Comparative Assessment of Lixisenatide, Exenatide, and Liraglutide Pen Devices: A Pilot User-Based Study

GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Exposures Are Increasingly Common and Generally Associated with Mild Symptoms: A Single Poison Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use has increased over the last decade for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular risk reduction, and weight loss. Clinical trials indicate that gastrointestinal adverse effects are commonly experienced and severe hypoglycemia is rare; however, there is little data regarding glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in overdose.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review evaluating and characterizing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exposures reported to a single poison center between 2006 and 2023. Patient demographics, circumstances of exposure, clinical effects, and outcomes were abstracted from charts. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize demographic information and clinical factor data.

RESULTS

A total of 152 charts met inclusion criteria. Therapeutic errors accounted for 91% of exposures. Most patients (67%) reported no symptoms, although not all patients were followed to a definitive outcome. Nausea, vomiting, generalized weakness, and abdominal pain were the predominant symptoms reported. Most patients (62%) were monitored and closely followed in the home setting. Hypoglycemia was rare but occurred in the setting of a single agent glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exposure in two patients. Two additional patients who developed hypoglycemia involved co-administration of insulin. 21% of the exposures were related to errors on initial use of the pen.

CONCLUSION

Exposures to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist have increased substantially over the years. Effects from an exposure tended to be mild and primarily involve gastrointestinal symptoms. Hypoglycemia was rare. Therapeutic and administration errors were common. Education on pen administration may help to reduce errors.

Comparison of the Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction of Three Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices in People With Type 2 Diabetes

Aim

This study's aim was to compare the time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences with pen devices for the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide XR BCise, and semaglutide.

Materials and methods

In this triple crossover, open-label, simulated injection study, GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices were compared, with time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences as primary outcomes. Participants had type 2 diabetes and were naive to GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. Participants watched instructional videos for each device, demonstrated administration, and then provided feedback after each demonstration. Investigators tracked errors and omissions of demonstration steps for accuracy and time. Differences across devices were compared using univariate mixed models, adjusting for multiple comparisons.

Results

Of the 60 participants, 50% were male, a majority (65%) were Caucasian, and most (65%) had adequate health literacy. Participants rated the dulaglutide device easier to use than those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.001 for each). Participants expressed greater satisfaction with the dulaglutide device compared with those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.01 for each). Most participants (75%) preferred the dulaglutide device overall; however, many participants (61%) preferred the size and portability of the semaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took less time to use than the exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide devices (69 vs. 126 and 146 seconds, respectively; P <0.001 for each). Participants were less accurate when using the dulaglutide device.

Conclusion

Most participants preferred the dulaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took the least amount of time to demonstrate; however, demonstration accuracy was lower.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Clinical Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: An Ambispective Study

INTRODUCTION

The method of therapy administration and injection device characteristics have been documented to influence perceptions and preference of treatment among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to assess the metabolic effectiveness and patient-reported satisfaction of once-weekly semaglutide compared to liraglutide in suboptimally controlled patients with T2D.

METHODS

We conducted this single-center cohort study at diabetes center clinics at a tertiary care hospital between February 2021 and August 2021. We included suboptimally controlled patients with T2D who had been treated with liraglutide for at least 3 months at baseline, then shifted to once-weekly semaglutide and followed up for the same period. Ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) metrics [i.e., mean glucose level, glycemic variability (GV), time above range (TAR), and time in range (TIR)] for baseline and follow-up were compared. To assess the satisfaction with shifting, we used the valid Arabic version of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (DTSQs) and change (DTSQc) while the injection device preference was assessed using the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ).

RESULTS

We included 52 patients (25 male and 27 female), with a mean age of 48 (± 6) years and a mean diabetes mellitus duration of 7.27 (± 3.79) years. We observed a significantly decreased mean HbA1c level following semaglutide treatment (7.79% at study end vs. 8.07% at baseline, p < 0.001) and body weight (84.64 ± 7.68 vs. 87.15 ± 8.011, p < 0.001). Compared to the glucometrics data at baseline, we observed a significantly improved mean average glucose, GV, TAR, and TIR (p < 0.001). Data from the DTSQs and DTSQc questionnaires showed a high level of patient-reported satisfaction after shifting to semaglutide treatment. All patients preferred/strongly preferred once-weekly semaglutide over liraglutide in most DID-PQ questionnaire domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from once-daily liraglutide to once-weekly semaglutide led to improvements in both clinical measures of glycemic control and patient-reported satisfaction.

A Review of Practical Issues on the Use of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are well established as effective treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes. GLP-1 RAs augment insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release via the stimulation of GLP-1 receptors. Although all GLP-1 RAs share the same underlying mechanism of action, they differ in terms of formulations, administration, injection devices and dosages. With six GLP-1 RAs currently available in Europe (namely, immediate-release exenatide, lixisenatide, liraglutide; prolonged-release exenatide, dulaglutide and semaglutide), each with its own characteristics and administration requirements, physicians caring for patients in their routine practice face the challenge of being cognizant of all this information so they are able to select the agent that is most suitable for their patient and use it in an efficient and optimal way. The objective of this review is to bring together practical information on the use of these GLP-1 RAs that reflects their approved use.Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Comparative usability study of the dulaglutide single-use pen versus the insulin degludec FlexTouch® among self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed training time with the dulaglutide single-use pen (SUP) and the insulin degludec disposable prefilled pen (FlexTouch^®) in self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.

METHODS

This multi-center, open-label, comparative, crossover study measured training time with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch^®. Participants learned how to use both devices in a randomly assigned order. Healthcare providers (HCP) conducted the training. The primary end-point was the time required to train self-injection-naïve T2DM participants to self-inject correctly using each device. Secondary end-points included performance measures, such as success and error rates, patient perceptions related to ease-of-use, and factors associated with training time and performance.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 participants were randomized and completed the study. The mean training time to achieve correct administration was significantly shorter with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch^® (7.4 min vs 19.7 min, p < .001). The proportions of participants who successfully completed the mock injection without error were similar for both devices. Ninety-two percent (44/48) of participants reported that the dulaglutide SUP was easier to use than FlexTouch^®.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, participants required a shorter training time to achieve correct administration with the dulaglutide SUP, and had a higher preference for the dulaglutide SUP, when compared to FlexTouch^®. These data suggest that the dulaglutide SUP is easy-to-use, which may decrease the burden on HCPs to train diabetic patients how to administer injection therapy and reduce patient injection hurdles, such as needle fear.

Lixisenatide, a Once-Daily Prandial Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist for the Treatment of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Lixisenatide, a short-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), has been available in Europe since 2013 and was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) as an adjunct to diet and exercise. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of lixisenatide in patients with T2D. We conducted a search of the EMBASE database, limited to human studies with abstracts available in English. Published conference abstracts, limited to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meetings in 2015, as well as abstracts presented at the ADA meeting in 2016, were also screened. The abstracts retrieved were assessed for relevance; review articles and meta-analyses focusing on GLP-1 RAs as a class were excluded. Lixisenatide induced mean reductions of 0.46-0.99% in glycated hemoglobin A_1c (Hb_A1c ), 55.86-143.43 mg/dl in 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) levels, and 56.58-127.75 mg/dl in mealtime glucose level variations. Changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and weight ranged from -21.98 to +5.41 mg/dl and from -2.96 to +0.3 kg, respectively, in patients with T2D enrolled in the GetGoal clinical program (a program of clinical trials that established the efficacy and safety profile of lixisenatide 20 μg once/day across patients with T2D with differing background therapies). Lixisenatide was well tolerated, demonstrating rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia of 0.8-42.9% and a very low rate of severe hypoglycemia (< 1.5%) as well as no increased risk of cardiovascular events. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, mainly transient nausea and vomiting of mild-to-moderate severity. Lixisenatide effectively lowers Hb_A1c levels in patients with T2D through a mechanism of action complementary to that of agents that mainly target FPG, with the additional benefit of weight loss. Its once-daily administration schedule and effect on PPG levels make it an attractive option as add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy or oral antidiabetic agents.

Exenatide: pharmacokinetics, clinical use, and future directions

INTRODUCTION

The first-in-class glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) exenatide, which was initially approved in 2005, is available in twice-daily (BID) and once-weekly (QW) formulations. Clinical trial data suggest both formulations are effective and safe for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), both as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy. Since exenatide was approved, several other GLP-1RAs have become available for clinical use. Areas covered: Many ongoing clinical trials involving exenatide BID and exenatide QW are investigating new indications (exenatide BID) and new end points and combination therapies (exenatide QW). This review provides an overview of the delivery and pharmacokinetics of both formulations of exenatide, reviews existing data in T2D, and summarizes ongoing investigations. Expert opinion: Exenatide BID and QW have substantial clinical benefits. Comparisons with other GLP-1RAs demonstrate some differences in efficacy and safety profiles that make assessment of benefit:risk ratios complex. Head-to-head comparisons of QW GLP-1RA formulations may assist in the ranking of GLP-1RAs according to efficacy and safety. Results on the impact of exenatide QW on cardiovascular outcomes are eagerly awaited. The potential clinical utility of exenatide BID in other indications will clarify whether exenatide holds clinical promise in diagnoses other than T2D.

Lixisenatide in type 2 diabetes: latest evidence and clinical usefulness

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a highly prevalent disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. The hallmark of T2D is hyperglycemia and, while many treatment modalities exist, achieving and maintaining glycemic control can be challenging. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) are an appealing treatment option as they improve glycemic control, reduce weight, and limit the risk of hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide is a once-daily GLP-1 RA that has been evaluated in the GetGoal clinical trial program and has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability across a spectrum of patients. The feature that most distinguishes lixisenatide from other GLP-1 RAs is its ability to substantially reduce postprandial glucose (PPG) for the meal immediately following injection. Because of its positive effects on PPG, lixisenatide is being considered as a replacement for prandial insulin, and a fixed dose combination product containing lixisenatide and basal insulin is in development. Lixisenatide is a promising new addition to the antidiabetic armamentarium, but due to the lack of real-world experience with the drug, its exact place in therapy is unknown.