Exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride for prevention of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type 2 diabetes with metformin failure (EUREXA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).

LIMITATIONS

Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.

CONCLUSION

In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Twenty years of participation of racialised groups in type 2 diabetes randomised clinical trials: a meta-epidemiological review

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus prevalence is increasing globally and the greatest burden is borne by racialised people. However, there are concerns that the enrolment of racialised people into RCTs is limited, resulting in a lack of ethnic and racial diversity. This may differ depending whether an RCT is government funded or industry funded. The aim of this study was to review the proportions of racialised and white participants included in large RCTs of type 2 diabetes pharmacotherapies relative to the disease burden of type 2 diabetes in these groups.

METHODS

The Ovid MEDLINE database was searched from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020. English language reports of RCTs of type 2 diabetes pharmacotherapies published in select medical journals were included. Studies were included in this review if they had a sample size of at least 100 participants and all participants were adults with type 2 diabetes. Industry-funded trials must have recruited participants from at least two countries. Government-funded trials were not held to the same standard because they are typically conducted in a single country. Data including the numbers and proportions of participants by ethnicity and race were extracted from trial reports. The participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) was calculated for each trial by dividing the percentage of white and racialised participants in each trial by the percentage of white and racialised participants with type 2 diabetes, respectively, for the regions of recruitment. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate the pooled PPRs and 95% CIs across study types. A PPR <0.80 indicates under-representation and a PPR >1.20 indicates over-representation. Risk of bias assessments were not conducted for this study as the objective was to examine recruitment of racialised and white participants rather than evaluate the trustworthiness of clinical trial outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 83 trials were included, involving 283,122 participants, of which 15 were government-funded and 68 were industry-funded trials. In government-funded trials, the PPR for white participants was 1.11 (95% CI 0.99, 1.24) and the PPR for racialised participants was 0.72 (95% CI 0.60, 0.86). In industry-funded trials, the PPR for white participants was 1.95 (95% CI 1.74, 2.18) and the PPR for racialised participants was 0.36 (95% CI 0.32, 0.42). The limitations of this study include the reliance on investigator-reported ethnicity and race to classify participants as 'white' or 'racialised', the use of estimates for type 2 diabetes prevalence and demographic data, and the high levels of heterogeneity of pooled estimates. However, despite these limitations, the results were consistent with respect to direction.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Racialised participants are under-represented in government- and industry-funded type 2 diabetes trials. Strategies to improve recruitment and enrolment of racialised participants into RCTs should be developed.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework registration no. f59mk ( https://osf.io/f59mk ) FUNDING: The authors received no financial support for this research or authorship of the article.

Anti-inflammatory role of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and its clinical implications

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have emerged as promising therapeutic agents with potent anti-inflammatory properties and diverse clinical implications. This in-depth review article explores the mechanisms behind the anti-inflammatory actions of GLP-1RAs and assesses their prospective applicability in a wide range of disease scenarios. The current review establishes the significance of comprehending the anti-inflammatory role of GLP-1RAs and identifies pertinent research gaps. A concise overview of inflammation and its clinical consequences underscores the critical need for effective anti-inflammatory interventions. Subsequently, the article elucidates the intricate mechanisms through which GLP-1RAs modulate immune cell signaling and regulate the nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) pathway. Detailed discussions encompass their impact on inflammatory responses, cytokine production, and attenuation of oxidative stress. The exposition is substantiated by a collection of pertinent examples and an extensive array of references from both preclinical and clinical investigations. The historical trajectory of GLP-1RA drugs, including exenatide, lixisenatide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, is traced to delineate their development as therapeutic agents. Moreover, the review emphasizes the therapeutic potential of GLP-1RAs in specific disease contexts like type 2 diabetes, a neurodegenerative disorder, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), shedding light on their anti-inflammatory effects through rigorous examination of preclinical and clinical studies. The article also provides an outlook on future perspectives for GLP-1RAs, encompassing the domains of diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, and IBD. In conclusion, GLP-1RAs exhibit substantial anti-inflammatory effects, rendering them promising therapeutic agents with broad clinical implications. They are very useful in a wide variety of diseases because they regulate immunological responses, block NF-κB activation, and decrease production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Ongoing research endeavors aim to optimize their therapeutic use, delineate patient-specific treatment paradigms, and explore novel therapeutic applications. GLP-1RAs represent a significant breakthrough in anti-inflammatory therapy, offering novel treatment options, and improved patient outcomes.

The relationship between the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and the incidence of respiratory illness: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

We aimed to assess the association between the use of Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the risk of 12 respiratory diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or overweight.

METHOD

The PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from the establishment of the database to December 24, 2022. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using RR and 95% CI calculated from fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight RCTs were ultimately included for analysis, involving a total of 77,485 participants. Compared to controls, patients with GLP-1RAs have a 14% lower risk of respiratory disease (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.93 p < 0.0001), with Semaglutid (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.97, p = 0.02), Liraglutide (RR 0.86. 95% CI 0.75-0.98, p = 0.03), Dulaglutide (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, p = 0.02), Albiglutide (RR 0.93,95% CI 0.79-1.10, p = 0.40), Exenatide (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.18, p = 0.55), Lixisenatide (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62-1.12, p = 0.22), and Efpeglenatide (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46-1.24, p = 0.27). Semaglutide, Liraglutide and Dulaglutide reduce the risk of respiratory diseases by 18%, 14% and 18%, respectively.Trial duration, control type, and indication were not associated with the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists on overall respiratory disease. Among secondary outcomes, the risk of Pulmonary edema (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.98, p = 0.04), and Bronchitis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00, p = 0.04) was reduced.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, GLP-1RAs were linked to a lower risk of overall respiratory diseases, especially Pulmonary edema and Bronchitis. In the future, physicians should pay attention to the relationship between GLP-1 RA and the risk of respiratory diseases and evaluate the efficacy of GLP-1RAs in the primary and secondary prevention of respiratory diseases. Trial registration CRD42023396138.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials comparing sulfonylureas and low hypoglycaemic risk antidiabetic drugs

BACKGROUND

Safety of sulfonylurea drugs in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare the all-cause mortality and cardiovascular adverse events of sulfonylureas and drugs with a low risk for hypoglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (PubMed, OVID), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, WOS and Lilacs.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled head-to-head trials that compared sulfonylureas with active control with low hypoglycaemic potential in adults (≥ 18 years old) with type 2 diabetes published up to August 2015. The drug classes involved in the analysis were metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.

OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were MACE, cardiovascular events and severe hypoglycaemia.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Two reviewers checked study eligibility, independently extracted data and assessed quality with disagreements resolved through discussion. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials v2. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by using fixed effects model. The study is registered on PROSPERO (26/05/2016 CRD42016038780).

RESULTS

Our final analysis comprised 31 studies (26,204 patients, 11,711 patients given sulfonylureas and 14,493 given comparator drugs). In comparison to drugs with low hypoglycaemic potential, sulfonylureas had higher odds for all-cause mortality (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.75), MACE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.61), myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38) and hypoglycaemia (OR 5.24, 95% CI 4.20-6.55). Subsequent sensitivity analysis revealed differences in the effect of sulfonylureas, with an increased risk of all-cause mortality with glipizide but not the other molecules.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis raises concern about the safety of SUs compared to alternative drugs involved in current analysis. Important differences may exist within the drug class, and glimepiride seems to have best safety profile.

Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Occurrence of Thyroid Disorders: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The association between glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and the risk of various kinds of thyroid disorders remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and the occurrence of 6 kinds of thyroid disorders. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science from database inception to 31 October 2021 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 45 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or other interventions, GLP-1 receptor agonists' use showed an association with an increased risk of overall thyroid disorders (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60). However, GLP-1 receptor agonists had no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.86-1.97), hyperthyroidism (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.61-2.35), hypothyroidism (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80-1.87), thyroiditis (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.51-6.57), thyroid mass (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43-3.20), and goiter (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74-1.86). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses showed that underlying diseases, type of control, and trial durations were not related to the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on overall thyroid disorders (all P _subgroup > 0.05). In conclusion, GLP-1 receptor agonists did not increase or decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, thyroiditis, thyroid mass and goiter. However, due to the low incidence of these diseases, these findings need to be examined further.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021289121.

Changing the approach to type 2 diabetes treatment: A comparison of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas across the continuum of care

Despite the importance of individualised strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the availability of alternative treatments, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), sulphonylureas are still widely used in practice. Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1 RAs may provide better and more durable glycaemic control than sulphonylureas, with lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Other reported benefits of GLP-1 RAs include weight loss rather than weight gain (as observed with sulphonylureas), blood pressure reduction and improvement in lipid profiles. In general, the main adverse events with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal in nature. The respective modes of action of GLP-1 RAs and sulphonylureas contribute to differences in the durability of glycaemic control (related to effects on beta-cells) and effects on body weight. Moreover, the glucose-dependent mode of action of GLP-1 RAs, which favours a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, contrasts with the glucose-independent mode of action of sulphonylureas. Evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials indicates a consistent finding of cardiovascular safety across the GLP-1 RAs and suggests a class benefit for the long-acting GLP-1 RAs in reducing three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. In contrast, potential concerns relating to an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular events with sulphonylureas have yet to be fully resolved. Recent updates to management guidelines recommend that treatment selection for patients with T2DM should consider clinical trial evidence of cardiovascular safety. Available evidence suggests that this selection should give preference to GLP-1 RAs over sulphonylureas, especially for patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Do GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Increase the Risk of Breast Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Risk of cancer is a major concern in the development of drugs for the treatment of obesity and diabetes. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the Liraglutide Clinical Development Program, subjects treated with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) had a higher absolute number of breast cancer events.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether patients treated with GLP-1RAs had a higher risk of breast neoplasms.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from July 31, 2019 to February 8, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles for RCTs of GLP-1RAs in adults with excessive weight and/or diabetes and a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks.

DATA EXTRACTION

Researchers extracted study-level data and assessed within-study risk of bias with the RoB 2.0 tool and quality of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 52 trials, of which 50 reported breast cancer events and 11 reported benign breast neoplasms. Overall methodological quality was high. Among 48 267 subjects treated with GLP-1RAs, 130 developed breast cancer compared with 107 of 40 755 controls (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.26). Subset analyses according to follow-up, participant/investigator blinding, and type of GLP-1RA did not reveal any differences. The risk of benign breast neoplasms also did not differ between groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.48-2.01). Trial sequential analysis provided evidence that the sample size was sufficient to avoid missing alternative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with GLP-1RAs for obesity and diabetes does not increase the risk of breast neoplasms.

Durability of glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis for its association with body weight changes

AIMS

To analyse quantitatively the association between the durability of glycaemic control and body weight changes during treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study adhered to an appropriate methodology according to Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Studies with follow-ups >12 months, and final and intermediate assessments of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight were included. Four outcomes assessing therapeutic durability were extracted and synthesized using Stata statistical software, including changes in HbA1c, goal-achievement rate, failure rate and coefficient of failure (CoF).

RESULTS

After 8.9 months of treatment, HbA1c levels declined from 8.03% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.91-8.15; I² = 99.2%] to 7.15% (95% CI, 7.02-7.27; I² = 99.4%) and then gradually increased up to 7.72% (95% CI, 7.50-7.94; I² = 99.0%) 5 years later. The goal-achievement rate decreased from 54.8% (after 1 year of treatment) to 19.4% 5 years later. The CoF was 0.123 ± 0.022%/year (P < .001). After stratification, the CoFs were 0.224 ± 0.025%/year (P < .001) for weight gain, 0.137 ± 0.034%/year (P < .001) for neutral weight and -0.024 ± 0.032%/year (P = .450) for weight loss. After stratification by treatment approaches, the CoFs were 0.45%/year for insulin, 0.43%/year for sulphonylurea, 0.34%/year for thiazolidinediones, 0.29%/year for metformin, 0.16% for glucagon-like polypeptide-1 receptor agonists, 0.12% for surgery, -0.03% for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and -0.21% for dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Modest weight loss with a goal of 2-3% of body weight should be recommended to improve therapeutic durability and prevent beta-cell deterioration.

Effect of insulin secretagogues on major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides) with this respect.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to January 1st, 2020, with duration≥52 weeks, in which insulin secretagogues (glibenclamide, gliclazide, glimepiride, glipizide, chlorpropamide, repaglinide, nateglinide) were compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes) and all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs (919 in insulin secretagogues and 1,087 in control group). Insulin secretagogues were not significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs in comparison with controls (MH-OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.96, 1.22], p = 0.20). When considering the 48 RCTs fulfilling criteria for inclusion in the analysis on all-cause mortality, insulin secretagogues were associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (MH-OR 1.11 [1.00, 1.23], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that insulin secretagogues are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or other anti-hyperglycaemic drugs.

Rationale for Timely Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Within the Framework of Individualised Treatment: 2020 Update

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by chronic hyperglycaemia and variable degrees of insulin deficiency and resistance. Hyperglycaemia and elevated fatty acids exert harmful effects on β-cell function, regeneration and apoptosis (gluco-lipotoxicity). Furthermore, chronic hyperglycaemia triggers a vicious cycle of insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation and a cascade of pro-atherogenic processes. Thus, timely near to normal glucose control is of utmost importance in the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of micro- and macroangiopathy. The majority of patients are multimorbid and obese, with critical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Recently published guidelines therefore recommend patient-centred risk/benefit-balanced use of oral glucose-lowering drugs or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or switching to insulin with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) out of target. This article covers the indications of early insulin treatment to prevent diabetes-related complications, particularly in subgroups with severe insulin deficit, and to achieve recovery of residual β-cell function. Furthermore, the individualised, risk/benefit-balanced, timely initiation of insulin as second and third option is analysed. Timely insulin initiation may prevent diabetes progression, reduce diabetes-related complications and has less serious adverse effects. Basal insulin is the preferred option in most clinical situations with consequences of undertreatment of chronic hyperglycaemia.

Metabolic effects of antihyperglycemic agents and mortality: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The effects of antihyperglycemic medications on cardiovascular events and mortality are heterogeneous and their effects on intermediate factors might explain these differences. This systematic review explores the relationship between metabolic factors, mechanism of action, and mortality effects of antihyperglycemic medications in type 2 diabetes. Randomized trials assessing the effects of antihyperglycemic medications on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes were included. Myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure were secondary outcomes. The effects of medications on HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia (SH), body weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and mechanism of action were evaluated. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed grouping studies according to the above-cited factors. All-cause mortality was lower for medications that reduced HbA1c, SH, body weight, and SBP. Decreased cardiovascular mortality was associated with lower HbA1c, SH, SBP. Myocardial infarction and stroke were also associated with favorable metabolic profile. These findings were not confirmed in meta-regression models. Medications associated with lower SH, body weight and SBP had a lower risk of heart failure. In conclusion, medications with better metabolic profile were associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. These findings are based on indirect comparisons and must be applied cautiously.

Beta-cell failure in type 2 diabetes: mechanisms, markers, and clinical implications

It is well known that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a globally increasing health burden. Despite recent therapeutic advances and the availability of many different classes of antihyperglycemic therapy, a large proportion of people do not achieve glycemic control. A decline in pancreatic beta-cell function has been defined as a key contributing factor to progression of T2D. In fact, a significant proportion of beta-cell secretory capacity is thought to be lost well before the diagnosis of T2D is made. Several models have been proposed to explain the reduction in beta-cell function, including reduced beta-cell number, beta-cell exhaustion, and dedifferentiation or transdifferentiation into other cell types. However, there have been reports that suggest remission of T2D is possible, and it is believed that beta-cell dysfunction may be, in part, reversible. As such, the question of whether beta cells are committed to failure in people with T2D is complex. It is now widely accepted that early restoration of normoglycemia may protect beta-cell function. Key to the successful implementation of this approach in clinical practice is the appropriate assessment of individuals at risk of beta-cell failure, and the early implementation of appropriate treatment options. In this review, we discuss the progression of T2D in the context of beta-cell failure and describe how C-peptide testing can be used to assess beta-cell function in primary care practice. In conclusion, significant beta-cell dysfunction is likely in individuals with certain clinical characteristics of T2D, such as long duration of disease, high glycated hemoglobin (≥9%), and/or long-term use of therapies that continuously stimulate the beta cell. In these people, measurement of beta-cell status could assist with choice of appropriate therapy to delay or potentially reverse beta-cell dysfunction and the progression of T2D.

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.

For debate; pharmacological priorities in advanced type 2 diabetes

A multitude of therapeutic agents have been available to treat patients with Type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately, many patients with advanced Type 2 diabetes continue to suffer from complications and premature death. To date, all available guidelines emphasize a variety of therapeutic aspects, goals, and pharmacological combinations, without directing the clinician as to which is a higher priority. The following review attempts to clarify which therapeutic option is more important for prognosis in patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. The body of evidence presented, reveal that the most important marker for prognosis is HbA1c. Each 1% incrementally higher HbA1c than ~7% is associated with 15%-45% reduced survival rates. Therefore, any agents that can achieve the time-sensitive objective of lowering HbA1c levels should be used.

Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies, atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and heart failure in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised cardiovascular outcome trials

BACKGROUND

In our 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials for glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, we reported a modest reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and an increased risk of heart failure, but with heterogeneous effects by drug or intervention type. In view of the completion of many large cardiovascular outcome trials since our previous analysis, including trials of novel drugs that have shown beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes, we aimed to update our analysis to incorporate these findings.

METHODS

We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of large cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for reports of trials published from Nov 15, 2013 to Nov 20, 2019. We included randomised controlled trials with a minimum of 1000 adults (aged ≥19 years) with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as an outcome, and with follow-up of at least 12 months. We excluded trials with patients enrolled with an acute cardiovascular event. The main outcomes of interest were MACE (generally defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and heart failure. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs with inverse-variance random-effects models, did meta-regression to analyse treatment effects per difference in bodyweight achieved, and explored results stratified by baseline subgroups.

FINDINGS

Our updated search yielded 30 eligible trials (n=225 305). The mean age of participants was 63·0 years (SD 8·4) and mean duration of diabetes was 9·4 years (6·6). After a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (1·8), 23 016 (10·2%) participants had MACE and 8169 (3·6%) had a heart failure event. Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies lowered the risk of MACE compared with standard care or placebo (RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·89-0·95, p<0·0001), with no overall effect on the risk of heart failure (0·98, 0·90-1·08, p=0·71). However, across drug classes or strategies, the magnitude and directionality of RR for heart failure varied (p_interaction<0·0001), with meta-regression showing that a decrease in bodyweight of 1 kg was associated with a 5·9% (3·9-8·0) relative decrease in the risk of heart failure (p<0·0001). Among trials that assessed drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss (intensive lifestyle changes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors), the risk reduction for MACE was consistent among participants with (0·87, 0·83-0·92) and without (0·92, 0·83-1·02) established cardiovascular disease at baseline (p_interaction=0·33). For heart failure, the RR for drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss was consistent among participants with (0·80, 0·73-0·89) and without (0·84, 0·74-0·95) cardiovascular disease at baseline (p_interaction=0·63).

INTERPRETATION

Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies overall reduced the risk of fatal and non-fatal atherosclerotic events. The effect on heart failure was neutral overall but varied substantially by intervention type, with interventions associated with weight loss showing a beneficial effect. The cardiovascular and heart failure benefits of interventions associated with weight loss might extend to patients without established cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

None.

Durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin failure: Prognostic model derivation and validation using the DISCOVER study

AIM

To develop and internally validate prognostic models on the long-term durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DISCOVER is a 3-year, prospective observational study across six continents investigating second-line glucose-lowering therapies. In this analysis from 35 countries, we included patients on metformin initiating second-line glucose-lowering medication(s) because of physician-defined lack of efficacy. The outcome was durability of glycaemic control, defined as three consecutive levels of HbA1c at 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up at target (HbA1c equal to or lower than the level when the physician initiated the second-line therapy in patients with baseline HbA1c ≤7% [53 mmol/mol]; and equal to or lower than 7% in those with baseline HbA1c >7%). We developed and internally validated two prognostic models: a base model, which included age, sex, ethnicity, country income group, baseline HbA1c and second-line therapy, and an advanced model, established through statistical variable selections from a model including base variables and 13 additional predictors selected from a literature review. We used logistic regression to develop and 500 bootstrapping samples to internally validate the models; discrimination and calibration were used to assess model performance.

RESULTS

Overall, 896 out of 2995 participants (29.9%) had sustained glycaemic control. The base model performed well: Nagelkerke R² was 0.13, C-index 0.70 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.71) and bias-corrected C-index 0.69 after internal validation. Diabetes duration, insurance type, estimated glomerular filtration rate and glucose self-monitoring were additionally selected in the advanced model, which had only a slightly better performance compared with the base model: Nagelkerke R² 0.20, C-index 0.71 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.73) and bias-corrected C-index 0.70. Calibration plots showed good calibrations of both validated models.

CONCLUSION

These prognostic models, which include simple demographic and routinely collected clinical information, enabled the estimation of the probability of 2-year sustained glycaemic control in patients after metformin failure. The models have been implemented into a web-based tool to support healthcare professionals in their decisions.

Short-term GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide ameliorates intramyocellular lipid deposition without weight loss in ob/ob mice

OBJECTIVE

Ectopic lipid deposition is closely associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Accumulating evidence shows that GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) improve obesity and liver steatosis. However, it remains unknown whether and how they ameliorate lipid deposition in skeletal muscle. This study aimed to investigate the effect of exenatide (a GLP-1 RA) on intramyocellular lipid deposition in the skeletal muscle of T2D models and its dependence on weight loss.

METHODS

Ob/ob mice and diet-induced obese (DIO) mice were treated with exenatide (24 nmol/kg), leptin (1 mg/kg), or saline control intraperitoneally once daily for 4 weeks. Phenotypic evaluations were performed during and after the intervention. PA-induced myoblast C2C12 cells were used as an in vitro model. The expression of key enzymes involved in lipid metabolism was assessed in the skeletal muscle of ob/ob mice and DIO mice.

RESULTS

In ob/ob mice, 4-week exenatide treatment did not improve the body weight and fat mass, but modestly ameliorated intramyocellular lipid deposition and lipid profiles. In DIO mice, it remarkably alleviated the body weight, lipid profiles, and intramyocellular lipid deposition. In the skeletal muscle of these two models, exenatide treatment activated the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) signaling pathway, stimulated lipid oxidation enzymes, and upregulated the insulin signaling pathway. In vitro, exendin-4 activated the AMPK signaling pathway and stimulated lipid metabolism to improve lipid accumulation in palmitate-induced myoblast C2C12 cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide ameliorated intramyocellular lipid deposition without body weight reduction in ob/ob mice, but alleviated body weight and intramyocellular lipid deposition in DIO mice. The underlying mechanism included the activation of AMPK signaling pathway and improvement in insulin sensitivity, independent of weight loss in ob/ob mice.

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of initial triple combination of metformin, sitagliptin, and lobeglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: initial triple study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of an initial triple therapy using metformin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor, and thiazolidinedione with a stepwise approach using sulfonylurea and metformin in new-onset, drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Among drug-naïve patients with 9.0%-12.0% glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) but no hyperglycemic symptoms, 100 subjects who started triple medications (metformin 1000 mg/day, sitagliptin 100 mg/day, and lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/day) were selected as an initial triple therapy group. Age and body mass index-matched subjects (n=100) who started glimepiride (≥2 mg/day with uptitration) and metformin (≥1000 mg/day with uptitration) were selected as a conventional therapy group. We investigated changes in HbA1c level, dynamic indexes for insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

After 12 months of treatment, HbA1c levels decreased significantly in both groups: from 10.7%±1.0% to 6.7%±1.3% in the triple group, and from 10.5%±1.0% to 7.3%±1.2% in the conventional therapy group. At 12 months, achievement of the HbA1c target (<7.0%) was higher in the triple group than in the conventional group (70% vs 52%, p<0.01). Dynamic indexes related to β-cell function and insulin sensitivity improved, and albuminuria reduced significantly only in the triple group. Hypoglycemia was more common in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial triple combination therapy with the DPP4 inhibitor, metformin, and thiazolidinedione showed a higher achievement of the target HbA1c goal with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, better restoration of β-cell function, and multiple metabolic benefits, implying durable glycemic control. This strategy may be useful for patients presenting with type 2 diabetes and high HbA1c levels.

Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving 1-2 Oral Antidiabetics: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Orally administered semaglutide is the first glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for oral administration. As head-to-head trials assessing orally administered semaglutide as an add-on to 1-2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) vs other GLP-1 RAs are limited, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of orally administered semaglutide 14 mg once-daily (QD) vs injectable GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in patients inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. Data at 26 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes feasible for the NMA: change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, HbA1c target levels (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%), blood pressure, and any gastrointestinal adverse events specified in system organ class. Data were synthesised using NMA and a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included in the analyses. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c vs most comparators, and numerically greater reductions vs semaglutide 0.5 mg once-weekly (QW), dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW and liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. HbA1c reductions with semaglutide 1 mg QW were numerically greater than those with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD. Reductions in body weight for orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD were significantly greater than all comparators except semaglutide QW (both doses). Orally administered semaglutide QD 14 mg was associated with statistically similar odds of experiencing gastrointestinal adverse events vs injectable GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD as an add-on to 1-2 OADs is one of the most efficacious GLP-1 RAs for reducing HbA1c and body weight at 26 ± 4 weeks. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD is well tolerated, with a safety profile in line with the GLP-1 RA class.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

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.

Durability of insulin degludec plus liraglutide versus insulin glargine U100 as initial injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes (DUAL VIII): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Durability of glycaemic control might reduce disease burden and improve long-term outcomes. DUAL VIII investigated the durability of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes with the use of a visit schedule that mirrored routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In this 104-week international, multicentre, open-label, phase 3b randomised controlled trial, insulin-naive patients aged 18 years and older, with HbA_1c between 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol), BMI of 20 kg/m² or higher, on stable doses of oral antidiabetic drugs, were recruited from outpatient clinics. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with a simple sequential allocation randomisation schedule (block size of four), to IDegLira or IGlar U100, each treatment being an add-on to existing therapy. The internal safety committee, the independent external committee, and the personnel involved in defining the analysis sets were masked until the database was released for statistical analysis. Patients and all other investigators were not masked. In the IDegLira group, patients were given degludec 100 units/mL plus liraglutide 3·6 mg/mL in a 3 mL prefilled PDS290 pen for subcutaneous injection; in the IGlar U100 group, patients were given IGlar U100 solution, in a 3 mL prefilled Solostar pen for subcutaneous injection. Both treatments were given once daily at any time of day and it was recommended that the time of day remained the same throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to need for treatment intensification (HbA_1c ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] at two consecutive visits, including week 26). Once patients met this criterion, the trial product was permanently discontinued and patients were not withdrawn from trial but rather remained on follow-up for the entire treatment and follow-up period. The primary analysis was in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02501161.

FINDINGS

From Jan 8, 2016, to Oct 3, 2018, 1345 patients were screened, of which 1012 (75·2%) were eligible and randomly assigned to either IDegLira (n=506) or IGlar U100 (n=506). 484 (96%) of 506 in the IDegLira group and 481 (95%) of 506 in the IGlar U100 group completed the trial. Baseline characteristics were similar and representative of patients eligible for basal insulin intensification (overall mean diabetes duration 10 years; HbA_1c 8·5% [69 mmol/mol]; fasting plasma glucose 10 mmol/L). Patients in the IDegLira group had significantly longer time until intensification was needed than those in the IGlar U100 group (median >2 years vs about 1 year). Fewer patients in the IDegLira group needed treatment intensification over 104 weeks than those in the IGlar U100 group (189 [37%] of 506 vs 335 [66%] of 506). The preplanned sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were in agreement with the primary analysis (hazard ratio 0·45 [95% CI 0·38-0·54]) in the proportional hazards regression model and the generalised log-rank test was also in favour of IDegLira (p<0·0001). No new or unexpected safety and tolerability issues were identified and there were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic drugs, initial injectable therapy with IDegLira resulted in fewer patients reaching the treatment intensification criterion during 104 weeks versus IGlar U100, with longer durability of the treatment effect with IDegLira.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Type 2 Diabetes and Their Role in Primary Care: An Australian Perspective

The ever-increasing number of drugs available to treat type 2 diabetes and the complexity of patients with this condition present a constant challenge when it comes to identifying the most appropriate treatment approach. The more recent glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are non-insulin injectable options for the management of type 2 diabetes. Effective at improving glycaemic control with a low intrinsic risk of hypoglycaemia and the potential for weight reduction, this agent class is an important addition to the prescribing armamentarium. However, understanding their place in therapy may prove confusing for many primary care practitioners, especially given the common belief that 'injectables' are a last-resort treatment option, which puts them at risk of being niched alongside insulin. This review summarises the clinical evidence for GLP-1RAs and how they compare to other glucose-lowering agents in managing type 2 diabetes. It also provides practical and case-driven opinions and recommendations on the optimal use of GLP-1RAs by discussing important patient factors and clinical considerations that will help to identify those who are most likely to benefit from this class of agents.Funding: Eli Lilly Australia.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Predictive factors associated with three years of response to HbA1c goals with exenatide QW or insulin glargine: Post-hoc analysis of the DURATION-3 study

This post-hoc analysis of the DURATION-3 study aimed to identify factors associated with sustained glycaemic response with exenatide once weekly (QW) or insulin glargine (IG) among patients with type 2 diabetes. Response was defined as achieving treatment target of HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) at Week 26; sustained responders maintained the treatment target for ≥80% of remaining visits, including one during the final 6 months. Of 467 patients, 287 (61.5%) completed 156 weeks of treatment. At Week 26, 175 patients (61.0%) (exenatide QW, n = 95; IG, n = 80) achieved an HbA1c response. At Week 156, 84 of 175 responders (48.0%) had sustained response, with more sustained responders with exenatide QW (22.7% vs 13.9% with IG; P < 0.03). Logistic regression identified three predictors of sustained response: (a) exenatide QW vs IG treatment (odds ratio, 2.584 [95% confidence interval, 1.288-5.187]; P = 0.0075), (b) lower HbA1c at Week 26 (0.139 [0.053-0.366]; P < 0.0001), and (c) lower fasting serum glucose at Week 26 (0.693 [0.541-0.888]; P = 0.0037). A regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of sustained response with either treatment. This analysis provides a helpful tool for predicting sustained response with exenatide QW or IG.

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.

Hazard ratio estimation and inference in clinical trials with many tied event times

The medical literature contains numerous examples of randomized clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints in which large numbers of events accrued over relatively short follow-up periods, resulting in many tied event times. A generally common feature across such examples was that the logrank test was used for hypothesis testing and the Cox proportional hazards model was used for hazard ratio estimation. We caution that this common practice is particularly risky in the setting of many tied event times for two reasons. First, the estimator of the hazard ratio can be severely biased if the Breslow tie-handling approximation for the Cox model (the default in SAS and Stata software) is used. Second, the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio can include one even when the corresponding logrank test p-value is less than 0.05. To help establish a better practice, with applicability for both superiority and noninferiority trials, we use theory and simulations to contrast Wald and score tests based on well-known tie-handling approximations for the Cox model. Our recommendation is to report the Wald test p-value and corresponding confidence interval based on the Efron approximation. The recommended test is essentially as powerful as the logrank test, the accompanying point and interval estimates of the hazard ratio have excellent statistical properties even in settings with many tied event times, inferential alignment between the p-value and confidence interval is guaranteed, and implementation is straightforward using commonly used software.

Hypoglycemia: New Definitions and Regulatory Implications

Hypoglycemia is the limiting factor in controlling glucose levels in Diabetes. Rather than being a side effect, hypoglycemia is the mechanism of action for insulin therapy, with a very narrow therapeutic window. Until recently, regulatory bodies listed hypoglycemia only as an adverse effect of therapy; however, one insulin preparation is now recognized and labelled as reducing the risk of severe hypoglycemia. This paper describes internationally agreed upon definitions for hypoglycemia and proposed regulatory approaches for recognition and labeling of diabetes therapies to facilitate personalized care.

Incretin-based therapies and risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 6 recently published large-scale cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), to evaluate the risk of pancreatic cancer with incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the period January 1, 2007 to May 1, 2017, the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register and ClininalTrials.gov databases were searched for RCTs in people with T2DM that compared incretin drugs with placebo or other antidiabetic drugs, with treatment and follow-up durations of ≥52 weeks. Two reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies (n = 79 971), including the 6 CVOTs, with 87 pancreatic cancer events were identified. Overall, the pancreatic cancer risk was not increased in patients administered incretin drugs compared with controls (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.02). In the 6 CVOTs, 79 pancreatic cancer events were identified in 55 248 participants. Pooled estimates of the 6 CVOTs showed an identical tendency (Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.01). Notably, in the subgroup of participants who received treatment and follow-up for ≥104 weeks, 84 pancreatic cancer events were identified in 59 919 participants, and a lower risk of pancreatic cancer was associated with incretin-based therapies (Peto OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with incretin drugs was not associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with T2DM. Instead, it might protect against pancreatic malignancy in patients treated for ≥104 weeks.

[Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Efficacy and tolerability of the new autoinjected suspension of exenatide once weekly versus exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To simplify administration of aqueous exenatide once weekly, which requires reconstitution, the exenatide microspheres have been reformulated in a ready-to-use autoinjector with a Miglyol diluent (exenatide QWS-AI). This study compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide QWS-AI with the first-in-class glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide twice daily (BID).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized, open-label, controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes using diet and exercise or taking stable oral glucose-lowering medication randomized patients 3:2 to either exenatide QWS-AI (2 mg) or exenatide BID (10 μg) for 28 weeks. The primary outcome was the 28-week change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). A subset of patients completed a standardized meal test for postprandial and pharmacokinetic assessments.

RESULTS

A total of 375 patients (mean HbA1c, 8.5% [69 mmol/mol]; body mass index, 33.2 kg/m² ; diabetes duration, 8.5 years) received either exenatide QWS-AI (n = 229) or exenatide BID (n = 146); HbA1c was reduced by -1.4% and -1.0%, respectively (least-squares mean difference, -0.37%; P = .0072). More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with exenatide QWS-AI (49.3%) than with exenatide BID (43.2%; P = .225). Body weight was reduced in both groups (P = .37 for difference). Gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) were reported in 22.7% (exenatide QWS-AI) and 35.6% (exenatide BID) of patients; fewer patients in the exenatide QWS-AI group withdrew because of AEs than in the exenatide BID group. Minor hypoglycaemia occurred most often with concomitant sulfonylurea use.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide QWS-AI was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c, similar weight loss and a favorable gastrointestinal AE profile compared with exenatide BID.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease prevalence of which is high and continually growing. Cardiovascular disease continues to be the leading cause of death in patients with T2DM. The prevention of cardiovascular complications and the cardiovascular safety of treatments should be a primary objective when selecting treatment. Among all the drugs available, the compounds known as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) appear to be not just innocuous in terms of CVD but indeed to be beneficial. GLP-1 RA actions not only translate on an improvement of well-known cardiovascular risk factors such as glycaemic control, dyslipidaemia, weight, or arterial hypertension but also might show benefits on endothelial function, coronary ischaemia, and heart failure. On the other hand, recent clinical trials aimed at studying cardiovascular episodes have been conducted with GLP-1 RAs. Only liraglutide and semaglutide have shown superiority in cardiovascular benefit compared with placebo. Although many of the mechanisms by which liraglutide and semaglutide produce a cardiovascular benefit are still unknown it would be desirable for these benefits to be incorporated into the therapeutic algorithms routinely used in clinical practice. The purpose of this review is to explore GLP-1 RA actions not only in cardiovascular risk factors (glucose, weight, and hypertension) but also the possible effects on established cardiovascular disease.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Incretin-based therapy in type 2 diabetes: An evidence based systematic review and meta-analysis

Incretin based therapies such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) are increasingly used for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. In clinical practice and in previously performed clinical trials, these agents are often used in combination with other oral anti-diabetic agents (OADs) and Insulin. Prior meta-analytic reviews however do not adequately address the impact of background therapy and active comparator arms. Accordingly, we aimed to further investigate the efficacy of incretin based therapies by updating existing reviews by including clinical trial evidence after 2008; estimating the pooled effect of incretin therapies on glycemic efficacy and weight-loss, stratified by comparator therapy (placebo, mono-therapy, etc.), estimating the impact of background OADs and within class (GLP-1Ra or DPP-4i) comparative efficacy, on glycemia control. 82 randomized controlled trials after 2008 with glycemic control and weight loss as primary end-points were included. Both DPP-4i and GLP-1Ra reduced HbA1c, but only GLP-1Ra caused weight loss when compared to either active comparator drugs or placebo. GLP-1Ra were more effective than DPP-4i in glycemia lowering. Long acting GLP-1Ra were more effective in HbA1c lowering than short-acting agents but with similar weight loss effect. The effect of DPP-4i incretin glycemic efficacy was not modified by background therapy used in the study.

Pharmacokinetic drug evaluation of exenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor analogs are a group of therapeutic agents which mimic endogenous GLP-1, exerting their effect by the stimulation of the GLP-1 receptor with a wide distribution. Its activation increases insulin releasing dependent on blood glucose levels, suppression of glucagon secretion and a reduction of hepatic glucose output. It delays gastric emptying and increases satiety. Exenatide is the synthetic version of exendin-4, a natural peptide with similar properties to human GLP-1. There are two pharmaceutical forms, for subcutaneous injection: twice daily and once weekly. Clinical practice guidelines recommend them because of a high efficacy reducing hyperglycemia, low risk of hypoglycemia and a significative weight loss effect. Gastrointestinal adverse events are the most common beside injection site-related. Their cost is the main limitation to use. Areas covered: We review the recent literature investigating the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and efficacy-safety studies of exenatide twice daily and once weekly in type 2 diabetes Expert opinion: GLP-1 receptor analogs are now positioned as an effective and safe drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Exenatide significally reduces HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose. Additionally, it produces moderate weight loss and decreases blood pressure. One weekly formulation may improve compliance while cost is still a limitation. EXSCEL trial has shown that, despite cardiovascular safety, exenatide do not exhibits cardiovascular benefits.

Network meta-analysis of lorcaserin and oral hypoglycaemics for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity

In addition to weight loss, randomized controlled trials have shown improvement in glycaemic control in patients taking lorcaserin. The aim of this study aim was to compare adding lorcaserin or other glucose lowering medications to metformin on weight and glycaemic control. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were conducted. Included studies (published 1990-2014) were of lorcaserin or glucose lowering medications in type 2 diabetic patients compared to placebo or different active treatments. Studies had to report ≥1 key outcome (change in weight or HbA1c, % HbA1c <7, hypoglycaemia). Direct meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models, and network meta-analysis with Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo random effects models; 6552 articles were screened and 41 included. Lorcaserin reduced weight significantly more than thiazolidinediones, glinides, sulphonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, some of which may have led to weight gain. There were no significant differences in weight change between lorcaserin and alpha-glucoside inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Network meta-analysis showed lorcaserin was non-inferior to all other agents on HbA1c reduction and % achieving HbA1c of <7%. The risk of hypoglycaemia was not significantly different among studied agents except that sulphonylureas were associated with higher risk of hypoglycaemia than lorcaserin. Although additional studies are needed, this analysis suggests in a population of patients with a body mas index of ≥27 who do not achieve glycaemic control on a single agent, lorcaserin may be added as an alternative to an add-on glucose lowering medication.

Effects of exenatide twice daily, exenatide once weekly or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and baseline HbA1c ≥10.0%: Two pooled analyses including 20 randomised controlled trials

AIMS

Patients with advanced type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values can be difficult to treat because of their severe metabolic disease. This pooled analysis examined the treatment effects of exenatide twice daily (BID), exenatide once weekly (QW) and insulin in patients with high baseline HbA1c (≥10.0%).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis used pooled data from 12 and 8 randomised controlled trials of exenatide BID and exenatide QW, respectively. Patients with T2D who completed at least 24 weeks of treatment with exenatide BID, exenatide QW or insulin (insulin glargine, insulin detemir or insulin aspart) were categorised by baseline HbA1c. Patients with HbA1c ≥10.0% were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Both exenatide and insulin reduced HbA1c (mean ± SE reduction: -2.0% ± 0.2% [exenatide] and -2.1% ± 0.2% [insulin] in the exenatide BID studies, and -2.6% ± 0.1% [exenatide] and -2.1% ± 0.2% [insulin] in the exenatide QW studies; all P < .001). Body weight decreased with exenatide and increased with insulin. Systolic blood pressure decreased with exenatide QW. Insulin dose increased over the course of treatment. The most common adverse events with exenatide were gastrointestinal. Insulin was associated with some hypoglycaemia risk. Hypoglycaemia events occurred infrequently with exenatide when given without sulphonylureas.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with high HbA1c, treatment with exenatide or insulin both improved glycaemic control. Given the associated weight loss and low risk of hypoglycaemia, exenatide may be a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin in certain patients with T2D and high HbA1c.

Effect of Long-term Incretin-Based Therapies on Ischemic Heart Diseases in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-analysis

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience many cardiovascular complications. Several studies have demonstrated the cardioprotective effects of incretin-based therapies; however, there are few studies on the effects of long-term incretin-based therapies on cardiovascular events. Therefore, the present study conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of long-term incretin-based therapies on ischaemic diseases. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrial.gov to retrieve randomised control trials reported until December 2016 and enrolled only RCTs with more than a 1-year follow-up. The network meta-analysis was performed using R Software with a GeMTC package. A total of 40 trials were included. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists were associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than were sulfonylureas (odds ratio [95% credible interval] 0.41 [0.24–0.71] and 0.48 [0.27–0.91], respectively). These results suggested that patients with T2DM receiving long-term incretin-based therapies have a lower risk of MI than do those receiving sulfonylurea-based therapy. These findings highlight the risks of cardiovascular events in patients who receive long-term incretin-based therapies, and may provide evidence for the selection of antidiabetic therapy in the future.

The Infamous, Famous Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Safety: Much Ado About Nothing?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sulfonylureas (SUs) are one of the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents worldwide. While their efficacy is undisputed, their cardiovascular safety has been debated since the 1970's.

RECENT FINDINGS

With no dedicated cardiovascular studies to definitively answer this question, observational studies and meta-analyses abound and have reported divergent results, fueling the controversy. Studies that compared SUs to metformin or newer agents, like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, suggest a difference in cardiovascular events, yet this is likely the result of beneficial effects of the latter. Studies comparing SUs to other agents have been reassuring. SUs remain a common choice of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes due to their exceptional value. They are effective at lowering glucose and thus contributing to the prevention of microvascular complications. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are their main side effects, although less severe when compared to insulin treatment. Their cardiovascular safety will remain a controversial topic due to lack of conclusive data, but there is no definitive evidence of harm with the second-generation agents.

Anti-diabetic potential of peptides: Future prospects as therapeutic agents

Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder in which the glucose level in blood exceeds beyond the normal level. Persistent hyperglycemia leads to diabetes late complication and obviously account for a large number of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Numerous therapeutic options are available for the treatment of diabetes including insulin for type I and oral tablets for type II, but its effective management is still a dream. To date, several options are under investigation in various research laboratories for efficacious and safer agents. Of them, peptides are currently amongst the most widely investigated potential therapeutic agents whose design and optimal uses are under development. A number of natural and synthetic peptides have so far been found with outstanding antidiabetic effect mediated through diverse mechanisms. The applications of new emerging techniques and drug delivery systems further offer opportunities to achieve the desired target outcomes. Some outstanding peptides in preclinical and clinical studies with better efficacy and safety profile have already been identified. Further detail studies on these peptides may therefore lead to significant clinically useful antidiabetic agents.

Improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: Stimulate insulin secretion or provide beta-cell rest?

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is characterized by a gradual decline in pancreatic beta cell function that determines the progressive course of the disease. While beta-cell failure is an important contributor to hyperglycaemia, chronic hyperglycaemia itself is also detrimental for beta-cell function, probably by inducing prolonged secretory stress on the beta cell as well as through direct glucotoxic mechanisms that have not been fully defined. For years, research has been carried out in search of therapies targeting hyperglycaemia that preserve long-term beta-cell function in T2D, a quest that is still ongoing. Current strategies aim to improve glycaemic control, either by promoting endogenous insulin secretion, such as sulfonylureas, or by mechanisms that may impact the beta cell indirectly, for example, providing beta-cell rest through insulin treatment. Although overall long-term success is limited with currently available interventions, in this review we argue that strategies that induce beta-cell rest have considerable potential to preserve long-term beta-cell function. This is based on laboratory-based studies involving human islets as well as clinical studies employing intensive insulin therapy, thiazolidinediones, bariatric surgery, short-acting glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists and a promising new class of diabetes drugs, sodium-glucose-linked transporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors. Nevertheless, a lack of long-term clinical studies that focus on beta-cell function for the newer glucose-lowering agents, as well as commonly used combination therapies, preclude a straightforward conclusion; this gap in our knowledge should be a focus of future studies.

Three-year efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly: A pooled analysis of three trials

AIMS

To evaluate the 3-year efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly (QW) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a large clinical population.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of three DURATION studies examined pooled efficacy and adverse events with exenatide QW from the 2.5- to 3-year completer populations; insulin glargine (glargine) was a reference (DURATION-3). Patients randomized to exenatide QW during the controlled study periods continued controlled treatment (DURATION-3) or single-arm treatment (DURATION-1; DURATION-2) with exenatide QW for the study duration.

RESULTS

In the exenatide QW group (N=329), reductions from baseline in HbA1c, fasting glucose, and body weight were maintained from weeks 4 to 156 (HbA1c: -1.1±1.3%; fasting glucose: -1.7±2.7mmol/L; body weight: -2.4±5.6kg; P<0.05). Glycemic efficacy with exenatide QW and glargine was similar (HbA1c reduction: -0.8±1.0%; N=158); body weight increased with glargine (+2.0±4.9kg). Variable reductions in systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol occurred with exenatide QW. At week 156, 48.3% and 30.7% of exenatide QW recipients achieved HbA1c goals of <7.0% and ≤6.5%, respectively. No new safety or tolerability issues were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide QW improved glycemic outcomes and was well tolerated in patients with T2D for up to 156weeks.

Relevance of weight in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: towards an adipocentric approach to diabetes

In recent decades, there has been a worldwide parallel increase in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which is not surprising, given that increased visceral fat is the main risk factor for the development of T2DM in genetically predisposed individuals. An intervention focused on intensive blood glucose control in T2DM with classic drugs increases the risk of weight gain and the rate of hypoglycaemia. In contrast, weight loss through lifestyle changes, drugs and/or surgery simultaneously improves most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, including hyperglycemia. Intensive intervention on lifestyle induces an overall benefit in patients with T2DM, but long-term weight loss is modest and has not been shown to reduce CV morbidity and mortality. The emergence of new therapeutic classes for T2DM and obesity, which simultaneously improve HbA1c, weight and other CV risk factors without inducing hypoglycaemia, represents a major change in the management of patients with diabesity. A sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist have recently been shown to decrease CV and total mortality in type 2 diabetic patients with CV disease. Furthermore, bariatric surgery rapidly induces remission or improvement of T2DM in a large percentage of patients and reduces diabetes-related mortality. The emergence of new therapies raises the possibility of changing the current glucose-centred therapeutic strategy for a weight-centred approach.

Efficacy of Exenatide Plus Pioglitazone Vs Basal/Bolus Insulin in T2DM Patients With Very High HbA1c

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with exenatide plus pioglitazone vs basal/bolus insulin in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with very high hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (>10%) receiving sulfonylurea plus metformin and with a long duration of disease.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants (n = 101) in the Qatar Study with very poor glycemic control (HbA1c >10%) and a long duration of diabetes (10.9 years) receiving maximum/near-maximum doses of sulfonylurea plus metformin were randomly assigned to receive pioglitazone plus weekly exenatide (combination therapy), or basal plus prandial insulin (insulin therapy), to maintain HbA1c <7.0%.

RESULTS

Baseline HbA1c was 11.5% ± 0.2% and 11.2% ± 0.2% (P = not significant) in combination therapy and insulin therapy groups, respectively. At 6 months, combination therapy caused a robust decrease in HbA1c to 6.7% ± 0.1% (∆ = -4.8%) compared with 7.4% ± 0.1% (∆ = -3.8%) in subjects receiving insulin therapy. Combination therapy was effective in lowering the HbA1c independent of sex, ethnicity, or body mass index. Subjects in the insulin therapy group experienced significantly greater weight gain and a 2.5-fold higher rate of hypoglycemia compared with patients receiving combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

Exenatide/pioglitazone combination therapy is an effective and safe therapeutic option in patients with poorly controlled T2DM receiving metformin plus sulfonylurea with very high HbA1c (>10%).

Effects of glucose-lowering agents on ischemic stroke

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events, including ischemic stroke. Moreover, ischemic stroke appears to be more severe in these patients and to be associated with less favorable outcomes. However, strict glycemic control does not appear to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. On the other hand, newer glucose-lowering agents (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in recent randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Semaglutide also reduced the risk of ischemic stroke. These benefits are independent of glucose lowering and might be due to the favorable effects of these agents on body weight and blood pressure. Pioglitazone also reduced the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with insulin resistance or type 2 DM but the unfavorable safety profile limits its use. In contrast, sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have a neutral effect on cardiovascular morbidity and might be less attractive options in this high-risk population.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness research

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) act by increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and increasing satiety.

OBJECTIVE

Published evidence directly comparing GLP-1RAs with other approved treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) was systematically reviewed.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify papers comparing GLP-1RAs with other classes of glucose-lowering therapy in patients with T2D.

RESULTS

Of the 1303 papers identified, 57 met the prespecified criteria for a high-quality clinical trial or retrospective study. The efficacy and tolerability of approved GLP-1RAs (exenatide twice daily or once weekly, dulaglutide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and albiglutide) were compared with insulin products (23 prospective studies + seven retrospective studies), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (11 prospective studies + three retrospective studies), sulfonylureas (nine prospective studies + one retrospective study), thiazolidinediones (five prospective studies), and metformin (two prospective studies). GLP-1RAs are effective as a second-line therapy in improving glycemic parameters in patients with T2D. Reductions in glycated hemoglobin from baseline with GLP-1RAs tended to be greater or similar compared with insulin therapy. GLP-1RAs were consistently more effective in reducing body weight than most oral glucose-lowering drugs and insulin and were associated with lower hypoglycemia risk versus insulin or sulfonylureas. GLP-1RAs improved cardiovascular risk factors, and preliminary data suggest they improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with T2D compared with oral glucose-lowering drugs. However, results from ongoing studies are awaited to confirm these early findings.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review found that GLP-1RAs are an effective class of glucose-lowering drugs for T2D.