Glucometabolic outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonist-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Semaglutide for the management of diabesity: The real-world experience

BACKGROUND

Diabesity (diabetes as a consequence of obesity) has emerged as a huge healthcare challenge across the globe due to the obesity pandemic. Judicious use of antidiabetic medications including semaglutide is important for optimal management of diabesity as proven by multiple randomized controlled trials. However, more real-world data is needed to further improve the clinical practice.

AIM

To study the real-world benefits and side effects of using semaglutide to manage patients with diabesity.

METHODS

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of semaglutide use in managing patients with diabesity in a large academic hospital in the United States. Several parameters were analyzed including demographic information, the data on improvement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight reduction and insulin dose adjustments at 6 and 12 months, as well as at the latest follow up period. The data was obtained from the electronic patient records between January 2019 to May 2023.

RESULTS

106 patients (56 males) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), mean age 60.8 ± 11.2 years, mean durations of T2DM 12.4 ± 7.2 years and mean semaglutide treatment for 2.6 ± 1.1 years were included. Semaglutide treatment was associated with significant improvement in diabesity outcomes such as mean weight reductions from baseline 110.4 ± 24.6 kg to 99.9 ± 24.9 kg at 12 months and 96.8 ± 22.9 kg at latest follow up and HbA1c improvement from baseline of 82 ± 21 mmol/mol to 67 ± 20 at 12 months and 71 ± 23 mmol/mol at the latest follow up. An insulin dose reduction from mean baseline of 95 ± 74 units to 76.5 ± 56.2 units was also observed at the latest follow up. Side effects were mild and mainly gastrointestinal like bloating and nausea improving with prolonged use of semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide treatment is associated with significant improvement in diabesity outcomes such as reduction in body weight, HbA1c and insulin doses without major adverse effects. Reviews of largescale real-world data are expected to inform better clinical practice decision making to improve the care of patients with diabesity.

Comparative renal outcomes of matched cohorts of patients with type 2 diabetes receiving SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists under routine care

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We compared the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) on renal outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes, focusing on the changes in eGFR and albuminuria.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective observational study on new users of diabetes medications. Participant characteristics were assessed before and after propensity score matching. The primary endpoint, change in eGFR, was analysed using mixed-effects models. Secondary endpoints included categorical eGFR-based outcomes and changes in albuminuria. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

After matching, 5701 participants/group were included. Participants were predominantly male, aged 61 years, with a 10 year duration of diabetes, a baseline HbA1c of 64 mmol/mol (8.0%) and BMI of 33 kg/m2. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was present in 23% of participants. During a median of 2.1 years, from a baseline of 87 ml/min per 1.73 m2, eGFR remained higher in the SGLT2i group compared with the GLP-1RA group throughout the observation period by 1.2 ml/min per 1.73 m2. No differences were detected in albuminuria change. The SGLT2i group exhibited lower rates of worsening CKD class and favourable changes in BP compared with the GLP-1RA group, despite lesser HbA1c decline. SGLT2i also reduced eGFR decline better than GLP-1RA in participants without baseline CKD.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In individuals with type 2 diabetes, treatment with SGLT2i was associated with better preservation of renal function compared with GLP-1RA, as evidenced by slower decline in eGFR. These findings reinforce SGLT2i as preferred agents for renal protection in this patient population.

The real-world safety profile of tirzepatide: pharmacovigilance analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials with tirzepatide (TZP) displayed unprecedented glucose and body weight lowering efficacy in individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity and a safety profile similar to that of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), mainly characterized by gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AE). Concerns on diabetic retinopathy, pancreato-biliary disorders, and medullary thyroid cancer were also addressed. We aimed to investigate whether the same safety issues emerged from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) post-marketing surveillance database.

METHODS

OpenVigil 2.1-MedDRA-v24 and AERSMine (data 2004Q1-2023Q3) were used to query the FAERS database. Reports of GI AE, diabetic retinopathy, pancreato-biliary disorders, and medullary thyroid cancer were investigated. The analysis was then filtered for age, gender, and designation as primary suspect. AE occurrence with TZP was compared to insulin, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1RA.

RESULTS

Disproportionate reporting of GI [i.e., nausea (ROR 4.01, 95% CI 3.85-4.19)] and pancreato-biliary disorders [i.e., pancreatitis (ROR 3.63, 95% CI 3.15-4.19)], diabetic retinopathy (ROR 4.14, 95% CI 2.34-7.30), and medullary thyroid cancer (ROR 13.67, 95% CI 4.35-42.96) was detected. TZP exhibited a similar risk of GI AE and medullary thyroid cancer and a lower risk of most pancreato-biliary AE and diabetic retinopathy vs. GLP-1RA.

