Comment on Kazda et al. Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of the Glucagon Receptor Antagonist LY2409021 in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: 12- and 24-Week Phase 2 Studies. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1241-1249

Pharmacological Management of Glucose Dysregulation in Patients Treated with Second-Generation Antipsychotics

Fasting hyperglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, prediabetes, and diabetes are frequently present in patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAPs) for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other severe mental illnesses. These drugs are known to produce weight gain, which may lead to insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, and metabolic syndrome, which constitute important risk factors for the emergence of diabetes. The aim of this review was to formulate therapeutic guidelines for the management of diabetes in patients treated with SGAPs, based on the association between SGAP-induced weight gain and glucose dysregulation. A  systematic search in PubMed from inception to March 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of diabetes or prediabetes in patients treated with SGAPs was performed. PubMed was also searched for the most recent clinical practice guidelines of interventions for co-morbid conditions associated with diabetes mellitus (DM) (arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia), lifestyle interventions and switching from high metabolic liability SGAPs to safer SGAPs. The search identified 14 RCTs in patients treated with SGAPs. Drug therapy using metformin as first-line therapy and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or perhaps sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as add-on therapy, might be preferred in these patients as well, as they favorably influence glucose metabolism and body mass index, and provide cardio-renal benefits in general to the DM population, although for the SGLT-2 inhibitors there are no RCTs in this specific patient category so far. Metformin is also useful for treatment of prediabetes. Arterial hypertension should be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and statins should be used for correction of dyslipidemia. The outcome of lifestyle-changing interventions has been disappointing. Switching from clozapine, olanzapine, or quetiapine to lower cardiometabolic-risk SGAPs, like aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, lurasidone, or ziprasidone, has been recommended.

Diabetic kidney disease: new clinical and therapeutic issues. Joint position statement of the Italian Diabetes Society and the Italian Society of Nephrology on "The natural history of diabetic kidney disease and treatment of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function"

Aims

This joint document of the Italian Diabetes Society and the Italian Society of Nephrology reviews the natural history of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in the light of the recent epidemiological literature and provides updated recommendations on anti-hyperglycemic treatment with non-insulin agents.

Data Synthesis

Recent epidemiological studies have disclosed a wide heterogeneity of DKD. In addition to the classical albuminuric phenotype, two new albuminuria-independent phenotypes have emerged, i.e., “nonalbuminuric renal impairment” and “progressive renal decline”, suggesting that DKD progression toward end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may occur through two distinct pathways, albuminuric and nonalbuminuric. Several biomarkers have been associated with decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) independent of albuminuria and other clinical variables, thus possibly improving ESKD prediction. However, the pathogenesis and anatomical correlates of these phenotypes are still unclear. Also the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function has profoundly changed during the last two decades. New anti-hyperglycemic drugs, which do not cause hypoglycemia and weight gain and, in some cases, seem to provide cardiorenal protection, have become available for treatment of these individuals. In addition, the lowest eGFR safety thresholds for some of the old agents, particularly metformin and insulin secretagogues, have been reconsidered.

Conclusions

The heterogeneity in the clinical presentation and course of DKD has important implications for the diagnosis, prognosis, and possibly treatment of this complication. The therapeutic options for patients with type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function have substantially increased, thus allowing a better management of these individuals.

Should metformin remain the first-line therapy for treatment of type 2 diabetes?

Metformin is a biguanide that is used as first-line treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and is effective as monotherapy and in combination with other glucose-lowering medications. It is generally well-tolerated with minimal side effects and is affordable. Although the safety and efficacy of metformin have been well-established, there is discussion regarding whether metformin should continue to be the first choice for therapy as other anti-hyperglycemic medications exhibit additional advantages in certain populations. Despite a long-standing history of metformin use, there are limited cardiovascular outcomes data for metformin. Furthermore, the available studies fail to provide strong evidence due to either small sample size or short duration. Recent data from glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor cardiovascular and renal outcomes trials demonstrated additional protection from diabetes complications for some high-risk patients, which has impacted the guidelines for diabetes management. Post-hoc analyses comparing hazard ratios for participants taking metformin at baseline versus not taking metformin are inconclusive for these two groups. There are no data to suggest that metformin should not be initiated soon after the diagnosis of diabetes. Furthermore, the initiation of newer glycemic-lowering medications with cardiovascular benefits should be considered in high-risk patients regardless of glycemic control or target HbA1c. However, cost remains a major factor in determining appropriate treatment.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 at the Interface Between Inflammation and Metabolism

