Improved treatment satisfaction and weight-related quality of life with exenatide once weekly or twice daily

[Unmet needs in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus. How can barriers to insulin therapy be overcome?]

According to the current treatment guidelines, the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus should follow a stepwise therapy adjustment and intensification approach as soon as blood glucose control is no longer achieved with preceding diabetes treatment. However, clinical practice shows that the recommended steps for therapy escalation are often not followed, and treatment intensification is delayed. Especially the initiation with insulin and its intensification is often considerably delayed, even though the patient has high blood glucose levels, remaining above target even for years. In addition, treatment adherence is often lower with insulin therapy than with other antidiabetic treatment. This is problematic in terms of the risks for morbidity and mortality due to microvascular and macrovascular complications. The phenomenon known as therapeutic inertia occurs mainly with chronic diseases. The reasons thereof are complex and can be related to the person with diabetes and/or the healthcare professional. Main reasons are the frequency of insulin injections and a rigid treatment regimen, which are perceived as inconvenient and restrictive. Also, the complexity of insulin treatment, the required training, and its negative image of insulin as "last option" are negatively perceived. Results from surveys show that patients and physicians would prefer injections to be administered less frequently. Experience with once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RA) has been encouraging in terms of efficacy, adherence, and patient satisfaction. Intensive research is currently being conducted on novel insulin analogues with once-weekly application.

Value of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins for type 2 diabetes patients with and without established cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using real-world data

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model was utilized to estimate healthcare costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of receiving treatments over 10 years from the healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were derived from the analyses of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database or published literature on Taiwanese T2D populations. Base-case analysis was performed for the overall study cohort and subgroup analyses were stratified by the presence or absence of established cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) or chronic kidney diseases (CKDs).

RESULTS

Overall, using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs cost $6,053 per QALY gained. Results were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Among patients with established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy saved $673 (cost-saving) and cost $1,675 per QALY gained, respectively. Among patients without established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy cost $9,093 and $7,659 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for T2D patients represented good economic value in real-world practice. Pronounced economic benefits of GLP-1RA therapy among those with prior CVDs or CKDs support rational treatment decisions and optimal healthcare resource allocation for these patients.

Disutility of injectable therapies in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: general population preferences in the UK, Canada, and China

INTRODUCTION

Once-daily and once-weekly injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies (GLP-1 RAs) are established in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In T2DM, both once-daily and once-weekly insulin are expected to be available. This study elicited utilities associated with these treatment regimens from members of the general public in the UK, Canada, and China, to quantify administration-related disutility of more-frequent injectable treatment, and allow economic modelling.

METHODS

Two anchor states (no pharmacological treatment), and seven treatment states (daily oral tablet and generic injectable regimens of variable frequency), with identical outcomes were tested A broadly representative sample of the general public in each country participated (excluding individuals with diabetes or pharmacologically treated obesity). An adapted Measurement and Valuation of Health protocol was administered 1:1 in web-enabled interviews by trained moderators: visual analogue scale (VAS) as a "warm-up", and time trade-off (TTO) using a 20-year time horizon for utility elicitation.

RESULTS

A total of 310 individuals participated. The average disutility of once-daily versus once-weekly GLP-1 RA was - 0.048 in obesity and - 0.033 in T2DM; the corresponding average disutility for insulin was - 0.064. Disutilities were substantially greater in China, relative to UK and Canada.

DISCUSSION

Within obesity and T2DM, more-frequent treatment health states had lower utility. Scores by VAS also followed a logical order. The generated utility values are suitable for use in modelling injectable therapy regimens in obesity and T2DM, due to the use of generic descriptions and assumption of equal efficacy. Future research could examine the reasons for greater administration-related disutility in China.

Changes in Treatment Satisfaction Over 3 Years in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes After Initiating Second-line Treatment

CONTEXT

J-DISCOVER is a prospective observational cohort study aiming to understand the current management of patients with early-stage type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan, enrolling patients initiating second-line treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The current analysis examined the change in treatment satisfaction during the study period and factors affecting this change among patients in J-DISCOVER.

METHODS

We used data from the J-DISCOVER study, in which 1798 patients with T2DM aged ≥ 20 years were enrolled from 142 sites across Japan. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ).

RESULTS

The mean DTSQ treatment satisfaction score increased from 25.9 points at baseline to 27.3 points at 6 months, which was maintained through 36 months. Among the baseline characteristics examined, higher baseline DTSQ treatment satisfaction scores (P < 0.0001), older age (≥ 75 vs < 65 years, P = 0.0096), living alone (P = 0.0356), and type of facility (clinics vs hospitals, P = 0.0044) had a significantly negative impact on the changes in DTSQ treatment satisfaction scores. Improvement in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (7.7%) to 36 months (7.1%) was associated with positive changes in the DTSQ treatment satisfaction score (P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Changes in DTSQ treatment satisfaction scores were related to HbA1c improvement, suggesting that the management strategy was appropriately planned for each patient. The results also suggest that the availability of social support for patients with T2DM who are elderly or living alone may be an important factor affecting treatment satisfaction, adherence, and clinical outcomes.

Effects of Metabolic Medicine and Metabolic Surgery on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The assessment and management of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is considered secondary to that of cardiometabolic outcomes. When assessed, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), a PRO, can yield pertinent information that cannot be obtained from cardiometabolic assessments. For instance, physical and mental distress can be quantified and treated. Moreover, treatment convenience and satisfaction can be gaged. Behavioral modification, bariatric surgery, and pharmacotherapy can improve PROs. Typically, HRQOL is responsive to changes in weight. Specifically, weight loss and weight gain are associated with positive and negative changes in quality of life, respectively. In addition, patient satisfaction can be influenced by glycemic control. Therefore, hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic episodes can negatively affect patient satisfaction. When managing type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider how therapies impact PROs. Generally, changes in clinical outcomes mirror changes in PROs. To best manage T2D, integrating the assessment of PROs with clinical outcomes is needed.

Simplification of complex insulin regimens using canagliflozin or liraglutide in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes: A 24-week randomized controlled trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We investigated the potential use of canagliflozin, in comparison with liraglutide, as an alternative to bolus insulin in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving multiple daily insulin injection therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 40 patients, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels <7.5% controlled by multiple daily insulin injection therapy, all bolus insulin was randomly switched to canagliflozin (100 mg/day) or liraglutide (0.3-0.9 mg/day) for 24 weeks. Basal insulin was continued with dose adjustment according to a predefined algorithm. The end-points were the change in the HbA1c level, glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, body mass index, insulin dose, quality of life (QOL) and safety assessments. Factors influencing the changes in QOL were also assessed using a simple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The change in HbA1c from baseline was comparable between the treatments. Both treatments maintained the HbA1c level to the baseline levels with stable glucose variability and no severe hypoglycemia for 24 weeks, decreased total insulin dose, and significantly increased the QOL score. The change in QOL was significantly associated with injection frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, under the support of basal insulin, complex insulin regimens can be simplified by replacing all bolus insulin with once-daily canagliflozin or liraglutide, which improves patients' QOL.

Therapeutic targets, novel drugs, and delivery systems for diabetes associated NAFLD and liver fibrosis

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) associated non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the fourth-leading cause of death. Hyperglycemia induces various complications, including nephropathy, cirrhosis and eventually hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There are several etiological factors leading to liver disease development, which involve insulin resistance and oxidative stress. Free fatty acid (FFA) accumulation in the liver exerts oxidative and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stresses. Hepatocyte injury induces release of inflammatory cytokines from Kupffer cells (KCs), which are responsible for activating hepatic stellate cells (HSCs). In this review, we will discuss various molecular targets for treating chronic liver diseases, including homeostasis of FFA, lipid metabolism, and decrease in hepatocyte apoptosis, role of growth factors, and regulation of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and HSC activation. This review will also critically assess different strategies to enhance drug delivery to different cell types. Targeting nanocarriers to specific liver cell types have the potential to increase efficacy and suppress off-target effects.

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

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

A Randomized, Open-Label Comparison of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Titration Strategies Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100

OBJECTIVE

Insulin icodec is a novel once-weekly basal insulin analog. This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of icodec using different once-weekly titration algorithms.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a phase 2, randomized, open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study. Insulin-naive adults (n = 205) with type 2 diabetes and HbA_1c 7-10% while treated with oral glucose-lowering medications initiated once-weekly icodec titrations A (prebreakfast self-measured blood glucose target 80-130 mg/dL; adjustment ±21 units/week; n = 51), B (80-130 mg/dL; ±28 units/week; n = 51), or C (70-108 mg/dL; ±28 units/week; n = 52), or once-daily insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) (80-130 mg/dL; ±4 units/day; n = 51), all titrated weekly. Percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16 was measured using continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

TIR improved from baseline (means: A, 57.0%; B, 55.2%; C, 51.0%; IGlar U100, 55.3%) to weeks 15 and 16 (estimated mean: A, 76.6%; B, 83.0%; C, 80.9%; IGlar U100, 75.9%). TIR was greater for titration B than for IGlar U100 (estimated treatment difference 7.08%-points; 95% CI 2.12 to 12.04; P = 0.005). No unexpected safety signals were observed. Level 2 hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was low in all groups (0.05, 0.15, 0.38, 0.00 events per patient-year of exposure for icodec titrations A, B, and C and IGlar U100, respectively), with no episodes of severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly icodec was efficacious and well tolerated across all three titration algorithms investigated. The results for icodec titration A (80-130 mg/dL; ±21 units/week) displayed the best balance between glycemic control and risk of hypoglycemia.

Impact of actual waiting time and perceived waiting time on treatment satisfaction in patients receiving outpatient diabetes care

Aims

We investigated the impact of actual waiting time and perceived waiting time on treatment satisfaction in patients with diabetes receiving outpatient care.

Methods

Three hundred and thirty-six outpatients diagnosed with diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance were selected and the time they spent in reception, blood collection, consultation, and accounting were recorded to measure the time they spent waiting in the hospital (actual waiting time). Simultaneously, we conducted a questionnaire survey that included questions on their perceptions of the waiting time (perceived waiting time) and satisfaction with treatment (DTSQ).

Results

No significant relationship was found between actual waiting time and DTSQ score, although associations were observed with perceived waiting time. The patients who felt the overall waiting time was long scored 23.0, those who felt it was short scored 26.0, and those who felt it was very short scored 34.0, with those who felt the waiting time was long having a significantly lower score (p = 0.004, p < 0.001, respectively) and those who felt it was short having a significantly lower score than those who felt it was very short (p = 0.008). In addition, more patients who felt the waiting time was long expressed dissatisfaction with the responses of doctors and staff than those who felt the waiting time was short.

Conclusions

These results suggest that in addition to reducing actual waiting times, shortening perceived waiting times by improving the responses of medical staff could help to increase patient satisfaction.

GLP-1 receptor agonists: an updated review of head-to-head clinical studies

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are attractive options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) because they effectively lower A1C and weight while having a low risk of hypoglycemia. Some also have documented cardiovascular benefit. The GLP-1 RA class has grown in the last decade, with several agents available for use in the United States and Europe. Since the efficacy and tolerability, dosing frequency, administration requirements, and cost may vary between agents within the class, each agent may offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Through a review of phase III clinical trials studying dulaglutide, exenatide twice daily, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and oral semaglutide, 14 head-to-head trials were identified that evaluated the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RA active comparators. The purpose of this review is to provide an analysis of these trials. The GLP-1 RA head-to-head clinical studies have demonstrated that all GLP-1 RA agents are effective therapeutic options at reducing A1C. However, differences exist in terms of magnitude of effect on A1C and weight as well as frequency of adverse effects.

Repurposing anti-diabetic drugs for the treatment of Parkinson's disease: Rationale and clinical experience

The most pressing need in Parkinson's disease (PD) clinical practice is to identify agents that might slow down, stop or reverse the neurodegenerative process of Parkinson's disease and therefore avoid the onset of the most disabling, dopa-refractory symptoms of the disease. These include dementia, speech and swallowing problems, poor balance and falling. To date, there have been no agents which have yet had robust trial data to confirm positive effects at slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process of PD. In this chapter we will review the reasons why there is growing interest in drugs currently licensed for the treatment of diabetes as agents which may slow down disease progression in PD, including a review of the published trials regarding exenatide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist licensed to treat type 2 diabetes, and recently shown to be associated with reduced severity of PD in a randomized, placebo controlled washout design trial of 60 patients treated for 48 weeks. This subject is now a major area of interest for multiple pharmaceutical companies hoping to bring GLP-1 receptor agonists forward as treatment options in PD.

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

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

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.

Improvement in treatment satisfaction after switching from liraglutide to dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We compared treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients taking daily and weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a 12-week, multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison trial. The participants were Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes being administered with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide, daily for >3 months. Patients were randomly assigned to either continue taking liraglutide once daily (Lira group) or switch to dulaglutide once weekly (Dula group). The primary outcome was the change in the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score from baseline to week 12 in the two groups. The secondary outcomes comprised changes in the Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life score, body mass and glycemic control.

RESULTS

A total of 33 participants were initially enrolled in the trial, and 31 participants completed the protocol. The change in the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score in the Dula group was significantly greater than that in the Lira group (+0.1 ± 4.7 in the Lira group vs +4.9 ± 5.2 in the Dula group; P = 0.013). The change in Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life score in the Dula group was significantly greater than that in the Lira group (-3.7 ± 6.9 vs +8.9 ± 15.1; P = 0.007). There were no significant differences between groups in the changes in body mass, plasma glucose or glycated hemoglobin.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly administration of dulaglutide was superior to liraglutide with regard to treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes, in the absence of any negative effect on glycemic control.

Introduction

This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. McGill has received grants and personal fees from Novo Nordisk; grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lexicon, and Pfizer; and personal fees from Intarcia, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Mannkind, Bayer, and Merck.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessments with Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with significant impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A patient-centered collaborative approach is recommended to optimize clinical outcomes, including HRQoL, in this patient population. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) provide effective glycemic control and have demonstrated beneficial effects on HRQoL and treatment satisfaction. Available once-weekly GLP-1 RAs may offer enhanced convenience compared with daily GLP-1 RAs and include exenatide extended-release (ER), dulaglutide, and semaglutide. This article reviews the impact of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs on HRQoL and treatment satisfaction in patients with T2DM. Compared with oral antihyperglycemic drugs, insulin, and daily GLP-1 RAs, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs offer benefits with regard to HRQoL and treatment satisfaction. These benefits appear to be largely mediated by relative drug effects on glycemic control, weight, and hypoglycemia. While there was not an overall class benefit of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs compared with daily GLP-1 RAs on HRQoL and treatment satisfaction, results suggested that once-weekly GLP-1 RAs may enhance certain elements of treatment satisfaction and increase willingness to continue treatment. In 2 studies comparing once-weekly GLP-1 RAs with each other, semaglutide produced significantly greater improvement in overall treatment satisfaction compared with exenatide ER but not dulaglutide. Once-weekly GLP-1 RAs represent an effective and convenient treatment option that may potentially increase treatment satisfaction and enhance adherence, contributing to improved health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES

This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. Billings reports personal fees from Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Handelsman reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and has served in advisory capacity to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Heile reports speaker fees from and has served as advisor to Novo Nordisk. Schneider reports advisory board fees from Intarcia, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Wyne has nothing to disclose.

Reproducibility and Validity of a Questionnaire Measuring Treatment Burden on Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Diabetic Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ)

INTRODUCTION

To measure the burden of pharmacotherapy on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we developed the Diabetes Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ), a patient-administered questionnaire composed of 18 questions, and evaluated its reproducibility and validity.

METHODS

We enrolled 240 patients with T2DM under pharmacotherapy over 20 years of age at seven institutes in Japan. Their physicians filled out report forms on patient backgrounds, and the patients answered both the DTBQ and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). For evaluation of reproducibility, 48 of the enrolled subjects completed a 2nd DTBQ at home after leaving the medical institutes.

RESULTS

Statistical analyses were performed for two sets of subjects, the validity analysis set (N = 236) and the reproducibility analysis set (N = 47). Factor analysis found a simple structure in the DTBQ item scores using a three-factor model with varimax rotation; the three subscales were designated as "implementation burden", "flexibility burden", and "blood glucose control burden". All intraclass correlation coefficients for the subscale scores were 0.8 or higher, indicating high reproducibility. Negative correlations were observed between the DTSQ satisfaction score and the DTBQ subscale scores. Moreover, as the dosing frequency of diabetic medicines increased, the DTBQ total score (total burden score) also became higher. Likewise, expected associations were observed between patient backgrounds and DTSQ scores.

CONCLUSION

The DTBQ has adequate reproducibility and validity as a measurement scale for treatment burden on T2DM patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) 000026382.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly Japan.

Use of Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in Diabetes Care: Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes

The efficacy of diabetes treatment should not be evaluated solely by HbA1c levels as they should also focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as patient satisfaction, wellbeing and quality of life. The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) has been developed to assess patient satisfaction with diabetes treatment. DTSQ has been translated into more than 100 languages and is widely used in many countries, since it is relatively easy to answer and is used for both patients with and without medical therapy. Novel therapeutic options, such as insulin analogs, incretin-based therapy and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, have been shown to improve patient satisfaction using DTSQ for assessments. DTSQ is not only used for comparisons between different medications or treatment strategies, but also can be used to assess the quality of diabetes care in clinical settings. This is important as an improvement in treatment satisfaction may enhance patients’ self-efficacy and adherence to therapy, leading to the achievement of long-term stable glycemic control and reduced risk of diabetic complications. In this review, we summarize the current topics in DTSQ, introducing our own experience, and discuss the role of PROs in diabetes treatment.

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: clinical consequences and strategies for improvement

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications is often suboptimal in patients with type 2 diabetes, and this can contribute to poor glycemic control, increased hospitalization, and the development of diabetic complications. Reported adherence rates to antihyperglycemics vary widely among studies, and this may be related to differences in methodology for measuring adherence, patient populations, and other factors. Poor adherence may occur regardless of the specific regimen used and whether therapy is oral or injectable, and can be especially common in chronic, asymptomatic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. More convenient drug-administration regimens and advances in formulations and delivery devices are among strategies shown to improve adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy, especially for injectable therapy. This is exemplified by technological developments made in the drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, which are a focus of this narrative review. Dulaglutide, albiglutide, and prolonged-release exenatide have an extended duration of action and can be administered once weekly, whereas such agents as liraglutide require once-daily administration. The convenience of once-weekly versus once-daily administration is associated with better adherence in real-world studies involving this class of agent. Moreover, provision of a user-friendly delivery device has been shown to overcome initial resistance to injectable therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that recent innovations in drug formulation (eg, ready-to-use formulations) and delivery systems (eg, single-dose prefilled pens and hidden, ready-attached needles) may be instrumental in encouraging patient acceptance. For physicians who aim to improve their patients' adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, it is thus important to consider the patient's therapeutic experience (treatment frequency, drug formulation, delivery device). Better adherence, powered by recent technological advances in the delivery of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, may thus lead to improved clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Treatment satisfaction with ITCA 650, a novel drug-device delivering continuous exenatide, versus twice-daily injections of exenatide in type 2 diabetics using metformin

AIMS

To evaluate treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not adequately controlled by metformin, randomized to ITCA 650 (continuous exenatide in osmotic mini-pump) vs twice-daily exenatide injections (Ex-BID).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Diabetes Medication Satisfaction Tool (DM-SAT) was administered and assessments were made at baseline, Week 8 and Week 20 during a 24-week open-label phase 2 trial. In Stage I (Weeks 1-12), 155 patients, comprising the ITT population, were randomized to 3 groups: ITCA 650 20 μg/day, ITCA 650 40 μg/day and Ex-BID 10 μg BID. In Stage II (Weeks 13-24), ITCA 650 groups were re-randomized to either remain on the Stage I dose or receive a higher dose. Patients treated with Ex-BID were randomized to 40 or 60 μg/day ITCA 650.

RESULTS

Patients using ITCA 650 reported significant increases in overall treatment satisfaction by Week 8 vs those using Ex-BID (P < .01), despite similar clinical efficacy and overall rates of nausea. During Stage II, further improvement in HbA1c and weight were seen after 3-fold dose escalation of ITCA 650 and treatment satisfaction was maintained. When patients using Ex-BID were switched to ITCA 650, treatment satisfaction increased and reached levels similar to those initially treated with ITCA 650. Neither GI side effects of nausea and/or vomiting, nor the procedure to sub-dermally place ITCA 650, significantly impacted treatment satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

ITCA 650 added to metformin for patients with T2D, and for those who switched to ITCA 650 from Ex-BID, meaningfully improved glucose control and significantly increased overall treatment satisfaction.

Satisfaction and efficacy of switching from daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to weekly trelagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes-Randomized controlled study

We compared treatment satisfaction between daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and a weekly DPP-4 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes. The study was a 12-week, open-label, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial. Participants were Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who had received daily DPP-4 inhibitors for more than 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned to a treatment cohort: (1) a group that continued taking daily DPP-4 inhibitors (daily group); or (2) a group that switched from daily DPP-4 inhibitors to a weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, trelagliptin (weekly group). The primary outcome was the change in treatment satisfaction levels from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups, according to Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life (DTR-QOL) questionnaire scores. The changes in glycemic control and body weight were also assessed. Of 49 patients initially enrolled in the study, 47 completed the study. The change in DTSQ scores in the weekly group was not significantly different from that in the daily group. However, the improvements in total score and subscale domains 1 and 2 in the DTR-QOL analysis, which relate to burden on social/daily activities and anxiety/dissatisfaction with treatment, were significantly greater in the weekly group than the daily group (p = 0.048, 0.013 and 0.045, respectively). Mean changes in glycated hemoglobin levels and body weight were comparable between the groups. Switching from daily DPP-4 inhibitors to a weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, trelagliptin, could partially improve treatment satisfaction levels in patients with type 2 diabetes without affecting glycemic control.

A Review of the Long-Term Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of Exenatide Once Weekly for Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Exenatide once weekly (ExeOW, Bydureon®, Astra Zeneca), a drug belonging to the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, is the first agent approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that can be administered on a weekly basis.

METHODS

Data concerning treatment of T2D with ExeOW are reviewed with special reference to its long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Relevant literature was identified through the PubMed database from inception to January 2015.

RESULTS

In randomized clinical trials ExeOW, as add-on to oral antidiabetics, achieved significantly improved glycemic control compared to maximum recommended doses of exenatide twice daily, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and insulin glargine, as measured by HbA1c. In drug-naïve patients ExeOW was superior to sitagliptin and non-inferior to metformin, whereas non-inferiority to pioglitazone and liraglutide was not proven. In different trials reductions in HbA1c ranged from -1.1% to -2.0%. ExeOW therapy over 6 months was also associated with a mean weight loss of -2 to -4 kg, improved systolic blood pressure and lipid profile, and no hypoglycemia unless associated to sulfonylurea. ExeOW long-term therapy up to 3-6 years allowed persistent glycemic control (HbA1c -1.6%), sustained decreases in blood pressure (-2 mmHg), and improvements of lipid profile. ExeOW tolerability was comparable to that of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists, with better gastrointestinal tolerability when direct comparison was done (namely liraglutide and exenatide BID), but higher incidence of injection site reactions and few treatment discontinuations mainly due to gastrointestinal events.

CONCLUSION

ExeOW is a well-tolerated and convenient option for long-term treatment of T2D allowing significant and persistent glycemic control with moderate weight loss and low risk of hypoglycemia unless associated with sulfonylureas.

Satisfaction of switching to combination therapy with lixisenatide and basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injection therapy: A randomized controlled trial

Aims/Introduction

We compared the satisfaction levels of patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing combination therapy with lixisenatide (LIX) and basal insulin with that of patients undergoing multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy.

Materials and Methods

The study was a 12‐week open‐label, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial. Participants were Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving MDI for >3 months. Patients were randomly assigned to each treatment cohort: (i) a group that continued MDI (MDI group); and (ii) a group that switched from MDI to combination therapy with LIX and basal insulin (LIX group). The primary outcome was change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from baseline to 12 weeks between these two groups. Key secondary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and body weight changes.

Results

A total of 31 patients were initially enrolled in the study, and 26 of them completed the study. The change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores in the LIX group was significantly greater compared with that in the MDI group. Mean changes in glycated hemoglobin levels were −0.05 ± 0.37% in the MDI group and 0.04 ± 0.38% in the LIX group (P = 0.36). Mean changes in body weight were +0.6 ± 1.8 kg in the MDI group and −2.5 ± 1.8 kg in the LIX group (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Switching from MDI to combination therapy with LIX and basal insulin improved satisfaction levels while maintaining glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) used in recent Phase 3 trials for Type 2 Diabetes: A review of concepts assessed by these PROs and factors to consider when choosing a PRO for future trials

AIMS

Many treatment options are available for people with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). While the goal of treatment is to reach target HbA1c levels, the psychological experience may be more tangible and meaningful for the patient. Together with biomarkers, Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) data provide a holistic understanding of the clinical and psychosocial impact of T2D and its treatment.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in multiple databases to identify PRO endpoints used in Phase 3 trials of newer classes of drugs for the treatment of T2D.

RESULTS

This review identified five PRO concepts which were evaluated as endpoints in Phase 3 trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists, novel insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors; symptoms, health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, satisfaction with treatment/health and impact of weight. Twenty PRO questionnaires were used to measure these concepts/endpoints directly from patients. The relevance of, and scientific basis for, these concepts as endpoints are discussed, the similarities and differences between questionnaires targeting the same concepts/endpoints are explored, and the sensitivity of the questionnaires to the experimental intervention is summarized. In addition, factors that should be considered when choosing PROs for future T2D trials are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The information gained from PROs in clinical trial research is important in defining treatment benefit within the context of the trial, and the potential benefit (i.e. better adherence) in clinical practice. However, variable results have been observed in recent trials and careful and systematic consideration should be given to PRO selection for future studies of T2D.

Exenatide Extended-Release: An Updated Review of Its Use in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Exenatide extended-release (exenatide ER) [Bydureon(®)] is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is injected subcutaneously by patients once weekly, with no dose titration required. This article updates an earlier review of exenatide ER in the management of type 2 diabetes, focusing on recently published data. In randomized, controlled trials, adjunctive exenatide ER 2 mg once weekly for 24-30 weeks significantly improved glycaemic control and reduced bodyweight in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes despite diet plus exercise and/or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs). These beneficial effects of exenatide ER were maintained after up to 6 years of treatment. In patients receiving one or more OADs, addition of exenatide ER provided better glycaemic control than an immediate-release formulation of exenatide (exenatide twice daily), sitagliptin, pioglitazone, insulin glargine or insulin detemir, and was slightly less effective than liraglutide. In patients treated with diet plus exercise alone, adjunctive exenatide ER was noninferior to metformin and superior to sitagliptin, but was not noninferior to pioglitazone. Exenatide ER was generally well tolerated, with a low inherent risk of hypoglycaemia. The most common adverse events were mild to moderate gastrointestinal events, injection-site reactions and headache. Thus, exenatide ER is a useful treatment option in the management of type 2 diabetes. It offers a convenient, once-weekly regimen and can be administered by patients via a pen injection system or syringes and needles.

Patient-reported outcome results in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD phase III clinical trial programme

We evaluated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures from the Assessment of Weekly AdministRation of LY2189265 (dulaglutide) in Diabetes (AWARD) clinical trial programme for dulaglutide (1.5 mg and 0.75 mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP), Impact of Weight on Ability to Perform Physical Activities of Daily Living (APPADL), Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite, EQ-5D, Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised and Adult Low Blood Sugar Survey were administered and analysed for changes from baseline in one or more AWARD studies. Significant within-group changes from baseline to the primary time point were observed for several PRO measures across all studies. Compared with insulin glargine, significantly greater improvements in the IW-SP score were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with both dulaglutide doses in the APPADL score. Both dulaglutide doses resulted in significantly greater improvement in DTSQ scores (all subscales) compared with exenatide. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg also resulted in significantly greater improvement on the DTSQ hyperglycaemia subscale compared with metformin. Overall, these PRO results suggest that dulaglutide is beneficial in the treatment of T2D.

Review of head-to-head comparisons of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Currently, six glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are approved for treating type 2 diabetes. These fall into two classes based on their receptor activation: short-acting exenatide twice daily and lixisenatide once daily; and longer-acting liraglutide once daily, exenatide once weekly, albiglutide once weekly and dulaglutide once weekly. The phase III trial of a seventh GLP-1RA, taspoglutide once weekly, was stopped because of unacceptable adverse events (AEs). Nine phase III head-to-head trials and one large phase II study have compared the efficacy and safety of these seven GLP-1RAs. All trials were associated with notable reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, although liraglutide led to greater decreases than exenatide formulations and albiglutide, and HbA1c reductions did not differ between liraglutide and dulaglutide. As the short-acting GLP-1RAs delay gastric emptying, they have greater effects on postprandial glucose levels than the longer-acting agents, whereas the longer-acting compounds reduced plasma glucose throughout the 24-h period studied. Liraglutide was associated with weight reductions similar to those with exenatide twice daily but greater than those with exenatide once weekly, albiglutide and dulaglutide. The most frequently observed AEs with GLP-1RAs were gastrointestinal disorders, particularly nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Nauseaoccurred less frequently, however, with exenatide once weekly and albiglutide than exenatide twice daily and liraglutide. Both exenatide formulations and albiglutide may be associated with higher incidences of injection-site reactions than liraglutide and dulaglutide. GLP-1RA use in clinical practice should be customized for individual patients, based on clinical profile and patient preference. Ongoing assessments of novel GLP-1RAs and delivery methods may further expand future treatment options.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists combating clozapine-associated obesity and diabetes

Clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic, but its use is tempered by adverse metabolic effects such as weight gain, glucose intolerance and type II diabetes. Current interventions do not facilitate compelling or sustained improvement in metabolic status. Recent studies suggest that glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) may play a key role in clozapine's metabolic effects, possibly suggesting that clozapine-associated obesity and diabetes are mediated independently through reduced GLP-1. As a result, GLP-1 agonists could show promise in reversing antipsychotic-induced metabolic derangements, providing mechanistic justification that they may represent a novel approach to treat, and ultimately prevent, both diabetes and obesity in patients on clozapine. GLP-1 agonists are already used for diabetes, and they provide a unique combination of glycaemic improvement and metabolically relevant weight loss in diabetic and non-diabetic patients, in the context of a currently favourable safety profile. Using GLP-1 agonists for clozapine-associated obesity and diabetes could be a potentially effective intervention that may reduce cardiometabolic morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable patient population.

The Rationale for Continuous Glucose Monitoring-based Diabetes Treatment Decisions and Non-adjunctive Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is now recognised as a core component of diabetes self-management. However, there are many limitations to SMBG use in individuals with diabetes who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Many individuals do not test at the recommended frequencies. Additionally, because SMBG only provides a blood glucose reading at a single point in time, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia can easily go undetected, limiting the user's ability to take corrective action. Inaccuracies due to user error, environmental factors and weaknesses in SMBG system integrity further limit the utility of SMBG. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) displays the current glucose, direction and velocity of glucose change and provides programmable alarms. This trending information and 'around-the-clock' vigilance provides a significant safety advantage relative to SMBG. No published clinical studies have evaluated outcomes when CGM is used as a replacement for SMBG; however, recent in silico studies support this indication. This article reviews the limitations of SMBG and discusses recent evidence that supports CGM-based decisions as an effective approach to managing insulin-treated diabetes.

Gastrointestinal actions of glucagon-like peptide-1-based therapies: glycaemic control beyond the pancreas

The gastrointestinal hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) lowers postprandial glucose concentrations by regulating pancreatic islet-cell function, with stimulation of glucose-dependent insulin and suppression of glucagon secretion. In addition to endocrine pancreatic effects, mounting evidence suggests that several gastrointestinal actions of GLP-1 are at least as important for glucose-lowering. GLP-1 reduces gastric emptying rate and small bowel motility, thereby delaying glucose absorption and decreasing postprandial glucose excursions. Furthermore, it has been suggested that GLP-1 directly stimulates hepatic glucose uptake, and suppresses hepatic glucose production, thereby adding to reduction of fasting and postprandial glucose levels. GLP-1 receptor agonists, which mimic the effects of GLP-1, have been developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Based on their pharmacokinetic profile, GLP-1 receptor agonists can be broadly categorized as short- or long-acting, with each having unique islet-cell and gastrointestinal effects that lower glucose levels. Short-acting agonists predominantly lower postprandial glucose excursions, by inhibiting gastric emptying and intestinal glucose uptake, with little effect on insulin secretion. By contrast, long-acting agonists mainly reduce fasting glucose levels, predominantly by increased insulin and reduced glucagon secretion, with potential additional direct inhibitory effects on hepatic glucose production. Understanding these pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences may allow personalized antihyperglycaemic therapy in type 2 diabetes. In addition, it may provide the rationale to explore treatment in patients with no or little residual β-cell function.

A discrete-choice experiment to quantify patient preferences for frequency of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist injections in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Understanding patients' preferences for attributes of injectable antihyperglycemic regimens may improve patient satisfaction and medication adherence. Our objective was to quantify the preferences of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for reducing the frequency of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist injections from once daily to once weekly.

METHODS

A total of 643 respondents with a self-reported physician diagnosis of type 2 diabetes completed a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey. The sample included four prespecified subgroups: currently using exenatide once weekly (n = 150), liraglutide once daily (n = 153), insulin (but not exenatide once weekly or liraglutide) (n = 156), and no injectable treatment (n = 184). Device attributes included type of injection device, needle size and pain, injection frequency, refrigeration, and injection-site reactions. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate the relative impact of device attributes on treatment choice for each subgroup.

RESULTS

In all subgroups, changing injection frequency from daily to weekly (independent of the effect of injection frequency on preferences for other attributes) was the most important predictor of treatment choice. Switching from a longer and thicker needle to a shorter and thinner needle and eliminating injection-site reactions were also statistically significant predictors of device choice (P < 0.05). Exenatide once weekly users and those not currently using injections were more likely to choose a treatment with characteristics similar to exenatide once weekly.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment attribute most important to patients choosing among hypothetical injectable treatments for T2DM was injection frequency: patients preferred weekly over daily injections.

LIMITATIONS

The primary limitations of this study are that it included only a limited number of attributes that may not reflect the full complexity of patient choices, diagnosis was self-reported, and patients were recruited from an Internet panel and may not be representative of the T2DM patient population.

Treatment satisfaction in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with once-weekly dulaglutide: data from the AWARD-1 and AWARD-3 clinical trials

AIMS

To compare treatment satisfaction among people with type 2 diabetes receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (a once-weekly, long-acting, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) with those receiving either exenatide or placebo (AWARD-1 study) or metformin (AWARD-3 study) over 52 weeks.

METHODS

The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) were used to evaluate total treatment satisfaction and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

In the AWARD-1 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed in total DTSQs score for both dulaglutide doses (26 and 52 weeks) and exenatide (26 weeks). The improvement was significantly greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with placebo (26 weeks) and exenatide (26 and 52 weeks). The perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline. The improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses and exenatide compared with placebo at 26 weeks, and was also greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with exenatide at 26 and 52 weeks. The exenatide group had an increase in perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia at 26 and 52 weeks. In the AWARD-3 study, significant improvements from baseline were observed for total DTSQs scores in all groups at 26 and 52 weeks. Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia was lower for all groups at 26 and 52 weeks compared with baseline, and this improvement was greater with both dulaglutide doses compared with metformin at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide was associated with improvements in treatment satisfaction and a decrease in perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia.

Exenatide twice daily: a review of its use in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Exenatide, administered subcutaneously twice daily (Byetta(®)), is a synthetic version of the natural peptide exendin-4, which is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (incretin mimetic). Exenatide binds to the GLP-1 receptor with the same affinity as GLP-1, but has a much longer half-life, since it is not degraded by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4. Exenatide twice daily enhances glucose-dependent insulin secretion, suppresses inappropriately elevated glucagon secretion, slows gastric emptying and reduces caloric intake. In well-designed clinical trials, adjunctive subcutaneous exenatide 5 or 10 μg twice daily for 16-52 weeks significantly and dose-dependently improved glycaemic control and reduced mean body weight compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) and/or basal insulin. The improvements in glycaemic control and reductions in body weight were stably maintained during long-term therapy (up to 3.5 years). The efficacy of adjunctive exenatide twice daily was generally similar to that of basal, prandial or biphasic insulin, sulfonylureas, rosiglitazone and lixisenatide, and less than that of liraglutide, taspoglutide or exenatide once weekly with respect to reductions in glycated haemoglobin. Exenatide twice daily was generally well tolerated; mild to moderate nausea and vomiting, which decreased with time on therapy, were the most common adverse events. In patients not receiving concomitant sulfonylureas or insulin, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was low; when it did occur, it was generally mild in severity. Thus, adjunctive exenatide twice daily is a valuable option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with OADs and/or basal insulin.

Treatment of clozapine-associated obesity and diabetes with exenatide (CODEX) in adults with schizophrenia: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clozapine causes significant metabolic disturbances including obesity and type 2 diabetes. Recent evidence that reduced glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1) may contribute to aetiology of clozapine-associated metabolic dysregulation suggests a potential therapeutic role for GLP-1 agonists.

METHOD

This open-label, pilot randomised controlled trial evaluates the effect of exenatide in clozapine-treated obese adults who have schizophrenia, with or without poorly controlled diabetes. Sixty out-patients will be randomised to once weekly extended release exenatide or treatment as usual for 24 weeks.

AIMS

To evaluate the feasibility of larger studies regarding methodology, acceptability, tolerability and estimate efficacy for glycaemic control or weight loss. Secondary outcomes are psychosis severity and metabolic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first trial investigating GLP-1 agonists for glycaemic control and weight loss in clozapine-treated patients with either diabetes or obesity. Clozapine-associated obesity and diabetes with exenatide (CODEX) will provide proof-of-concept empirical evidence addressing whether this novel treatment is practical and worthy of further investigation.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

A.W.R. has received speaker honoraria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi and has participated on advisory panels for MSD and Novo Nordisk.

COPYRIGHT AND USAGE

© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.

GLP-1 receptor agonists: a review of head-to-head clinical studies

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are attractive options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) because they effectively lower A1C and weight while having a low risk of hypoglycemia. The GLP-1 RA class has grown in the last decade with several agents available for use in the US and Europe and several more in development. Since the efficacy and tolerability, dosing frequency, administration requirements, and cost may vary between agents within the class, each agent may offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Through a review of phase III clinical programs for exenatide twice daily, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, albiglutide, lixisenatide, and dulaglutide, eight head-to-head trials have evaluated the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RA active comparators. The purpose of this review is to provide an analysis of these trials. The GLP-1 RA head-to-head clinical studies have demonstrated that all GLP-1 RA agents are effective therapeutic options at reducing A1C. However, differences exist in terms of magnitude of effect on A1C and weight as well as frequency and severity of adverse effects.

A multiplicity of targets: evaluating composite endpoint studies of the GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Current type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment guidelines include weight maintenance or loss, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and targets for blood pressure and circulating lipids, in addition to glycemic control. Increasingly, clinical trials and meta-analyses employ composite endpoints to capture the net clinical benefit of a given T2D intervention. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) represent a new class of injected antihyperglycemic agents that may be well suited to reaching many of these targets among patients failing on metformin monotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGNS AND METHODS

Using MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar, studies were sought that employed composite endpoints and that reported outcomes with exenatide and/or liraglutide. Bibliographies of relevant review articles were consulted to search for additional reports.

RESULTS

Many trials have used the combination of HbA1c <7%, no weight gain and no hypoglycemic episodes as the composite endpoint in evaluating T2D therapies; however, at least 15 other distinct composite endpoints have been reported. Findings were relatively consistent across studies, regardless of how the composite endpoint was defined. Specifically, the GLP-1 RAs appear to be superior to other agents in their efficacy in providing T2D patients failing on metformin with a net clinical benefit, which can include avoidance of hyperglycemia and maintenance or improvement in body weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of composite endpoints represents an important advance in T2D. While no single such endpoint has achieved dominance in the field, widely used composite endpoints capture efficacy in glycemic control as well as safety and effects on markers of cardiovascular risk.

Weekly Exenatide Therapy

Background: Traditional diabetes therapies have been associated with weight gain, hypoglycemia, and/or high secondary failure rates. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog use is associated with a minimal risk of hypoglycemia, a persistent average weight loss of 2 to 3 kg, and sustained efficacy even after 3 years of use. Presently, 3 GLP-1 analogs are commercially available in the United States. Objective: To evaluate the real-world clinical utility of once weekly exenatide in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who previously received once or twice daily GLP-1 therapy. Methods: In this pre–post observational study, electronic medical records (EMRs) were reviewed to identify patients meeting all study criteria. Data collected included baseline patient demographic information, duration of diabetes, disease states, medications, pertinent laboratory data, blood pressure, height, weight, and reported adverse drug events. Primary (changes in A1C and percentage of patients reporting adverse effects of therapy) and secondary (percentage of patients with A1C of <7% and changes in weight, blood pressure, and lipids) outcomes were evaluated using appropriate statistical analysis. Results: EMRs of 78 patients met all study criteria. Baseline patient demographic information included an average age of 61 ± 12 years, an average duration of T2DM of 14 ± 6 years, 59% of patients were male, and 93.6% were Caucasian. The baseline average body mass index was 39 ± 9.2, and mean A1C was 7.47 ± 1.45%. After a minimum of 3 months (average = 5.6 months) switchover, there were significant decreases in A1C (−0.35%; P = .0067) and weight (−1.6 kg; P = .0151). There were no significant changes in blood pressure or lipid levels. Two patients (2.5%) discontinued once weekly exenatide due to adverse reactions. Conclusion: Once weekly exenatide was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced A1C levels and body weight in patients with T2DM when switched from a shorter-acting GLP-1 analog.

Once-weekly albiglutide in the management of type 2 diabetes: patient considerations

This review describes the pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties of albiglutide, as well as its clinical efficacy and safety. Albiglutide is a novel, once-weekly, injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The European Commission recently granted marketing authorization for the drug in the European Union and on April 15, 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved albiglutide (Tanzeum™ [GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Wilmington, DE, USA]) to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Albiglutide has been studied in Phase I, II, and III clinical trials. In the Phase III clinical trials, known as the Harmony series, weekly dosing of albiglutide demonstrated reductions in fasting plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, and glycated hemoglobin, and was associated with weight loss. In all phases of the clinical trials, albiglutide administered once weekly showed a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of placebo, with mild gastrointestinal-related complaints and injection site erythema being the most commonly encountered adverse effects. Compared with pioglitazone and liraglutide, albiglutide has been shown to be clinically less effective. However, it offers the benefit of weight loss that pioglitazone does not, with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than liraglutide. As guidelines continue to advocate for patient-centered treatment strategies, once-weekly albiglutide will be an important addition to the growing armamentarium of treatment options for adults with type 2 diabetes needing target glycemic control.

Incorporating incretin-based therapies into clinical practice for patients with type 2 diabetes

Background

Effective, evidence-based management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires the integration of the best available evidence with clinical experience and patient preferences.

Methods

Studies published from 2000 to 2012 evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) were identified using PubMed. The author contextualized the study findings with his clinical experience.

Results

Incretin-based therapy targets multiple dysfunctional organs in T2D. Injectable GLP-1RAs provide substantial glycemic control and weight reduction; while oral DPP-4 inhibitors provide moderate glycemic control and weight neutrality. Both classes are effective, well tolerated, and associated with a low incidence of hypoglycemia when used alone or in combination with other antidiabetes agents. GLP-1RAs are associated with transient nausea and, like DPP-4 inhibitors, rare pancreatitis.

Conclusion

Data indicate and clinical experience confirms that incretins are well tolerated in appropriate patients and provide sustained glycemic control and weight loss or weight neutrality throughout T2D progression.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0100-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exenatide extended-release: a once weekly treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

This article reviews the clinical efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes literature on the first once weekly treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), exenatide extended-release (ER).

METHODS

Relevant literature on exenatide ER and T2DM was identified through PubMed database searches from inception until April 2014.

RESULTS

Exenatide ER is the first medication for the treatment of T2DM dosed on a weekly schedule. Exenatide ER is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, the third to be approved in the US, and is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, may result in weight loss, and has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for T2DM. Exenatide ER reduces A1c levels by decreasing fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal in nature, which are lesser in frequency than those observed with short-acting exenatide. Exenatide ER has been shown to be more effective than exenatide twice daily and slightly less efficacious than liraglutide. Exenatide ER is useful as monotherapy and in combination with other oral antidiabetic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Once weekly treatment options for diabetes such as exenatide ER have the potential to offer substantial convenience for patients who have high medication burden and poor medication adherence.

Patient-reported outcomes among patients using exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice in six European countries: the CHOICE prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study.

METHODS

CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted.

RESULTS

There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (≥ 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (≤ 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.

Early use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the available glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) exenatide and liraglutide (marketed as Byetta * and Victoza † , respectively) in first- or second-line pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes (T2D), described here as 'early use'.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases were queried for clinical trial reports using the terms incretin, GLP-1, exenatide and liraglutide. Relevant articles were those that employed these agents in treatment-naïve patients with T2D and in patients who had failed on metformin monotherapy. Additional targeted searches were conducted on diabetes treatment guidelines and on the range of physiological responses to GLP-1 RAs. Most evidence is level I and II.

RESULTS

Effective therapy for T2D should be implemented early in the course of this progressive disease. The recently revised 2013 Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) guidelines now identify the GLP-1 RAs among various injected and oral agents recommended for the management of T2D. The rationale for early use of GLP-1 RAs in T2D management is manifold: these agents offer effective management of hyperglycemia in early-stage T2D, minimal risk of hypoglycemia, weight loss, improvement in multiple non-glycemic cardiovascular risk factors, and potential enhancement of patient adherence to antihyperglycemic treatment. Available data from clinical trials support second-line use of GLP-1 RAs among patients who fail on metformin, as well as first-line use of these agents in a subset of T2D patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to achieve glycemic targets using GLP-1 RAs while simultaneously avoiding hypoglycemia and weight gain could provide substantial reassurance to physicians and patients who might otherwise resist the transition to injected therapies. Exenatide and liraglutide represent appropriate second-line choices for pharmacological treatment of T2D, as indicated in the 2013 CDA guidelines.

Breaking down patient and physician barriers to optimize glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

Approximately half of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not achieve globally recognized blood glucose targets, despite the availability of a wide range of effective glucose-lowering therapies. Failure to maintain good glycemic control increases the risk of diabetes-related complications and long-term health care costs. Patients must be brought under glycemic control to improve treatment outcomes, but existing barriers to optimizing glycemic control must first be overcome, including patient nonadherence to treatment, the failure of physicians to intensify therapy in a timely manner, and inadequacies in the health care system itself. The reasons for such barriers include treatment side effects, complex treatment regimens, needle anxiety, poor patient education, and the absence of an adequate patient care plan; however, newer therapies and devices, combined with comprehensive care plans involving adequate patient education, can help to minimize barriers and improve treatment outcomes.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of exenatide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an integrated analysis of the DURATION trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Exenatide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist demonstrated to improve glycemic control with low hypoglycemia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Therapy Utilization: Researching Changes in A1C, Weight, and Other Factors Through Intervention With Exenatide Once Weekly (DURATION) program comprised 6 randomized, comparator-controlled, 24- to 30-week trials of exenatide once weekly (EQW), an extended-release formulation. This post hoc analysis pooled data from patients taking EQW across 6 trials to assess efficacy and safety in a large, varied patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The intent-to-treat (ITT) population contained 1379 patients (baseline mean ± standard deviation glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] levels of 8.4% ± 1.1%) who were treated with EQW over the course of 24 to 30 weeks. Changes from baseline in efficacy parameters for the ITT population and a completer population (1195 patients with ≥ 22 weeks of exposure) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The ITT population experienced significant reductions from baseline (least-squares mean [95% CI]) in HbA1c levels (-1.4% [-1.5% to -1.4%]), fasting blood glucose levels (-36 mg/dL [-38.4 mg/dL to -33.8 mg/dL]), and body weight (-2.5 kg [-2.8 kg to -2.3 kg]) after 24 to 30 weeks of EQW treatment. Reductions in HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels were observed across baseline HbA1c level strata; patients with higher baseline HbA1c levels experienced greater reductions. Treatment with EQW was associated with modest, significant reductions in blood pressure (systolic blood pressure, -2.8 mm Hg [-3.5 mm Hg to -2.1 mm Hg]; diastolic blood pressure, -0.8 mm Hg [-1.2 mm Hg to -0.4 mm Hg]), and fasting lipid levels (total cholesterol, -6.5 mg/dL [-8.2 mg/dL to -4.7 mg/dL]; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, -3.9 mg/dL [5.3 mg/dL to -2.5 mg/dL]; and triglyceride [geometric least-squares mean percent change (95% CI)], -6% [-8% to -4%] levels). Similar reductions were observed in the completer population. Exenatide once weekly was generally well tolerated. Transient, mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events and injection-site treatment-emergent adverse events were reported most frequently, but were seldom treatment limiting. No major hypoglycemic events were observed; minor hypoglycemic events occurred infrequently in patients not using a sulfonylurea.

CONCLUSION

This post hoc analysis of > 1300 patients demonstrated that EQW was associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels, body weight, blood pressure, and fasting lipid levels, with minimal hypoglycemia risk. Consistent with established safety profiles, EQW therapy was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00308139, NCT00637273, NCT00641056, NCT00676338, NCT00877890, NCT01029886.

Exenatide once weekly: opportunities in the primary care setting

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a pandemic, with millions of new diagnoses made each year. In the United States, > 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are cared for by primary care physicians who bear the primary responsibility of diagnosing and treating this disease. Building an optimal treatment regimen for a patient from the many choices available depends on many factors, including the ability of a given therapy to safely and effectively lower blood glucose levels, and potential benefits on body weight, cardiovascular risk factors, and hypoglycemia risk. With these considerations at the forefront, this article provides an overview of exenatide once weekly (EQW), a recently available antidiabetes therapy in the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class designed to provide continuous glycemic control with once-weekly dosing. We discuss the clinical trials that have demonstrated the ability of EQW to effectively lower blood glucose levels and body weight with a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, we examine other issues likely to be relevant in a primary care setting, including safety and tolerability profiles, pharmacology and dosing, ease of use, recommended place in treatment, and patient perceptions of EQW.

Current issues in GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy for type 2 diabetes

The clinical management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is guided not only by published treatment algorithms, but also by consideration of recent evidence and through consultation with colleagues and experts. Recent studies have dramatically increased the amount of information regarding the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). Topics that may be of particular interest to clinicians who treat T2DM patients include relative glycemic control efficacy of GLP-1 RAs, use of GLP-1 RAs across T2DM progression and in combination with insulin, recent data regarding GLP-1 RA safety, nonglycemic actions of GLP-1 RAs, including weight effects, and impact of GLP-1 RAs on patient quality of life and treatment satisfaction. The following review includes expert consideration of these topics with emphasis on recent, relevant reports to illustrate current perspectives.

Once-weekly exenatide versus once- or twice-daily insulin detemir: randomized, open-label, clinical trial of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin alone or in combination with sulfonylureas

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm study compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly (EQW) with titrated insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (with or without sulfonylureas).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to EQW (2 mg) or detemir (once or twice daily, titrated to achieve fasting plasma glucose ≤5.5 mmol/L) for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving A1C ≤7.0% and weight loss ≥1.0 kg at end point, analyzed by means of logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included measures of glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Of 216 patients (intent-to-treat population), 111 received EQW and 105 received detemir. Overall, 44.1% (95% CI, 34.7-53.9) of EQW-treated patients compared with 11.4% (6.0-19.1) of detemir-treated patients achieved the primary outcome (P < 0.0001). Treatment with EQW resulted in significantly greater reductions than detemir in A1C (least-square mean ± SE, -1.30 ± 0.08% vs. -0.88 ± 0.08%; P < 0.0001) and weight (-2.7 ± 0.3 kg vs. +0.8 ± 0.4 kg; P < 0.0001). Gastrointestinal-related and injection site-related adverse events occurred more frequently with EQW than with detemir. There was no major hypoglycemia in either group. Five (6%) patients in the EQW group and six (7%) patients in the detemir group experienced minor hypoglycemia; only one event occurred without concomitant sulfonylureas (detemir group).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with EQW resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving target A1C and weight loss than treatment with detemir, with a low risk of hypoglycemia. These results suggest that EQW is a viable alternative to insulin detemir treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control using oral antidiabetes drugs.