CONCLUSIONS

TZP was associated with an increased risk of specific AE. However, its safety profile was similar to that of GLP-1RA, without increased risk of pancreato-biliary AE, diabetic retinopathy, and medullary thyroid cancer.

Subcutaneously administered tirzepatide vs semaglutide for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of s.c. administered tirzepatide vs s.c. administered semaglutide for adults of both sexes with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane up to 11 November 2023 for RCTs with an intervention duration of at least 12 weeks assessing s.c. tirzepatide at maintenance doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg once weekly, or s.c. semaglutide at maintenance doses of 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg once weekly, in adults with type 2 diabetes, regardless of background glucose-lowering treatment. Eligible trials compared any of the specified doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide against each other, placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline. Secondary outcomes were achievement of HbA1c target of ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), body weight loss of at least 10%, and safety outcomes including gastrointestinal adverse events and severe hypoglycaemia. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) to assess the risk of bias, conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses and evaluated confidence in effect estimates utilising the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.

RESULTS

A total of 28 trials with 23,622 participants (44.2% female) were included. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide 15 mg was the most efficacious treatment in reducing HbA1c (mean difference -21.61 mmol/mol [-1.96%]) followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (-20.19 mmol/mol [-1.84%]), semaglutide 2.0 mg (-17.74 mmol/mol [-1.59%]), tirzepatide 5 mg (-17.60 mmol/mol [-1.60%]), semaglutide 1.0 mg (-15.25 mmol/mol [-1.39%]) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (-12.00 mmol/mol [-1.09%]). In between-drug comparisons, all tirzepatide doses were comparable with semaglutide 2.0 mg and superior to semaglutide 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide was more efficacious than semaglutide for reducing body weight, with reductions ranging from 9.57 kg (tirzepatide 15 mg) to 5.27 kg (tirzepatide 5 mg). Semaglutide had a less pronounced effect, with reductions ranging from 4.97 kg (semaglutide 2.0 mg) to 2.52 kg (semaglutide 0.5 mg). In between-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg, 10 mg and 5 mg demonstrated greater efficacy than semaglutide 2.0 mg, 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg, respectively. Both drugs increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, while neither tirzepatide nor semaglutide increased the risk of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Our data show that s.c. tirzepatide had a more pronounced effect on HbA1c and weight reduction compared with s.c. semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes. Both drugs, particularly higher doses of tirzepatide, increased gastrointestinal adverse events.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022382594.

Practical strategies to manage obesity in type 2 diabetes

The rising phenomenon of obesity, a major risk factor for the development and progression of type 2 diabetes, is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a comprehensive and coordinated approach to be prevented and managed. Although novel pharmacological measures to combat obesity have achieved unprecedented efficacy, a healthy lifestyle remains essential for the long-term success of any therapeutic intervention. However, this requires a high level of intrinsic motivation and continued behavioural changes in the face of multiple metabolic, psychological and environmental factors promoting weight gain, particularly in the context of type 2 diabetes. This review is intended to provide practical recommendations in the context of a holistic, person-centred approach to weight management, including evidence-based and expert recommendations addressing supportive communication, shared decision-making, as well as nutritional and pharmacological therapeutic approaches to achieve sustained weight loss.

Comparative efficacy and safety of weekly dulaglutide versus weekly insulin in type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Advancements in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapy, notably with weekly agents like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-RAs) such as dulaglutide, offer promising outcomes in clinical practice. The emergence of once-weekly insulin adds to this therapeutic arsenal. This research aims to explore and compare the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in diabetes management, facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing their utilization in clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted. The research protocol was registered at OSF registries (https://osf.io/gd67x). The primary outcome of interest was the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), with secondary outcomes including the change in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, prevalence of hypoglycemia, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. The evaluation of bias risk was conducted utilizing the RoB2 tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio version 4.3.2 with the meta package version 7.0-0 and the netmeta package version 2.9-0. Confidence in network meta-analysis estimates was evaluated using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis). Heterogeneity was assessed by comparing the magnitude of the common between-study variance (τ2) for each outcome with empirical distributions of heterogeneity variances.

Results

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg (mg) weekly demonstrated superior reduction in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) compared to insulin, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.35 (95 % CI: -0.51 to -0.19). Additionally, Dulaglutide 1.5 mg exhibited greater weight loss, with an MD of -3.12 (95 % CI: -3.55 to -2.68). However, it also showed a higher rate of adverse events, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.40 (95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.75) compared to insulin. Both doses of Dulaglutide (1.5 mg and 0.75 mg) had lower prevalence of hypoglycemia compared to insulin, with ORs of 0.60 (95 % CI: 0.41 to 0.87) and 0.59 (95 % CI: 0.41 to 0.86), respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment discontinuation among the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Dulaglutide, particularly at higher doses, demonstrates superior efficacy in lowering hemoglobin A1C and reducing hypoglycemia risk compared to Icodec insulin in type 2 diabetes management. However, its use is also associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. Clinicians should carefully consider these factors when selecting optimal treatment strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Comparation of fixed-ratio (IDegLira and iGlarLixi) versus free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed-ratio combination (FRC) and free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 13, 2023. Phase III clinical trials involving FRC or free combination in patients with uncontrolled T2DM were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the effects of FRC and free combination. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The primary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and incident hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409585).

RESULTS

Forty-two trials with 23,619 patients were included in the NMA, and treatments were categorized as FRC, free combination and NOINSGLP (neither FRC nor free combination). The forest plots revealed comparable HbA1c control (mean difference (MD) = 0.07%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.17 to -0.30) between free combination and FRC. However, there were significant differences in the body weight (MD = -2.06 kg; 95% CI: -3.34 to -0.77), SBP (MD = -1.22 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.04), and DBP (MD = -1.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.94 to -0.24) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uncontrolled T2DM, the safety and efficacy of FRC and free combination therapy were comparable. The use of FRC is justifiable in patients requiring free combination.

Tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus injectable semaglutide 0.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg with subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg as second-line treatment for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, after metformin monotherapy, using adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (aITCs).

METHODS

The aITCs were performed using the Bucher method to compare the relative efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 0.5 mg via a common comparator (subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg) based on trial results from SURPASS-2 (NCT03987919) and SUSTAIN7 (NCT02648204).

RESULTS

All tirzepatide doses showed statistically significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin, body weight and body mass index from baseline to week 40, with a comparable adverse event (AE) profile and no statistically significant differences in the odds of gastrointestinal AEs versus semaglutide 0.5 mg. Furthermore, all tirzepatide doses showed greater odds of patients achieving HbA1c targets of ≤ 6.5 % (≤48 mmol/mol) and < 7.0 % (<53 mmol/mol) and weight loss targets of ≥ 5 % and ≥ 10 %, versus semaglutide 0.5 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

In these aITCs, glycated haemoglobin and weight reductions were significantly greater for all tirzepatide doses versus semaglutide 0.5 mg with a comparable AE profile. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

Oral or injectable semaglutide for the management of type 2 diabetes in routine care: A multicentre observational study comparing matched cohorts

AIM

To investigate the real-world utilization and comparative clinical outcomes of injectable and oral semaglutide in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with the aim of enhancing understanding of the practical implications associated with choosing between these formulations.

METHODS

New users of oral or injectable semaglutide were selected from a cohort of 14 079 initiators of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was employed to create balanced groups, ensuring comparability. The analysis encompassed dose exposure, drug persistence, and clinical outcomes, including changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, with up to 18 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

We analysed two matched groups of 107 participants each, who comprised on average 63.6% men, aged 64 years, with diabetes duration of approximately 10 years, body mass index of 29 kg/m2 and HbA1c level of 7.7-7.8% (61-62 mmol/mol). The proportion of low, intermediate and high doses were similar with the oral and the injectable formulation. The change in HbA1c was similar between groups (-0.9% / -10 mmol/mol at 18 months) as was the proportion of individuals reaching HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol). The average change in body weight was similar in the two groups (-3.7 kg with injectable and -3.3 kg with oral at 18 months) but more new users of injectable semaglutide lost ≥5% body weight. Persistence on drug was longer with injectable than with oral semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, improvements in HbA1c and body weight were similar after initiation of oral or injectable semaglutide. These results may be specific to the features of the matched cohorts under investigation, with limited generalizability to populations with different characteristics.

Associations of diabesity with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality: Findings from the Mexico City Prospective Study

AIM

To investigate the joint associations of diabetes and obesity with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in the Mexico City Prospective Study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 154 128 participants (67.2% women) were included in this prospective analysis. Diabetes was self-reported, while body mass index was used to calculate obesity. Using diabetes and obesity classifications, six groups were created: (a) normal (no diabetes and normal weight); (b) normal weight and diabetes; (c) overweight but not diabetes (overweight); (d) overweight and diabetes (prediabesity); (e) obesity but not diabetes (obesity); and (f) obesity and diabetes (diabesity). Associations between these categories and outcomes were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for confounder factors.

RESULTS

During 18.3 years of follow-up, 27 197 (17.6%) participants died (28.5% because of CV causes). In the maximally adjusted model, participants those with the highest risk {hazard ratio (HR): 2.37 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.24-2.51]}, followed by those with diabesity [HR: 2.04 (95% CI: 1.94-2.15)]. Similar trends of associations were observed for CVD mortality. The highest CV mortality risk was observed in individuals with diabesity [HR: 1.80 (95% CI: 1.63-1.99)], followed by normal weight and diabetic individuals [HR: 1.78 (95% CI: 1.60-1.98)].

CONCLUSION

This large prospective study identified that diabetes was the main driver of all-cause and CVD mortality in all the categories studied, with diabesity being the riskiest. Given the high prevalence of both conditions in Mexico, our results reinforce the importance of initiating prevention strategies from an early age.

Dietary impact on fasting and stimulated GLP-1 secretion in different metabolic conditions - a narrative review

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), a gastrointestinal peptide and central mediator of glucose metabolism, is secreted by L cells in the intestine in response to food intake. Postprandial secretion of GLP-1 is triggered by nutrient-sensing via transporters and G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). GLP-1 secretion may be lower in adults with obesity/overweight (OW) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) than in those with normal glucose tolerance (NGT), but these findings are inconsistent. Because of the actions of GLP-1 on stimulating insulin secretion and promoting weight loss, GLP-1 and its analogs are used in pharmacologic preparations for the treatment of T2DM. However, physiologically stimulated GLP-1 secretion through the diet might be a preventive or synergistic method for improving glucose metabolism in individuals who are OW, or have impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or T2DM. This narrative review focuses on fasting and postprandial GLP-1 secretion in individuals with different metabolic conditions and degrees of glucose intolerance. Further, the influence of relevant diet-related factors (e.g., specific diets, meal composition, and size, phytochemical content, and gut microbiome) that could affect fasting and postprandial GLP-1 secretion are discussed. Some studies showed diminished glucose- or meal-stimulated GLP-1 response in participants with T2DM, IGT, or OW compared with those with NGT, whereas other studies have reported an elevated or unchanged GLP-1 response in T2DM or IGT. Meal composition, especially the relationship between macronutrients and interventions targeting the microbiome can impact postprandial GLP-1 secretion, although it is not clear which macronutrients are strong stimulants of GLP-1. Moreover, glucose tolerance, antidiabetic treatment, grade of overweight/obesity, and sex were important factors influencing GLP-1 secretion. The results presented in this review highlight the potential of nutritional and physiologic stimulation of GLP-1 secretion. Further research on fasting and postprandial GLP-1 concentrations and the resulting metabolic consequences under different metabolic conditions is needed.

GPR119 agonists for type 2 diabetes: past failures and future hopes for preclinical and early phase candidates

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is metabolic disorder associated with a decrease in insulin activity and/or secretion from the β-cells of the pancreas, leading to elevated circulating glucose. Current management practices for T2D are complex with varying long-term effectiveness. Agonism of the G protein-coupled receptor GPR119 has received a lot of recent interest as a potential T2D therapeutic.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews studies focused on GPR119 agonism in animal models of T2D and in patients with T2D.

EXPERT OPINION

GPR119 agonists in vitro and in vivo can potentially regulate incretin hormone release from the gut, then pancreatic insulin release which regulates blood glucose concentrations. However, the success in controlling glucose homeostasis in rodent models of T2D and obesity, failed to translate to early-stage clinical trials in patients with T2D. However, in more recent studies, acute and chronic dosing with the GPR119 agonist DS-8500a had increased efficacy, although this compound was discontinued for further development. New trials on GPR119 agonists are needed, however it may be that the future of GPR119 agonists lie in the development of combination therapy with other T2D therapeutics.

Chronic Kidney Disease in the Older Adult Patient with Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are common in middle aged and older adult individuals. DM may accelerate the aging process, and the age-related declines in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) can pose a challenge to diagnosing diabetic kidney disease (DKD) using standard diagnostic criteria especially with the absence of severe albuminuria among older adults. In the presence of CKD and DM, older adult patients may need multidisciplinary care due to susceptibility to various health issues, e.g., cognitive decline, auditory or visual impairment, various comorbidities, complex medical regimens, and increased sensitivity to medication adverse effects. As a result, it can be challenging to apply recent therapeutic advancements for the general population to older adults. We review the evidence that the benefits from these newer therapies apply equally to older and younger patients with CKD and diabetes type 2 and propose a comprehensive management. This framework will address nonpharmacological measures and pharmacological management with renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), non-steroidal mineralocorticoids receptor antagonists (MRAs), and glucagon like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs).