Once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide vs. prandial insulin added to basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Results over 52 weeks

Efficacy and safety of albiglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T2D receiving albiglutide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or an active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the change from baseline (CFB) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c); secondary outcomes included CFB in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

From 443 initially screened articles, data from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 6423 subjects were analyzed. Albiglutide, at both doses, outperformed placebo in terms of HbA1c reductions (for albiglutide 30 mg: mean differences -1.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.37--0.72], P < .00001, I2 = 89%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: mean differences -1.10%, 95% CI [-1.45--0.75], P < .00001, I2 = 90%). Higher proportions of subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% in the albiglutide arm than in placebo (for albiglutide 30 mg: odds ratio 6.26, 95% CI [2.50-15.70], P < .0001, I2 = 82%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI [2.25-13.80], P = .0002, I2 = 84%). Albiglutide had glycemic efficacy comparable to other glucose-lowering drugs. CFB in body weight was similar with albiglutide and placebo. AE profile, including gastrointestinal AE, was identical with albiglutide and placebo, except for higher drug-related AE and injection-site reaction with albiglutide.

CONCLUSION

Albiglutide provides reassuring data on good glycemic efficacy, tolerability, and safety over an extended period of clinical use in patients with T2D. Albiglutide 30 mg has comparable efficacy and safety profiles to albiglutide 50 mg.

Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

An association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer has been suggested. Since its first description, several new trials (including three cardiovascular outcome trials) have been published, substantially increasing the available data set. This suggests the need for an update of the previous meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials, with duration ≥52 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug. The endpoints were pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer reported as serious adverse events. Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio (MH-OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes defined above, on an intention-to-treat basis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 43 trials fulfilling inclusion criteria (all reporting data on pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer) was identified. GLP-1 RA showed no association with pancreatitis (MH-OR 1.24 [0.94, 1.64]; P=0.13) and pancreatic cancer (MH-OR 1.28 [0.87, 1.89]; P=0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

No clear evidence of risk for pancreatitis was observed, whereas data on pancreatic cancer are too scarce to draw any conclusion.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes - state-of-the-art

BACKGROUND

GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with exenatide b.i.d. first approved to treat type 2 diabetes in 2005 have been further developed to yield effective compounds/preparations that have overcome the original problem of rapid elimination (short half-life), initially necessitating short intervals between injections (twice daily for exenatide b.i.d.).

SCOPE OF REVIEW

To summarize current knowledge about GLP-1 receptor agonist.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

At present, GLP-1 RAs are injected twice daily (exenatide b.i.d.), once daily (lixisenatide and liraglutide), or once weekly (exenatide once weekly, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide). A daily oral preparation of semaglutide, which has demonstrated clinical effectiveness close to the once-weekly subcutaneous preparation, was recently approved. All GLP-1 RAs share common mechanisms of action: augmentation of hyperglycemia-induced insulin secretion, suppression of glucagon secretion at hyper- or euglycemia, deceleration of gastric emptying preventing large post-meal glycemic increments, and a reduction in calorie intake and body weight. Short-acting agents (exenatide b.i.d., lixisenatide) have reduced effectiveness on overnight and fasting plasma glucose, but maintain their effect on gastric emptying during long-term treatment. Long-acting GLP-1 RAs (liraglutide, once-weekly exenatide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide) have more profound effects on overnight and fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, both on a background of oral glucose-lowering agents and in combination with basal insulin. Effects on gastric emptying decrease over time (tachyphylaxis). Given a similar, if not superior, effectiveness for HbA1c reduction with additional weight reduction and no intrinsic risk of hypoglycemic episodes, GLP-1RAs are recommended as the preferred first injectable glucose-lowering therapy for type 2 diabetes, even before insulin treatment. However, GLP-1 RAs can be combined with (basal) insulin in either free- or fixed-dose preparations. More recently developed agents, in particular semaglutide, are characterized by greater efficacy with respect to lowering plasma glucose as well as body weight. Since 2016, several cardiovascular (CV) outcome studies have shown that GLP-1 RAs can effectively prevent CV events such as acute myocardial infarction or stroke and associated mortality. Therefore, guidelines particularly recommend treatment with GLP-1 RAs in patients with pre-existing atherosclerotic vascular disease (for example, previous CV events). The evidence of similar effects in lower-risk subjects is not quite as strong. Since sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor treatment reduces CV events as well (with the effect mainly driven by a reduction in heart failure complications), the individual risk of ischemic or heart failure complications should guide the choice of treatment. GLP-1 RAs may also help prevent renal complications of type 2 diabetes. Other active research areas in the field of GLP-1 RAs are the definition of subgroups within the type 2 diabetes population who particularly benefit from treatment with GLP-1 RAs. These include pharmacogenomic approaches and the characterization of non-responders. Novel indications for GLP-1 RAs outside type 2 diabetes, such as type 1 diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, and psoriasis, are being explored. Thus, within 15 years of their initial introduction, GLP-1 RAs have become a well-established class of glucose-lowering agents that has the potential for further development and growing impact for treating type 2 diabetes and potentially other diseases.

Major cardiovascular events, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation in patients treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists (GLP1-RA) has been associated with a reduction of major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality on the basis of the results of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT). Several meta-analyses on this issue have been recently published; however, they were all restricted to CVOT, with the exclusion of all studies designed for other endpoints; moreover, other cardiovascular endpoints, such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure have not been fully explored.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials with a duration ≥52 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug. We included 43 trials, enrolling 63,134 patients. A significant reduction of MACE (MH-OR 0.87 [0.83, 0.92]), all-cause mortality (MH-OR 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), and a nonstatistical trend toward reduction of heart failure (MH-OR 0.93 [0.85, 1.01]) was observed - GLP1-RA did not increase the risk of atrial fibrillation (MH-OR 0.94 [0.84, 1.04]).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis confirms the favorable effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, stroke, and possibly myocardial infarction. Conversely, the effects on heart failure remain uncertain. Available data on atrial fibrillation seems to exclude any major safety issues in this respect.

REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO)

CRD42018115577.

GLP-1 receptor agonists and risk of cancer in type 2 diabetes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Some preliminary studies reported a link between GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and thyroid/pancreatic neoplasms, while its human relevance remained undetermined. The present meta-analysis was performed to collect information on cancers associated with GLP-1RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were extensively searched to identify randomized controlled trials that reported cancer events in T2DM patients treated with GLP-1RAs for at least 52 weeks, up to March 18, 2019. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated for overall cancer (primary outcome), thyroid and pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 37 eligible trials were identified. The OR for overall cancer associated with GLP-1RAs was 1.03 (95% CI 0.95-1.12; p = 0.41) compared with comparators. Subgroup analyses showed that treatment with albiglutide was associated with a lower risk of overall cancer (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.60-0.97]; p = 0.03), and no elevated risk of overall cancer was identified for other GLP-1RAs. No significant differences in the risks of thyroid nor pancreatic cancer were disclosed between GLP-1RAs and comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis did not suggest any increased risk of cancers associated with GLP-1RAs use in T2DM. The reduction in the risk of overall cancer associated with albiglutide needs to be examined further.

A Review of the Safety and Adverse Event Profile of the Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide

INTRODUCTION

iGlarLixi is a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (100 units/mL) and lixisenatide (33 μg/mL). This review evaluates the overall safety and adverse event (AE) profile of iGlarLixi in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We collated patient-level data from the phase 2 LixiLan proof-of-concept trial and the phase 3 LixiLan-L (insulin-experienced patients) and LixiLan-O (insulin-naïve patients) trials to evaluate AEs associated with iGlarLixi. We also describe data from the ELIXA study to examine pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, and the ELIXA and ORIGIN studies for cardiovascular safety data.

RESULTS

Patients treated with iGlarLixi had improved glycemic control with a similar incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL) compared with iGlar. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (an event requiring third-party assistance) was low in all treatment arms in both LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O. Rates of gastrointestinal AEs in patients treated with iGlarLixi tended to be lower compared with lixisenatide alone, but higher than those treated with iGlar alone. Gastrointestinal AEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Antibodies formed in response to iGlarLixi did not have any significant clinical impact, with similar safety observed for antibody-positive and antibody-negative populations. Rates of allergic reactions, malignancy, renal impairment, and cardiovascular events were low and comparable between treatment groups. Older age (≥ 65 years) and gender did not affect efficacy or safety.

CONCLUSION

iGlarLixi has a safety profile that is consistent with that of its two active components insulin glargine and lixisenatide, with no signals for pancreatitis or thyroid C cell tumors, and no black-box warning for iGlarLixi. There were no unexpected safety findings; iGlarLixi had beneficial effects on glycemic control, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia, despite a greater glycated hemoglobin A1c reduction. In addition, there were also fewer gastrointestinal AEs associated with iGlarLixi compared with lixisenatide alone.

FUNDING

Sanofi US Inc.

Risk of Malignant Neoplasia with Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective glucose-lowering drugs, but there is concern that they may increase the risk of malignant neoplasia. The present meta-analysis examined the safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists with regard to malignant neoplasia.

METHODS

We analyzed data from randomized controlled trials with a minimum duration of 24 weeks that assessed the incidence of neoplasms in type 2 diabetes patients receiving GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo or other hypoglycemic drugs. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases with a language restriction of English through October 1, 2018, and carried out a meta-analysis of the available trial data using a fixed effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for neoplasia.

RESULTS

Thirty-four relevant articles, providing data for 50452 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the incidence of malignant neoplasia with placebo or other interventions, no increase in malignant neoplasm formation was observed with the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.15; p = 0.46), liraglutide (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91-1.27; p = 0.38), exenatide (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.16; p = 1.00), semaglutide (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35-2.22; p = 0.80), or albiglutide (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23-4.88; p = 0.93). A subanalysis of trials lasting longer than 3 years also showed no increase in the neoplasia risk with GLP-1 receptor agonist use (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92-1.15; p = 0.60). Between-trial statistical heterogeneity was low for all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

GLP-1 receptor agonists can be used without safety concerns related to malignant neoplasia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

GLP-1 receptor agonist added to insulin versus basal-plus or basal-bolus insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that antihyperglycaemic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving the HbA_1c target on basal insulin should be intensified with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or basal-plus/basal-bolus (BP/BB) insulin regimen. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of GLP-1RA/insulin combinations versus BP/BB.

METHODS

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017079547). PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until July 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting HbA_1c , body weight, daily insulin dose, hypoglycaemic events, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy were included. A subgroup analysis on different combinations of GLP-1RA and insulin was performed.

RESULTS

Out of 1885 retrieved papers, 13 RCTs were included in the review. Compared with BP/BB, GLP-1RA/insulin combinations were associated with a similar HbA_1c reduction (Δ = -0.06%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.02; P = 0.13; I²  = 52%), greater weight loss (Δ = -3.72 kg; 95% CI, -4.49 to -2.95; P < 0.001; I²  = 89%), and lower incidence of hypoglycaemic events (relative risk [RR] = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.55; P < 0.001; I²  = 99%). The daily insulin dosage among GLP-1RA/insulin users was 30.3 IU/day (95% CI, -41.2 to -19.3; P < 0.001; I²  = 94%), lower than with BP/BB. No difference was found for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review supports treatment intensification with GLP-1RA added to insulin versus BP/BB in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. This could provide similar antihyperglycaemic efficacy while leading to weight loss and sparing of hypoglycaemia and insulin dose. As a consequence, a considerable number of patients with type 2 diabetes could be potentially shifted from BP/BB to GLP-1RA/insulin combinations.

A review of GLP-1 receptor agonists: Evolution and advancement, through the lens of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

To review the evolution and advancement of GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy, through the lens of randomised controlled trials, from differentiating characteristics, efficacy, safety, tolerability, and cardiovascular outcomes, to evidence gaps and next steps.

METHODS

Clinical review of published phase 3 or later RCT data studying efficacy, safety, and outcomes of approved GLP-1 RA therapies.

RESULTS

Through a wealth of studies, including both placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies, GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated high glycemic efficacy and ability to facilitate weight loss, with minimal risk of hypoglycemia, potential to restore beta cell function, and evidence for improved cardiovascular outcomes in those at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a decade of clinical studies have established the unique contributions of GLP-1 RAs in the treatment of diabetes. Individual differences between the different GLP-1 RAs, in delivery, pharmacokinetic and clinical effects, exist, allowing for tailored approaches to clinical care. The strength of evidence generated through RCTs, both short-term and long-term studies, will continue to evolve and inform our current paradigms in diabetes care.