 November 2015 and 30 June 2017. Patients were followed for up to 18 months from treatment initiation. Data on clinical characteristics of patients, treatment patterns, average daily dose and costs were obtained for the three cohorts. Persistence over the 18-month period was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves. All analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were included in this study (dulaglutide [n = 492], exenatide-QW [n = 438] or liraglutide [n = 472]); 52.8% were men, and the mean (SD) age was 62 (11) years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.1% (1.2) and body mass index was 35.5 (3.2) kg/m² at treatment initiation. Persistence at 18 months was 59.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.8-63.4) for dulaglutide, 45.7% (95% CI 41.0-50.4) for exenatide-QW and 46.6% (95% CI 42.1-51.1) for liraglutide. The average (SD) dose was 1.2 (0.4) mg/week for dulaglutide, 1.9 (0.3) mg/week for exenatide-QW and 1.1 (0.3) mg/day for liraglutide. The average reduction in HbA1c levels at 1 year was - 0.68% for patients who initiated dulaglutide, - 0.54% for patients who initiated exenatide-QW and - 0.50% for patients who initiated liraglutide. The mean (SD) total annual health care costs were €4072 (1946) for dulaglutide, €4418 (2382) for exenatide-QW and €4382 (2389) for liraglutide.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that patients who started treatment with dulaglutide had higher persistence over 18 months, presented lower HbA1c levels at 12 months and incurred lower annual total healthcare costs than patients who initiated exenatide-QW or liraglutide.

Relationship Between Oral Semaglutide Tablet Erosion and Pharmacokinetics: A Pharmacoscintigraphic Study

Semaglutide, a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) analogue, has been coformulated in a tablet with the absorption enhancer, sodium N‐(8‐[2‐hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC). We investigated tablet erosion and the pharmacokinetics of oral semaglutide administered with 2 different water volumes and evaluated the relationships between these parameters. In a randomized, single‐center (Quotient Sciences, UK), open‐label, 2‐period crossover trial, 26 healthy men received single doses of 10 mg oral semaglutide with 50 or 240 mL water while fasting. Tablet erosion and gastrointestinal transit were assessed by gamma scintigraphy. Semaglutide and SNAC plasma concentrations were measured until 24 and 6 hours, respectively, after administration. Complete tablet erosion (CTE) occurred in the stomach irrespective of water volume administered with the tablet (primary end point). Mean time to CTE was 85 versus 57 minutes with 50 versus 240 mL water (ratio 50/240 mL, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.96‐2.37; P = .072). Area under the semaglutide concentration‐time curve from 0 to 24 hours (AUC_{0‐24h,semaglutide}) and maximum semaglutide concentration (C_{max,semaglutide}) were ∼70% higher with 50 versus 240 mL water (P = .056 and P = .048, respectively). Median time to maximum semaglutide concentration (t_{max,semaglutide}) was 1.5 hours independent of water volume with dosing. Higher AUC_{0‐24h,semaglutide} and C_{max,semaglutide} and longer t_{max,semaglutide} were significantly correlated with longer time to CTE and later gastric emptying of tablet and water (all P < .05). The safety profile was as expected for the GLP‐1 receptor agonist drug class. In conclusion, the oral semaglutide tablet erodes in the stomach irrespective of water volume with dosing. Slower tablet erosion in the stomach results in higher semaglutide plasma exposure.

Extending our understanding of exenatide: a rare case of angio-oedema

Exenatide is a subcutaneous injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist that has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. While side effects such as nausea, vomiting and local hypersensitivity reactions are more commonly described, angio-oedema has never been previously reported in the literature. We present the case of a 67-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department with acute-onset tongue swelling, difficulty breathing, dizziness and diffuse itching which began shortly after receiving her first dose of intramuscular extended release (ER) exenatide. This case aims to raise awareness of the potential adverse effect of angio-oedema secondary to exenatide ER and serves as a reminder to clinicians to discuss possible adverse effects of medications and early recognition of symptoms which would prompt further medical attention.

Oral GLP1 Analog: Where Does the Tide Go?

T2D is a potentially preventable disease that has been ranked the seventh leading cause of mortality in the United States. There is strong evidence demonstrating that preventing type 2 diabetes is, in many cases, attainable through lifestyle intervention. Unfortunately, prediabetes is mostly overlooked and awareness with diabetes prevention tools is lacking among primary care physicians. Nationally, efforts were not successful in reversing this epidemic even with an array of diabetes medications. Among the most effective medications for T2D are glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), which have been shown to reduce both A1C and body weight. Dulaglutide, liraglutide and injectable semaglutide also reduced cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality in patients with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors. In this review, we will examine the first FDA approved oral GLP-1 RA; semaglutide. Moreover, this review will discuss the potential impact oral semaglutide may have on glycemic control, weight loss and cardiovascular comorbidities. It also examines the factors that may impact patient compliance, including cost, side effects and clinical issues. Finally, it deliberates the optimism surrounding the development of oral semaglutide in the treatment of diabetes as well as related conditions, such as obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Optimizing Therapeutic Outcomes With Oral Semaglutide: A Patient-Centered Approach

In September 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved oral semaglutide as the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for treating people with type 2 diabetes. Although injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists are well-established treatment options for people with type 2 diabetes, clinical experience with an oral formulation in this class is limited. This article provides practical guidance for diabetes care and education specialists on how to effectively counsel patients initiating therapy with oral semaglutide on appropriate administration of the treatment and its possible effects on glycemic control, body weight, and quality of life. Strategies for mitigating potential side effects typical of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, namely nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, are also provided. Involving patients in treatment decisions and educating them about available and prescribed medications are key strategies for encouraging treatment adherence and ensuring optimal therapeutic outcomes.

Clinical Perspectives on the Use of Subcutaneous and Oral Formulations of Semaglutide

Early and effective glycemic control can prevent or delay the complications associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are becoming increasingly recognized and they now feature prominently in international T2D treatment recommendations and guidelines across the disease continuum. However, despite providing effective glycemic control, weight loss, and a low risk of hypoglycemia, GLP-1RAs are currently underutilized in clinical practice. The long-acting GLP-1RA, semaglutide, is available for once-weekly injection and in a new once-daily oral formulation. Semaglutide is an advantageous choice for the treatment of T2D since it has greater efficacy in reducing glycated hemoglobin and body weight compared with other GLP-1RAs, has demonstrated benefits in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, and has a favorable profile in special populations (e.g., patients with hepatic impairment or renal impairment). The oral formulation represents a useful option to help improve acceptance and adherence compared with injectable formulations for patients with a preference for oral therapy, and may lead to earlier and broader use of GLP-1RAs in the T2D treatment trajectory. Oral semaglutide should be taken on an empty stomach, which may influence the choice of formulation. As with most GLP-1RAs, initial dose escalation of semaglutide is required for both formulations to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse events. There are also specific dose instructions to follow with oral semaglutide to ensure sufficient gastric absorption. The evidence base surrounding the clinical use of semaglutide is being further expanded with trials investigating effects on diabetic retinopathy, cardiovascular outcomes, and on the common T2D comorbidities of obesity, chronic kidney disease, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. These will provide further information about whether the benefits of semaglutide extend to these other indications.

A narrative review of current trends in liraglutide: insights into the unmet needs in management of type 2 diabetes and obesity

Liraglutide is a long-acting human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue and an effective treatment for patients with metabolic diseases including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. This review focuses on the mechanism of action of liraglutide as a well-known glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) in patients with T2DM and obesity. The lower and the higher doses of GLP-1 RAs are used for glycaemic control in T2DM and in obesity respectively. GLP-1 RAs such as liraglutide enhance insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon release via the stimulation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors (GLP-1Rs). Liraglutide decreases hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients when prescribes as monotherapy or in combination with one or more antidiabetic drugs. Usually, it is well tolerated with minor hypoglycemia in combination therapy. Liraglutide reduces cardiovascular events and related risk factors including improvement of lipid profile and control of blood pressure. Accordingly, it can be cost-effective and may be a budget neutral medication option by considering its protective effect on the cardiovascular system in long-term use in the health care plan. In the near future, by pharmacogenomics approach, prediction of the highest patient's response with the lowest adverse drug reactions and also rationality of drug development will be possible. Liraglutide can be used as a desirable medicine for glycemic control and obesity. It shows extensive evidence based benefits in diabetes complications. In this narrative review, we have summarized and evaluated studies related to the role of liraglutide in clinical practice.

[Semaglutide for the Management of type 2 Diabetes: Clinical Evidence, Cardioprotective Effects, and Guidelines]

Cardiovascular diseases remain a leading cause for unfavorable outcomes, including death, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). In the recent decade, novel drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GPP-1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, have convincingly demonstrated their ability to reduce risk of cardiovascular complications in patients with DM2. This review discusses one of GPP-1-RA, semaglutide, with a special focus on the evidence-based data on its use, cardioprotective properties, and algorithms of administration consistent with current clinical recommendations.

DPP-4 Inhibitors: Renoprotective Potential and Pharmacokinetics in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients with Renal Impairment

The continuously increasing incidence of diabetes worldwide has attracted the attention of the scientific community and driven the development of a novel class of antidiabetic drugs that can be safely and effectively used in diabetic patients. Of particular interest in this context are complications associated with diabetes, such as renal impairment, which is the main cause of high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients. Intensive control of glucose levels and other risk factors associated with diabetes and metabolic syndrome provides the foundations for both preventing and treating diabetic nephropathy. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors represent a highly promising novel class of oral agents used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus that may be successfully combined with currently available antidiabetic therapeutics in order to achieve blood glucose goals. Beyond glycemic control, emerging evidence suggests that DPP-4 inhibitors may have desirable off-target effects, including renoprotection. All type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with impaired renal function require dose adjustment of any DPP-4 inhibitor administered except for linagliptin, for which renal excretion is a minor elimination pathway. Thus, linagliptin is the drug most frequently chosen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal failure.

A Review on Semaglutide: An Oral Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist in Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a well-established class of glucose-lowering drugs. GLP-1 RAs can be classified according to their structure, duration of action and mode of administration. This review describes the basic and clinical pharmacology of orally administered semaglutide. It highlights the PIONEER clinical trial programme results, and reviews the efficacy, safety and tolerability.

Dulaglutide and Insulin: How Can the AWARD Studies Help Guide Clinical Practice?

The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) dulaglutide has many characteristics to recommend it both as a second-line agent and as an alternative to or in combination with insulin. This commentary summarises recent updates to diabetes management guidelines regarding the use of GLP-1RAs such as dulaglutide, both as a second-line agent and as a first-line injectable agent in type 2 diabetes (T2D). It also examines how the Assessment of Weekly AdministRation of LY2189265 [dulaglutide] in Diabetes (AWARD) studies with dulaglutide and insulin may help to guide clinical practice for the use of dulaglutide as an alternative to basal insulin or in combination with insulin.Individualising glucose-lowering therapy is important in patients with T2D, especially given patients' heterogeneity in terms of age, lifestyle, disease duration, level of hyperglycaemia and comorbidities. Choice of therapy should be guided by clinical considerations (e.g. high risk or existing cardiovascular [CV] disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, risk of hypoglycaemia), side effect profile, contraindications, patient preferences and cost. The recently updated American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) guidelines now recommend adding a GLP-1RA with proven CV benefit to metformin in patients with T2D and indicators of high risk or established atherosclerotic CV disease. The AWARD studies demonstrate that dulaglutide provides effective glucose lowering together with sustained weight loss and a low incidence of hypoglycaemia when used as the first injectable option and when used in combination with titrated basal insulin or prandial insulin, providing a valid treatment option across a wide range of patients with T2D, including those with chronic kidney disease.

Liraglutide reduces systolic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

The antidiabetic effect of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus has been explored in several trials. We performed this meta-analysis determining the effects of liraglutide on blood pressure in these patients. Three electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central) were searched for all published articles evaluating the effects of liraglutide on blood pressure in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Total 968 patients were included in 10 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with a follow-up of 16 ± 9 weeks. Liraglutide 1.8 mg/day reduced systolic blood pressure (weighted mean differences -5.39 (95% confidence interval, -7.26, -3.51) mm Hg, p < .001) and body weight (weighted mean differences -2.07 (95% confidence interval, -2.62, -1.51) kg, p < .001) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was no significant difference for changes of diastolic blood pressure between liraglutide 1.8 mg/day and placebo in these patients (weighted mean differences -0.53 (95% confidence interval, -1.96, 0.89) mm Hg, p > .05). The increases of heart rate were greater than placebo in patients treated with liraglutide 1.8 mg/day (weighted mean differences 6.03 (95% confidence interval, 4.78, 7.29) kg, p < .001). There was no significant correlation between reduction of systolic blood pressure and weight loss in patients treated with liraglutide 1.8 mg/day (p = .24). In conclusion, liraglutide reduces systolic blood pressure and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. These data suggest the beneficial effects of liraglutide on cardiovascular protection and may improve prognosis in these patients.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in the early control of fasting serum glucose and HbA1c

AIMS

To determine the early benefit:risk balance of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, open-label study (AWARD-2; modified intention-to-treat group) in which suboptimally controlled metformin + glimepiride-treated patients received dulaglutide 1.5 mg (n = 273) or insulin glargine (n = 262). Two composite endpoints were used: for weeks 2-20, fasting serum glucose (FSG) <130 mg/dL (<7.2 mmol/L) without hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L] or severe hypoglycemia); at week 26, patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (<53.0 mmol/mol) or reduction from baseline ≥1.0% (≥10.9 mmol/mol), no hypoglycemia (as defined above) and no weight gain. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The probability of reaching the FSG target without hypoglycemia was higher with dulaglutide than with insulin glargine at weeks 4 (OR 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.60) and 8 (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.15-2.48). The proportion of patients achieving the 26-week endpoint was higher with dulaglutide (37.4% vs. 10.3%; OR 5.28; 95% CI 3.28-8.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide's balanced efficacy-to-safety profile compares favorably with that of insulin glargine and is apparent soon after treatment initiation and after 6 months of therapy.

Use of incretin-based medications: what do current international recommendations suggest with respect to GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors?

In recent years guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have evolved substantially. Initially limited to a few glucose lowering agents, early guidelines predicated strict glycemic control as a main goal in the attempt to reduce the risk of long-term diabetic complications. Nowadays, guidelines are not limited to such a goal but include cardiovascular (and renal) protection. This rapid evolution was made possible by the introduction of new glucose lowering agents, which have been extensively tested in randomized clinical studies including large cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). In this review we will specifically consider the use of incretin-based medications in T2DM as recommended in the recent ADA/EASD consensus, and other international guidelines, with special consideration of their glucose-lowering efficacy, their cardiovascular (and renal) benefit, their effect on body weight and risk of hypoglycemia, as well as the economic implications for their use.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Using Insulin: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis by Insulin Regimen

PURPOSE

In East Asian patients, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized primarily by β-cell dysfunction, with lower insulin secretion than in Caucasian individuals. Therefore, bolus insulin and premixed insulin containing a bolus insulin component are important therapeutic tools in Japan, in addition to basal insulin. This subgroup analysis is stratified by insulin regimen and uses data from a phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind and subsequent open-label study in Japan to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide combined with various insulin therapies.

METHODS

This multicenter study enrolled Japanese patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control [glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% to ≤ 10.5%] on insulin therapy [basal (B), premixed (PM), or basal bolus (BB)] in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents. Randomized participants received once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39) during a 16-week double-blind treatment period, and dulaglutide during a 36-week open-label extension. In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures were changes from baseline in HbA1c, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, and body weight. Safety measures were incidence of adverse events and hypoglycemia during the first 16 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 16, least squares mean differences (95% CI) regarding changes from baseline in HbA1c for each insulin regimen versus placebo were: B: - 1.62% (- 1.96, - 1.28), PM: - 1.78% (- 2.25, - 1.30), and BB: - 1.15% (- 1.54, - 0.77); p < 0.001 dulaglutide vs. placebo for each subgroup. No significant differences in body weight changes were observed between dulaglutide and placebo for any insulin regimen. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most commonly observed adverse events in dulaglutide-treated patients. Hypoglycemia incidence rates were: B: dulaglutide 38.5% vs. placebo 23.5%; PM: dulaglutide 38.5% vs. placebo 44.4%; BB: dulaglutide 50.0% vs. placebo 30.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, dulaglutide was generally well tolerated and improved glycemic control significantly versus placebo, regardless of insulin regimen.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02750410.

Once-Weekly Dulaglutide with Insulin Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: Efficacy and Safety Results from a Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Although global studies have investigated the combination of dulaglutide with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), differences in lean body mass and dulaglutide dosing can complicate the extrapolation of global study results to Japanese patients. This phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, and subsequent open-label study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg in combination with insulin therapy in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in this multicenter study were Japanese with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c 7.5-10.5%) with insulin therapy (basal insulin, premixed insulin, or basal/mealtime insulin) in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to dulaglutide or placebo. The first 16 weeks was the double-blind period with stable insulin dosing, and patients taking placebo were switched to dulaglutide for an additional 36-week open-label period in which all patients took dulaglutide (52 weeks total).

RESULTS

Patients (N = 159) were randomized to dulaglutide (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39). The least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c at week 16 were dulaglutide - 1.45% and placebo 0.06%. The LS mean and 95% confidence interval for the difference were - 1.50% (- 1.73%, - 1.28%) and dulaglutide was superior to placebo. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in changes from baseline in body weight and insulin dose. The most frequently observed treatment-emergent adverse events in dulaglutide were nasopharyngitis, constipation, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and decreased appetite. The incidence rates of hypoglycemic events by week 16 were dulaglutide 42.5% and placebo 30.8% (P = 0.258).

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was superior to once-weekly placebo in glycemic control improvement and well tolerated in patients with T2DM in combination with insulin therapy with or without OADs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02750410.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Diabetes and Cancer: Cancer Should Be Screened in Routine Diabetes Assessment

Cancer incidence appears to be increased in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). DM represents a risk factor for cancer, particularly hepatocellular, hepatobiliary, pancreas, breast, ovarian, endometrial, and gastrointestinal cancers. In addition, there is evidence showing that DM is associated with increased cancer mortality. Common risk factors such as age, obesity, physical inactivity and smoking may contribute to increased cancer risk in patients with DM. Although the mechanistic process that may link diabetes to cancer is not completely understood yet, biological mechanisms linking DM and cancer are hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, increased bioactivity of insulin-like growth factor 1, oxidative stress, dysregulations of sex hormones, and chronic inflammation. However, cancer screening rate is significantly lower in people with DM than that in people without diabetes. Evidence from previous studies suggests that some medications used to treat DM are associated with either increased or reduced risk of cancer. However, there is no strong evidence supporting the association between the use of anti-hyperglycemic medication and specific cancer. In conclusion, all patients with DM should be undergo recommended age- and sex appropriate cancer screenings to promote primary prevention and early detection. Furthermore, cancer should be screened in routine diabetes assessment.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Analogues in Type 2 Diabetes: Their Use and Differential Features

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are well established as effective adjuncts to lifestyle modification in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) as monotherapy or in combination with oral glucose-lowering drugs ± insulin. The six subcutaneous GLP-1RA formulations (i.e. twice-daily exenatide, once-daily liraglutide and lixisenatide, and once-weekly dulaglutide, exenatide and semaglutide) currently available in the EU and USA have many similarities, but also some unique features and properties. By stimulating GLP-1 receptors, GLP-1RAs increase insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release in a glucose-dependent manner, thereby improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes related to glycaemic control and weight. They also have been shown to reduce, or at least not increase, the risk of major cardiovascular outcomes. GLP-1RAs are generally well tolerated, with gastrointestinal and injection-site reactions being the most troublesome drug-related adverse events, and are associated with a very low intrinsic risk of hypoglycaemia. Treatment with GLP-1RAs should be customized to meet the clinical needs and personal preferences of the individual.