Impact of a Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist, Albiglutide, on Glycemic Control and on Reducing Prandial Insulin Use in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Multiple Insulin Therapy: A Randomized Trial

Efficacy and safety of albiglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T2D receiving albiglutide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or an active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the change from baseline (CFB) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c); secondary outcomes included CFB in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

From 443 initially screened articles, data from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 6423 subjects were analyzed. Albiglutide, at both doses, outperformed placebo in terms of HbA1c reductions (for albiglutide 30 mg: mean differences -1.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.37--0.72], P < .00001, I2 = 89%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: mean differences -1.10%, 95% CI [-1.45--0.75], P < .00001, I2 = 90%). Higher proportions of subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% in the albiglutide arm than in placebo (for albiglutide 30 mg: odds ratio 6.26, 95% CI [2.50-15.70], P < .0001, I2 = 82%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI [2.25-13.80], P = .0002, I2 = 84%). Albiglutide had glycemic efficacy comparable to other glucose-lowering drugs. CFB in body weight was similar with albiglutide and placebo. AE profile, including gastrointestinal AE, was identical with albiglutide and placebo, except for higher drug-related AE and injection-site reaction with albiglutide.

CONCLUSION

Albiglutide provides reassuring data on good glycemic efficacy, tolerability, and safety over an extended period of clinical use in patients with T2D. Albiglutide 30 mg has comparable efficacy and safety profiles to albiglutide 50 mg.

The effect of GLP-1R agonists on the medical triad of obesity, diabetes, and cancer

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have garnered significant attention for their therapeutic potential in addressing the interconnected health challenges of diabetes, obesity, and cancer. The role of GLP-1R in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is highlighted, emphasizing its pivotal contribution to glucose homeostasis, promoting β-cell proliferation, and facilitating insulin release. GLP-1R agonists have effectively managed obesity by reducing hunger, moderating food intake, and regulating body weight. Beyond diabetes and obesity, GLP-1R agonists exhibit a multifaceted impact on cancer progression across various malignancies. The mechanisms underlying these effects involve the modulation of signaling pathways associated with cell growth, survival, and metabolism. However, the current literature reveals a lack of in vivo studies on specific GLP-1R agonists such as semaglutide, necessitating further research to elucidate its precise mechanisms and effects, particularly in cancer. While other GLP-1R agonists have shown promising outcomes in mitigating cancer progression, the association between some GLP-1R agonists and an increased risk of cancer remains a topic requiring more profound investigation. This calls for more extensive research to unravel the intricate relationships between the GLP-1R agonist and different cancers, providing valuable insights for clinicians and researchers alike.

The Current and Future Role of Insulin Therapy in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

Early initiation of intensive insulin therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in controlling glycemia and possibly preserving beta-cell function. Innovations in insulin formulations and delivery systems continue. However, we have seen an acceleration in the development of new classes of diabetes medications for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity, such as, for example, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These formulations have been shown to confer significant benefits in achieving good glycemic control with reduced hypoglycemia risk, weight loss, and cardiorenal protection. Therefore, it is reasonable to question whether there is still a role for insulin therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes. However, there are clear limitations inherent to GLP-1 RA therapy, including high rates of suboptimal adherence and treatment discontinuation due to high cost and side effects, which diminish long-term efficacy, and supply issues. In addition, newer formulations have shown improvements in convenience and tolerability, and have been shown to be even more effective when used in conjunction with basal insulin. In this narrative review, we discuss current evidence that supports GLP-1 RA use in combination with insulin therapy and the potential pitfalls of reliance on GLP-1 RAs as a substitute for insulin therapy.

IDegLira for the real-world treatment of type 2 diabetes in Italy. Final results from the REX observational study

AIM

The study was designed to generate real-world evidence on IDegLira in the Italian clinical practice in two groups of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), switching to IDegLira either from a basal only (basal group) or basal-bolus insulin regimen (BB group).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a non-interventional, multicentre, single-cohort, prospective study assessing the long-term glycaemic control in patients with T2D, who switched to IDegLira from a basal insulin ± glucose-lowering medication regimen with or without a bolus insulin component for approximately 18 months, conducted in 28 Italian diabetes centres. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to 6 months after IDegLira initiation.

RESULTS

The study included 358 patients with a mean age 67.2 years and diabetes duration of 15.7 years. HbA1c significantly decreased from IDegLira start to all study time points in the overall population (basal group -1.19%; BB group -0.60% at the end of observation). Patients achieving HbA1c <7% levels increased from 12.9% (n = 43) to 40.3% (n = 110) at 18 months. Fasting blood glucose and body weight also significantly decreased in both groups, although more in the BB group. Overall, 14.3% of completed patients had an intensification of treatment (mainly in the basal group) and 48.6% had a simplification of treatment (mainly in the BB group).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to IDegLira in a real-world clinical setting is a valid therapeutic option for patients with T2D with inadequate glycaemic control on basal or BB insulin regimen and/or need to simplify their insulin therapy, with specific reasons and therapeutic goals according to different T2D management trajectories.

De-Intensification from Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy to Liraglutide in Type 2 Diabetes: Predictive Value of Mean Glycaemia during Fasting Test

BACKGROUND

Successful conversion from insulin therapy to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with basal insulin in well-controlled patients has already been demonstrated. However, the data concerning individuals with poor glycaemic control are scarce. The aim of this work was to assess the success rate of insulin therapy to liraglutide transition in poorly controlled diabetes in a real-world clinical setting and to define predictors of success. We are the first to present the method of a fasting test as a way to identify the patients at higher risk of failure after treatment de-intensification.

METHODS

The retrospective observational study analyzed data of 62 poorly controlled obese diabetic patients on high-dose insulin therapy, who were subjected to a 72 h fasting test during hospitalization and subsequently switched to liraglutide ± basal insulin therapy. During the fasting, all antidiabetic treatment was discontinued. Patients were classified as responders if they remained on GLP-1RA treatment after 12 months. Non-responders restarted the basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen. Development of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in both groups, alongside with parameters associated with the higher risk of return to the BBI regimen, were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 71% of patients were switched successfully (=responders). Responders had more significant improvement in HbA1c (-6.4 ± 19.7 vs. -3.4 ± 22.9 mmol/mol) and weight loss (-4.6 ± 7.1 vs. -2.5 ± 4.0). Statistically significant difference between groups was found in initial HbA1c (75.6 ± 17.9 vs. 90.5 ± 23.6; p = 0.04), total daily dose of insulin (67.6 ± 36.4 vs. 90.8 ± 32.4; p = 0.02), and mean glycaemia during the fasting test (6.9 ± 1.7 vs. 8.6 ± 2.2 mmol/L; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that therapy de-intensification in poorly controlled patients with a BBI regimen is possible. Higher baseline HbA1c, total daily insulin dose, and mean glucose during fasting test are negative predictive factors of successful therapy de-escalation.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs: Miracle drugs are blooming?

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), secreted by L cells in the small intestine, assumes a central role in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. Its influence on insulin secretion and gastric emptying positions it as a therapeutic linchpin. However, the limited applicability of native GLP-1 stems from its short half-life, primarily due to glomerular filtration and the inactivating effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV). To address this, various structural modification strategies have been developed to extend GLP-1's half-life. Despite the commendable efficacy displayed by current GLP-1 receptor agonists, inherent limitations persist. A paradigm shift emerges with the advent of unimolecular multi-agonists, such as the recently introduced tirzepatide, wherein GLP-1 is ingeniously combined with other gastrointestinal hormones. This novel approach has captured the spotlight within the diabetes and obesity research community. This review summarizes the physiological functions of GLP-1, systematically explores diverse structural modifications, delves into the realm of unimolecular multi-agonists, and provides a nuanced portrayal of the developmental prospects that lie ahead for GLP-1 analogs.

Therapeutic Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

Adequate glycemic control is key to prevent morbi-mortality from type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite the increasing availability of novel, effective, and safe medications for the treatment of T2D, and periodically updated guidelines on its management, the overall rate of glycemic goal attainment remains low (around 50%) and has not improved in the past decade. Therapeutic inertia (TI), defined as the failure to advance or de-intensify medical therapy when appropriate to do so, has been identified as a central contributor to the lack of progress in the rates of HbA1c goal attainment. The time to treatment intensification in patients not meeting glycemic goals has been estimated to be between 1 and 7 years from the time HbA1c exceeded 7%, and often, even when an intervention is carried out, it proves insufficient to achieve glycemic goals, which led to the concept of intensification inertia. Therefore, finding strategies to overcome all forms of TI in the management of T2D is a fundamental initiative, likely to have an enormous impact in health outcomes for people with T2D. There are several factors that have been described in the literature leading to TI, including clinician-related, patient-related, and healthcare system-related factors, which are discussed in this review. Likewise, several interventions addressing TI had been tested, most of them proving limited efficacy. Within the most effective interventions, there appear to be two common factors. First, they involve a team-based effort, including nurses, pharmacists, and diabetes educators. Second, they were built upon a framework based on results of qualitative studies conducted in the same context where they were later implemented, as will be discussed in this article. Given the complex nature of TI, it is crucial to use a research method that allows for an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Most of the literature on TI is focused on quantitatively describing its consequences; unfortunately, however, not many study groups have undertaken qualitative studies to deeply investigate the drivers of TI in their diverse contexts. This is particularly true in the United States, where there is an abundance of publications exploring the effects of different strategies to overcome TI in type 2 diabetes, but a severe shortage of qualitative studies aiming to truly understand the phenomenon.

Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens with IdegLira in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Literature Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

This study developed a simple algorithm based on clinical results described in medical literature and which allows one to simplify complex insulin regimes with IdegLira to avoid adverse events related to the complexity of some insulin treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature that allowed us to identify studies that evaluated the clinical result of simplifying complex insulin regimes. The authors reviewed the common factors these simpler regimes had, including the type of patients who used them.

RESULTS

We found nine clinical studies published between 2017 and 2022, eight performed in Europe and one in Latin America. The monitoring time of the studies ranged between 3 and 18 months. The size of the study populations was between 61 and 611 patients (the latter was in five countries). In all studies, HbA1c decreased by 0.6-1.7% and the weight decreased by 0.1-3.11 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings of these studies, we made some recommendations for clinical practice to simplify treatment. The results of these studies support an algorithm that simplifies the treatment of complex insulin regimens.

Predictors of Responsiveness to GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Background

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are potent antihyperglycemic agents with beneficial effects on weight, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes. Physicians lack guidance as to which patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes will respond best to GLP-1 RAs with respect to glycemic control, insulin dose reduction, and weight loss. This study evaluated the efficacy of GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin and patient factors that may predict a beneficial clinical response.

Methods

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin who had a GLP-1 RA added to their regimen were evaluated retrospectively. Baseline parameters and outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months were collected.

Results

Among the 81 patients included, there was a mean reduction in hemoglobin A1C of 0.94% (SD, 0.26; p = 0.0007), 0.40% (SD, 0.21; p = 0.0636), and 0.58% (SD, 0.23, p = 0.0154) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, following the addition of a GLP-1 RA. There was also a reduction in body weight noted at each time point. Baseline characteristics including BMI, duration of diabetes, and insulin requirement did not significantly affect A1C reduction when GLP-1 RA was added. At 3 months, patients with a random C-peptide that was normal (≥0.8 ng/ml) were significantly more likely to have discontinued insulin than those with random C-peptide that was low (<0.8 ng/ml) (11 of 23 vs. 0 of 7 patients, p = 0.029).

Conclusions

The addition of a GLP-1 RA reduced HbA1C, weight, and insulin requirements in this cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin. BMI, baseline insulin dose, and diabetes duration did not predict response. A C-peptide level ≥ 0.8 ng/ml predicted a beneficial response after 3 months of therapy.

De-intensification of basal-bolus insulin regimen after initiation of a GLP-1 RA improves glycaemic control and promotes weight loss in subjects with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in basal-bolus (BB) insulin regimen, on insulin requirement, HbA1c, weight loss up to 24 months.

METHODS

Data on subjects with T2D on BB who initiated a GLP-1 RA have been retrospectively collected. HbA1c, body weight, and insulin dose were recorded at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation of GLP-1 RA therapy. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used to evaluate the changes in HbA1c, body weight, and insulin requirement over time.

RESULTS

We included 156 subjects (63.5% males; age 62 ± 11 years, HbA1c 70 ± 22.0 mmol/mol; 8.6 ± 4.2%). Compared to baseline, HbA1c and body weight were significantly lower at 6 months after introducing a GLP-1RA and remained stable up to 24 months (all p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). At 24 months, 81% of subjects discontinued prandial insulin, while 38.6% discontinued basal insulin as well. Insulin requirement at baseline (aOR 0.144; 95% CI, 0.046-0.456; P = 0.001) was the only significant predictor of prandial insulin discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing prandial insulin with GLP-1 RA is a valuable strategy to simplify the BB insulin regimen while improving glycaemic control and promoting weight loss in subjects with T2D.

C-peptide determination in the diagnosis of type of diabetes and its management: A clinical perspective

Impaired beta-cell function is a recognized cornerstone of diabetes pathophysiology. Estimates of insulin secretory capacity are useful to inform clinical practice, helping to classify types of diabetes, complication risk stratification and to guide treatment decisions. Because C-peptide secretion mirrors beta-cell function, it has emerged as a valuable clinical biomarker, mainly in autoimmune diabetes and especially in adult-onset diabetes. Nonetheless, the lack of robust evidence about the clinical utility of C-peptide measurement in type 2 diabetes, where insulin resistance is a major confounder, limits its use in such cases. Furthermore, problems remain in the standardization of the assay for C-peptide, raising concerns about comparability of measurements between different laboratories. To approach the heterogeneity and complexity of diabetes, reliable, simple and inexpensive clinical markers are required that can inform clinicians about probable pathophysiology and disease progression, and so enable personalization of management and therapy. This review summarizes the current evidence base about the potential value of C-peptide in the management of the two most prevalent forms of diabetes (type 2 diabetes and autoimmune diabetes) to address how its measurement may assist daily clinical practice and to highlight current limitations and areas of uncertainties to be covered by future research.

Effect of once-weekly semaglutide versus thrice-daily insulin aspart, both as add-on to metformin and optimized insulin glargine treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 11): A randomized, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide versus thrice-daily (TID) insulin aspart (IAsp) in participants with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with insulin glargine (IGlar) and metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SUSTAIN 11 (NCT03689374) was a randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial. After a 12-week run-in to optimize once-daily IGlar U100, 1748 adults with T2D (HbA1c >7.5% to ≤10.0%) were randomized to OW semaglutide or TID IAsp as add-on to optimized IGlar and metformin for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomization to week 52. Confirmatory secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemic episodes and change in body weight (BW). Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

HbA1c (randomization: 8.6% [70.0 mmol/mol]) decreased by 1.5% points (16.6 mmol/mol) and 1.2% points (13.4 mmol/mol) with semaglutide (n = 874) and IAsp (n = 874), respectively (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.29% points [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.38; -0.20]; P < .0001 for non-inferiority). Few severe hypoglycaemic episodes were recorded in either group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Change in BW from randomization (87.9 kg) to week 52 was in favour of semaglutide (-4.1 kg) versus IAsp (+2.8 kg) (ETD -6.99 kg [95% CI -7.41; -6.57]). A higher proportion of participants experienced adverse events with semaglutide (58.5%) versus IAsp (52.1%); most were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this basal insulin-treated population, OW semaglutide improved glycaemic control to a greater extent than TID IAsp and provided numerically greater weight loss.