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) is a serine protease that rapidly inactivates the incretin peptides, glucagon-like peptide-1, and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide to modulate postprandial islet hormone secretion and glycemia. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 also has nonglycemic effects by controlling the progression of inflammation, which may be mediated more through direct protein-protein interactions than catalytic activity in the context of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Failure to resolve inflammation resulting in chronic subclinical activation of the immune system may influence the development of metabolic dysregulation. Thus, through both its cleavage and regulation of the bioactivity of peptide hormones and its influence on inflammation, DPP4 exhibits a diverse array of effects that can influence the progression of metabolic disease. Here, we highlight our current understanding of the complex biology of DPP4 at the intersection of inflammation, obesity, T2D, and NAFLD. We compare and review new mechanisms identified in basic laboratory and clinical studies, which may have therapeutic application and relevance to the pathogenesis of obesity and T2D.

Understanding the glucoregulatory mechanisms of metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Despite its position as the first-line drug for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, the mechanisms underlying the plasma glucose level-lowering effects of metformin (1,1-dimethylbiguanide) still remain incompletely understood. Metformin is thought to exert its primary antidiabetic action through the suppression of hepatic glucose production. In addition, the discovery that metformin inhibits the mitochondrial respiratory chain complex 1 has placed energy metabolism and activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) at the centre of its proposed mechanism of action. However, the role of AMPK has been challenged and might only account for indirect changes in hepatic insulin sensitivity. Various mechanisms involving alterations in cellular energy charge, AMP-mediated inhibition of adenylate cyclase or fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase 1 and modulation of the cellular redox state through direct inhibition of mitochondrial glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase have been proposed for the acute inhibition of gluconeogenesis by metformin. Emerging evidence suggests that metformin could improve obesity-induced meta-inflammation via direct and indirect effects on tissue-resident immune cells in metabolic organs (that is, adipose tissue, the gastrointestinal tract and the liver). Furthermore, the gastrointestinal tract also has a major role in metformin action through modulation of glucose-lowering hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 and the intestinal bile acid pool and alterations in gut microbiota composition.

The metabolic role of vagal afferent innervation

The regulation of energy and glucose balance contributes to whole-body metabolic homeostasis, and such metabolic regulation is disrupted in obesity and diabetes. Metabolic homeostasis is orchestrated partly in response to nutrient and vagal-dependent gut-initiated functions. Specifically, the sensory and motor fibres of the vagus nerve transmit intestinal signals to the central nervous system and exert biological and physiological responses. In the past decade, the understanding of the regulation of vagal afferent signals and of the associated metabolic effect on whole-body energy and glucose balance has progressed. This Review highlights the contributions made to the understanding of the vagal afferent system and examines the integrative role of the vagal afferent in gastrointestinal regulation of appetite and glucose homeostasis. Investigating the integrative and metabolic role of vagal afferent signalling represents a potential strategy to discover novel therapeutic targets to restore energy and glucose balance in diabetes and obesity.

Self-Stabilizing Ampholytic Starch Excipients for Sustained Release of Highly Soluble Drugs: the Case Study of Metformin

A new class of starch derivatives carrying cationic and anionic functional groups was developed aiming to provide an alternative for the formulation of highly soluble drugs. The new ampholytic starch derivatives were synthesized in two steps; first the CarboxyMethyl (CM) groups were grafted on starch chains followed by introduction of AminoEthyl (AE) groups. The final product, CarboxyMethyl-AminoEthyl-Starch (CM-AE-St), could be obtained in different degrees of substitution by varying the number of CM and AE groups. It was hypothesized that the simultaneous presence of anionic and cationic groups will generate a stronger self-stabilization of starch matrices and an improved control of drug release. Metformin (biopharmaceutical classification system-BCS, class I) was selected as model drug and monolithic tablets with 50 and 60% loading were prepared by direct compression of the active molecule with various CM-AE-St derivatives. The in vitro drug dissolution tests have shown that higher degrees of substitution for both CM and AE groups favor the ability of ampholytic CM-AE-St to control the drug release in simulated gastric fluid and in simulated intestinal fluid. Tablets based on CM-AE-St derivatives were compared to the commercial Glumetza® (50% loading). The drug release was controlled for 12 h exhibiting a similar Higuchi's model dissolution profile for the two dosage forms. Structural studies (FT-IR, ¹H NMR, SEM, TG, X-ray diffraction) run on CM-AE-St derivatives put in evidence derivatization and self-stabilization phenomena. These new ampholytic starch derivatives offer a simple and convenient alternative to formulate and manufacture highly soluble drugs in a single step process.

The mechanisms of action of metformin

Metformin is a widely-used drug that results in clear benefits in relation to glucose metabolism and diabetes-related complications. The mechanisms underlying these benefits are complex and still not fully understood. Physiologically, metformin has been shown to reduce hepatic glucose production, yet not all of its effects can be explained by this mechanism and there is increasing evidence of a key role for the gut. At the molecular level the findings vary depending on the doses of metformin used and duration of treatment, with clear differences between acute and chronic administration. Metformin has been shown to act via both AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)-dependent and AMPK-independent mechanisms; by inhibition of mitochondrial respiration but also perhaps by inhibition of mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase, and a mechanism involving the lysosome. In the last 10 years, we have moved from a simple picture, that metformin improves glycaemia by acting on the liver via AMPK activation, to a much more complex picture reflecting its multiple modes of action. More work is required to truly understand how this drug works in its target population: individuals with type 2 diabetes.

The effects of metformin on gut microbiota and the immune system as research frontiers

Recent studies have revealed that metformin influences gut microbiota and the immune system although neither is a classic target of the drug. This research has revealed complexity not previously appreciated, and opened new research directions. The extent to which immunomodulatory effects and actions on the microbiota are related to each other and account for effects on host energy metabolism remains to be determined. These sites of action may be relevant not only to the efficacy of metformin for its established use in type 2 diabetes, but also to proposed novel indications in oncology and other diseases.

The gut microbiome as a target for prevention and treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: from current human evidence to future possibilities

The totality of microbial genomes in the gut exceeds the size of the human genome, having around 500-fold more genes that importantly complement our coding potential. Microbial genes are essential for key metabolic processes, such as the breakdown of indigestible dietary fibres to short-chain fatty acids, biosynthesis of amino acids and vitamins, and production of neurotransmitters and hormones. During the last decade, evidence has accumulated to support a role for gut microbiota (analysed from faecal samples) in glycaemic control and type 2 diabetes. Mechanistic studies in mice support a causal role for gut microbiota in metabolic diseases, although human data favouring causality is insufficient. As it may be challenging to sort the human evidence from the large number of animal studies in the field, there is a need to provide a review of human studies. Thus, the aim of this review is to cover the current and future possibilities and challenges of using the gut microbiota, with its capacity to be modified, in the development of preventive and treatment strategies for hyperglycaemia and type 2 diabetes in humans. We discuss what is known about the composition and functionality of human gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes and summarise recent evidence of current treatment strategies that involve, or are based on, modification of gut microbiota (diet, probiotics, metformin and bariatric surgery). We go on to review some potential future gut-based glucose-lowering approaches involving microbiota, including the development of personalised nutrition and probiotic approaches, identification of therapeutic components of probiotics, targeted delivery of propionate in the proximal colon, targeted delivery of metformin in the lower gut, faecal microbiota transplantation, and the incorporation of genetically modified bacteria that express therapeutic factors into microbiota. Finally, future avenues and challenges for understanding the interplay between human nutrition, genetics and microbial genetics, and the need for integration of human multi-omic data (such as genetics, transcriptomics, epigenetics, proteomics and metabolomics) with microbiome data (such as strain-level variation, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics) to make personalised treatments a successful future reality are discussed.

Metformin: New Preparations and Nonglycemic Benefits

Metformin has been widely used for over 5 decades. New preparations have been developed for possible enhancement of efficiency, tolerability, and pleiotropic nonglycemic effects. Extended-release metformin has contributed to adherence and improved gastrointestinal tolerability. Delayed-release metformin acts in the lower gastrointestinal tract and exerts glucose-lowering effects at lower plasma metformin levels, which might suggest use of this biguanide in patients with chronic kidney disease. Metformin is also known to have numerous nonglycemic effects. Results of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study indicate improvements in cardiovascular outcome and reduced total mortality independent of glycemic control. Anticancer effects of metformin have been discussed and many clinical trials are on-going. Metformin is noted for its beneficial effects on lifespan extension and on disorders due to increased insulin resistance. Further investigations, including randomized control trials in nondiabetic individuals, are required to demonstrate the nonglycemic effects of metformin.

Fixed-Dose Combination of Canagliflozin and Metformin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: An Overview

Metformin is recommended as a first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, many patients do not achieve glycemic goals with metformin monotherapy and require subsequent combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs). For newly diagnosed patients with high blood glucose, initial combination therapy may be required to achieve glycemic control. The American Association for Clinical Endocrinologists algorithm for the treatment of T2DM recommends metformin plus a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor as the first oral combination in patients who present with HbA1c ≥7.5%. Canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, lowers the renal threshold for glucose and increases urinary glucose excretion leading to a mild osmotic diuresis and a net caloric loss. The effect of canagliflozin is insulin-independent and complementary to other AHAs, including metformin. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of canagliflozin and metformin is also available with variable dosing, which may be attractive to some patients owing to the potential for reduced pill burden and costs. This article reviews the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in combination with metformin based on data from the canagliflozin phase 3 clinical program. As initial combination therapy in drug-naïve patients or as dual therapy with metformin or triple therapy in combination with metformin and other AHAs, canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg improved glycemic control and provided reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure that were sustained for up to 104 weeks. Canagliflozin was generally well tolerated across studies in combination with metformin. An increased incidence of adverse events (AEs) related to the mechanism of SGLT2 inhibition (i.e., genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infections, osmotic diuresis-related AEs) was observed with canagliflozin. Canagliflozin was associated with a low incidence of hypoglycemia when not used in conjunction with AHAs associated with hypoglycemia (i.e., insulin or sulfonylurea). Together, these results support the use of a canagliflozin and metformin FDC as a treatment approach for a broad range of patients with T2DM.

Funding: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.

Once-daily delayed-release metformin lowers plasma glucose and enhances fasting and postprandial GLP-1 and PYY: results from two randomised trials

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Delayed-release metformin (Metformin DR) was developed to maximise gut-based mechanisms of metformin action by targeting the drug to the ileum. Metformin DR was evaluated in two studies. Study 1 compared the bioavailability and effects on circulating glucose and gut hormones (glucagon-like peptide-1, peptide YY) of Metformin DR dosed twice-daily to twice-daily immediate-release metformin (Metformin IR). Study 2 compared the bioavailability and glycaemic effects of Metformin DR dosages of 1,000 mg once-daily in the morning, 1,000 mg once-daily in the evening, and 500 mg twice-daily.

METHODS

Study 1 was a blinded, randomised, crossover study (three × 5 day treatment periods) of twice-daily 500 mg or 1,000 mg Metformin DR vs twice-daily 1,000 mg Metformin IR in 24 participants with type 2 diabetes conducted at two study sites (Celerion Inc.; Tempe, AZ, and Lincoln, NE, USA). Plasma glucose and gut hormones were assessed over 10.25 h at the start and end of each treatment period; plasma metformin was measured over 11 h at the end of each treatment period. Study 2 was a non-blinded, randomised, crossover study (three × 7 day treatment periods) of 1,000 mg Metformin DR once-daily in the morning, 1,000 mg Metformin DR once-daily in the evening, or 500 mg Metformin DR twice-daily in 26 participants with type 2 diabetes performed at a single study site (Celerion, Tempe, AZ). Plasma glucose was assessed over 24 h at the start and end of each treatment period, and plasma metformin was measured over 30 h at the end of each treatment period. Both studies implemented centrally generated computer-based randomisation using a 1:1:1 allocation ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 24 randomised participants were included in study 1; of these, 19 completed the study and were included in the evaluable population. In the evaluable population, all treatments produced similar significant reductions in fasting glucose (median reduction range, -0.67 to -0.81 mmol/l across treatments) and postprandial glucose (Day 5 to baseline AUC0-t ratio = 0.9 for all three treatments) and increases in gut hormones (Day 5 to baseline AUC0-t ratio range: 1.6-1.9 for GLP-1 and 1.4-1.5 for PYY) despite an almost 60% reduction in systemic metformin exposure for 500 mg Metformin DR compared with Metformin IR. A total of 26 randomised participants were included in study 2: 24 had at least one dose of study medication and at least one post-dose pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessment and were included in the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic intent-to-treat analysis; and 12 completed all treatment periods and were included in the evaluable population. In the evaluable population, Metformin DR administered once-daily in the morning had 28% (90% CI -16%, -39%) lower bioavailability (least squares mean ratio of metformin AUC0-24) compared with either once-daily in the evening or twice-daily, although the glucose-lowering effects were maintained. In both studies, adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature, and indicated similar or improved tolerability for Metformin DR vs Metformin IR; there were no clinically meaningful differences in vital signs, physical examinations or laboratory values.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Dissociation of gut hormone release and glucose lowering from plasma metformin exposure provides strong supportive evidence for a distal small intestine-mediated mechanism of action. Directly targeting the ileum with Metformin DR once-daily in the morning may provide maximal metformin efficacy with lower doses and substantially reduce plasma exposure. Metformin DR may minimise the risk of lactic acidosis in those at increased risk from metformin therapy, such as individuals with renal impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01677299, NCT01804842 FUNDING: : This study was funded by Elcelyx Therapeutics Inc.

Cardiovascular safety assessment of pramlintide in type 2 diabetes: results from a pooled analysis of five clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This report evaluated the cardiovascular safety of the amylin analog pramlintide-an existing diabetes injectable treatment-by comparing relevant cardiovascular adverse events (AEs) reported in previous phase 3 and 4 clinical trials among patients receiving pramlintide and those receiving control treatments.

METHODS

Cardiovascular safety of pramlintide was assessed using accepted regulatory medical definitions of AEs reported in five randomized, controlled phase 3 and 4 trials of 16-52 weeks' duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The original trials compared pramlintide (90-120 mcg twice daily or 30-150 mcg three times daily) with placebo (four studies) or a mealtime rapid-acting insulin analog (one study). Background therapies included insulin alone or in combination with oral glucose-lowering agents. AE data obtained from clinical study reports were combined into one database and analyzed for the intention-to-treat population of 2016 patients (pramlintide, n = 1434; pooled comparator, n = 582). The primary analysis compared reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between pramlintide and control.

RESULTS

The incidence of reported MACE was similar between pramlintide (4.7 %) and pooled comparators (4.5 %). Secondary analyses included MACE relative risk and hazard ratio point estimates, which ranged from 0.86 to 0.93 for pramlintide relative to comparator treatment; the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval did not exceed the threshold of 1.8.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the point estimate of the reported MACE frequency and estimated risk ratios showed that mealtime pramlintide as an adjunct to insulin conferred no increased risk of cardiovascular AEs in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin.