GLP-1 RAs as compared to prandial insulin after failure of basal insulin in type 2 diabetes: lessons from the 4B and Get-Goal DUO 2 trials

Titratable fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin plus a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist: A novel, simplified alternative to premix insulin for type 2 diabetes

Despite novel therapeutic options, many people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not achieve their HbA1c targets. Given the progressive nature of T2D, many individuals not controlled with oral therapy will require advancement to injectable therapy using either a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), recently recommended as a first option, or traditionally a basal insulin. However, premix insulins remain frequently used, either as initial injectable therapy or as intensification from basal insulin. Premix insulin injections can potentially provide significant glycaemic improvements to basal insulin but at the expense of increased hypoglycaemia and weight gain and the need for multiple daily doses, which may affect treatment adherence. Real-world evidence suggests that glycaemic control often remains suboptimal with premix insulins. Fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs provide a novel alternative to premix insulin for therapy intensification. While no direct comparisons between premix insulins and FRCs are available, results from meta-analyses suggest that FRCs may offer better HbA1c reductions, a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain compared with premix insulin in a simplified treatment regimen. A head-to-head trial of T2D treatment intensification with premix insulin and a FRC of basal insulin plus a GLP-1 RA is currently in progress, which should help to clarify the outcomes for each treatment option. This review discusses the unmet needs of people with T2D treated with premix insulin and provides evidence supporting FRCs of basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs as an alternative treatment option.

Anti-diabetic drugs recent approaches and advancements

Diabetes is one of the major diseases worldwide and is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Anti-diabetic drugs are used in the treatment of diabetes mellitus to control glucose levels in the blood. Most of the drugs are administered orally, except for a few of them, such as insulin, exenatide, and pramlintide. In this review, we are going to discuss seven major types of anti-diabetic drugs: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonist, protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B) inhibitors, aldose reductase inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitors, G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT) inhibitors. Here, we are also discussing some of the recently reported anti-diabetic agents with its multi-target pharmacological actions. This review summarises recent approaches and advancement in anti-diabetes treatment concerning characteristics, structure-activity relationships, functional mechanisms, expression regulation, and applications in medicine.

Efficacy and Safety of iGlarLixi, Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide, Compared with Basal-Bolus Regimen in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Propensity Score Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Basal-bolus (BB) regimens are generally used to intensify basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not meeting glycemic targets. However, drawbacks include multiple injection burden and risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia. A once-daily titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) may provide a simple, well-tolerated, and efficacious alternative. We compared these treatments in a post hoc propensity score matched analysis using randomized trial data.

METHODS

From the LixiLan-L study, 195 patients who had been randomized to iGlarLixi were matched for age, sex, race, T2D duration, baseline body mass index, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, insulin dose, and metformin use to 195 patients who had been randomized to a BB regimen in the GetGoal Duo-2 trial.

RESULTS

At study end, estimated treatment differences for reduction in HbA1c and weight change, and ratio of hypoglycemia events per patient-year (BB vs iGlarLixi) were - 0.28% (standard error 0.08, P = 0.0002), - 1.32 kg (standard error 0.30, P < 0.0001), and 2.85 (P < 0.0001), respectively, all favoring iGlarLixi over BB. Also, proportions of patients reaching individual and composite goals (HbA1c < 7% [< 53 mmol/mol], no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia) were higher in the iGlarLixi compared with the BB treatment group. Gastrointestinal side effects were more common with iGlarLixi.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin, iGlarLixi offers an effective alternative to BB regimen for reducing HbA1c, without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02058160 (LixiLan-L trial); NCT01768559 (GetGoal Duo-2 trial). Plain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Semaglutide Versus Placebo Added to Insulin With or Without Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER 8 Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral semaglutide added to insulin with or without metformin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on insulin with or without metformin were randomized to oral semaglutide 3 mg (N = 184), 7 mg (N = 182), or 14 mg (N = 181) or to placebo (N = 184) in a 52-week, double-blind trial. End points were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA_1c (primary) and body weight (confirmatory secondary). Two estimands were defined: treatment policy (effect regardless of trial product discontinuation or rescue medication) and trial product (effect assuming trial product continuation without rescue medication) in randomized patients.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was superior to placebo in reducing HbA_1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.5% [95% CI -0.7, -0.3], -0.9% [-1.1, -0.7], and -1.2% [-1.4, -1.0] for 3, 7, and 14 mg, respectively; P < 0.001) and body weight (ETD -0.9 kg [95% CI -1.8, -0.0], -2.0 kg [-3.0, -1.0], and -3.3 kg [-4.2, -2.3]; P = 0.0392 for 3 mg, P ≤ 0.0001 for 7 and 14 mg) at week 26 (treatment policy estimand). Significantly greater dose-dependent HbA_1c and body weight reductions versus placebo were achieved with oral semaglutide at weeks 26 and 52 (both estimands). The most frequent adverse event with oral semaglutide was nausea (11.4-23.2% of patients vs. 7.1% with placebo; mostly mild to moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide was superior to placebo in reducing HbA_1c and body weight when added to insulin with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety profile was consistent with other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

Optimizing Fixed-Ratio Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D) means that many patients will require basal insulin therapy at some point in the course of the disease due to β-cell failure. As basal insulin primarily targets fasting plasma glucose, patients may still experience considerable postprandial glucose excursions and therefore require an additional agent to achieve good glycemic control. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) provide an alternative to prandial insulin, with the benefits of fewer daily injections, and a lower risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Two fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA are now available in the USA and the EU: insulin glargine + lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) and insulin degludec + liraglutide (IDegLira). Titratable FRCs are suitable for most patients with T2D and can help to simplify treatment regimens into one daily injection, potentially aiding in patient adherence. The complementary modes of action of the two components target seven of the many known pathophysiologic defects in T2D. FRCs have demonstrated enhanced glycemic control compared with their constituent components alone, comparable risk of hypoglycemia compared with basal insulin alone, and better tolerability compared with the GLP-1RA component alone due to the slower titration. In this article, we discuss the advantages of FRCs over multiple daily injections, present case studies of typical patients who could benefit from FRC therapy, and outline practical considerations for the initiation of FRC therapy in clinical practice.Funding Sanofi.

Intensification of Basal Insulin Therapy with Lixisenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: The BASAL-LIXI Study

•

Adding lixisenatide to basal insulin was effective for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

•

Glycemic control improved and body weight lowered during 24 weeks of treatment.

•

These benefits were achieved with a low risk of hypoglycemia in clinical practice.

•

These findings in the clinical practice setting support those of clinical trials.

Background

Basal insulin reduces fasting blood glucose levels, but postprandial blood glucose levels may remain higher. Traditional strategies with rapid insulin intensification can cause hypoglycemic episodes and weight gain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as the short-acting lixisenatide, are able to control postprandial excursions, without weight gain, and with a low risk of hypoglycemic events.

Objective

Due to the limited data on the combination of lixisenatide with basal insulin (with or without oral antidiabetes drugs) in clinical practice, this study evaluated changes in parameters associated with glycemic control and anthropometric data after 24 weeks of this therapy intensification.

Methods

This was a multicenter, retrospective observational study of 129 patients with type 2 diabetes that was uncontrolled by basal insulin. Their treatment was intensified by the addition of lixisenatide at least 24 weeks before being included in the study. Data were retrospectively collected to determine changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood glucose levels, weight, and body mass index. Adverse reactions and hypoglycemic events were also recorded.

Results

After 24 weeks of therapy intensification with lixisenatide, a significant reduction in HbA1c levels was observed (–1.1%; P < 0.001). An HbA1c <7% was achieved in 30.2% of patients, and 17.1% reached an HbA1c <6.5%. There was a reduction in fasting blood glucose (31.8 [60.3] mg/dL; P < 0.001) and postprandial blood glucose (55.0 [49] mg/dL; P < 0.001) levels, as well as body weight (4.0 [5.4] kg; P < 0.001) and body mass index (1.5 [1.9]; P < 0.001). The most commonly observed adverse reactions were nausea (n = 9), in line with previous studies. Hypoglycemia events were rare; only reported in 2 patients.

Conclusions

Intensification strategy based on lixisenatide added to basal insulin (with or without oral antidiabetes drugs) can be an effective treatment option in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. In this small, selected population, glycemic control was significantly improved in terms of HbA1, fasting blood glucose levels, and postprandial glucose levels, with a reduction of body weight and low risk of hypoglycemic events. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2018; 79:XXX–XXX)

Strategies for implementing effective mealtime insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a growing global epidemic. Due to the progressive nature of the disease, many people with T2D require insulin at some point, most commonly a long-acting (basal) insulin to assist with 24-h control of glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE

This opinion paper provides an overview of considerations for primary care providers (PCPs) in intensifying the treatment regimen when basal insulin therapy is inadequate.

RESULTS

Control of mealtime hyperglycemia, in addition to fasting hyperglycemia, has been shown to be crucial in reaching A1c goals of <7.0%. However, initiating and optimizing mealtime insulin therapy can be challenging for both people with T2D and PCPs, due to a perceived lack of efficacy and burden of insulin treatment, causing "psychological insulin resistance" in people with T2D and clinical inertia among PCPs. Successful implementation of mealtime insulin therapy requires not only choosing appropriate treatment strategies, but also addressing patient-related behavioral and emotional barriers. Simplified treatment algorithms, combined with the use of advanced technology (devices such as insulin pens, pumps, and patches), and collaborative decision-making can help decrease barriers to effective mealtime insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to implement an effective basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T2D in a way that improves glucose control while minimizing negative effects on quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and psychological well-being.

A Review of Basal-Bolus Therapy Using Insulin Glargine and Insulin Lispro in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Basal-bolus therapy (BBT) refers to the combination of a long-acting basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin at mealtimes. Basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and prandial insulin lispro have been available for many years and there is a substantial evidence base to support the efficacy and safety of these agents when they are used in BBT or basal-plus therapy for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM, T2DM). With the growing availability of alternative insulins for use in such regimens, it seems timely to review the data regarding BBT with insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin lispro. In patients with T1DM, BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro provides similar or better glycemic control and leads to less nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to BBT using human insulin as the basal and/or prandial component, and generally provides similar glycemic control and rates of severe hypoglycemia to those achieved with insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Studies evaluating BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro in patients with T2DM also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these insulins. Available data suggest that BBT with insulin glargine and insulin lispro provides similar levels of efficacy and safety in pediatric and adult populations with T1DM and in adult patients and those aged more than 65 years with T2DM. These insulin preparations also appear to be safe and effective for controlling T2DM in people of different ethnicities and in patients with T1DM or T2DM and comorbidities.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Reasons for discontinuation of GLP1 receptor agonists: data from a real-world cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

Nonadherence to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs) is relatively common among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study sought to identify reasons why patients discontinue GLP1 RAs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective data from the Adelphi Diabetes Disease Specific Programme were used. Physicians managing patients with T2DM were surveyed via face-to-face interviews, and patients treated for T2DM were surveyed via self-completed questionnaires. Patient data were stratified by current versus prior GLP1 RA use.

RESULTS

Physicians (n=443) most frequently reported inadequate blood glucose control (45.6%), nausea/vomiting (43.8%), and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects (36.8%) as reasons for GLP1 RA discontinuation. Patients (n=194) reported the GI-related issues "Made me feel sick" (64.4%) and "Made me throw up" (45.4%) as their top reasons for discontinuation. The most common problems reported (excluding cost) for those currently using GLP1 RAs were "Prefer oral medication over injections" (patients 56%, physicians 32.6%), "Made me feel sick" (patients 38.1%, physicians 16.3%), and "Did not help lose weight" (patients 25.4%, physicians 18%). The most bothersome problems for patients globally (frequency reporting very/extremely bothersome) (excluding cost) were "Difficult to plan meals around" (55.6%), "Made me throw up" (51.6%), and "Caused weight gain" (50%).

CONCLUSION

Both patients and physicians reported GI-related issues as a prominent factor, but disparities between patient experiences and physician perceptions were revealed, suggesting gaps in physician-patient communication. Understanding patients' expectations of GLP1 RAs and physicians' patient-management practices may help increase GLP1 RA adherence and thereby potentially enhance diabetes care.