Transitioning from basal-bolus or premix insulin therapy to a combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Two fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) are available for once-daily use in adults with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to review the clinical evidence for the efficacy and safety of changing treatment from a basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen or a premix insulin to these combination treatments (fixed-ratio or loose) and provide expert opinion on the practicalities of making such a change.

METHODS

Relevant clinical and trial evidence and general review articles were identified through a literature review of ProQuest (comprising BIOSIS Previews®, Current Contents® Search, Embase® and MEDLINE®) for articles published between 2009 and 2021.

RESULTS

We identified nine articles reporting the results of FRCs, and seven articles reporting results of loose combinations of basal insulin and GLP-1RAs, in people who transitioned treatment from BBI or premix regimens. In most trials, combination treatment led to improved or equivalent glycaemic control, and a reduction in body weight or BMI, versus the original regimens. Some trials reported a reduction in total insulin dose. A few trials reported reduced or unchanged hypoglycaemia rates, or increased patient satisfaction, with combination therapy where these endpoints were examined. We provide guidance on transitioning of treatment and the patient types most likely to benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

In people not achieving glycaemic control with BBI or premix insulin regimens, an FRC or loose combination of basal insulin and GLP-1RA may improve control, decrease the risk of body weight gain or hypoglycaemia and reduce the complexity of treatment.

IDegLira for the Real-World Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Italy: Protocol and Interim Results from the REX Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

IDegLira was shown to maintain glycemic control while reducing risk of hypoglycemia and body weight gain. The REX study was designed to generate real-world evidence on the use of IDegLira in Italian clinical practice in two different subgroups of patients, those switching to IDegLira from a basal insulin-supported oral therapy (BOT group) and those from a basal plus bolus insulin regimen (BB group).

METHODS

Adult patients with T2D diagnosed for at least 12 months and having started IDegLira 2-3 months prior to enrolment, coming from a BOT or BB regimen, were enrolled in this multicenter observational prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Italian centers. This paper presents the methodological framework of the REX study and provides the interim analysis results describing the patients' baseline characteristics and the clinical reasons for IDegLira treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Of the 360 patients enrolled in the REX study, 331 were considered eligible for this interim analysis, 76.4% in the BOT and 23.6% in the BB group. Mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.5% (1.4) in the BOT and 8.2% (1.7) in the BB group. The most common T2D complications were diabetic macroangiopathy and diabetic nephropathy in both groups. The median (interquartile range) insulin daily dose before IDegLira was 15.0 (10.0-20.0) units in the BOT group and 42 (30.0-52.0) in the BB group. Oral antidiabetics were taken by 98% and 51.3% of patients, respectively. The main reason for switching to IDegLira was the inadequate glycemic control in the BOT group (86% of patients), and the intent to simplify the treatment in the BB group (66.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

IdegLira is initiated after BOT in inadequately controlled patients to improve glycemic control, whereas in BB patients it is used to simplify the therapeutic regimen. Final results of the REX study will shed light on patients' outcomes after IdegLira treatment under routine clinical care.

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.

Semaglutide, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist with cardiovascular benefits for management of type 2 diabetes

Semaglutide, a glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is available as monotherapy in both subcutaneous as well as oral dosage form (first approved oral GLP-1 receptor agonist). It has been approved as a second line treatment option for better glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes and currently under scrutiny for anti-obesity purpose. Semaglutide has been proved to be safe in adults and elderly patients with renal or hepatic disorders demanding no dose modification. Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials established that it can reduce various CV risk factors in patients with established CV disorders. Semaglutide is well tolerated with no risk of hypoglycaemia in monotherapy but suffers from gastrointestinal adverse effects. A large population affected with COVID-19 infection were diabetic; therefore use of semaglutide in diabetes as well as CV patients would be very much supportive in maintaining health care system during this pandemic situation. Hence, this peptidic drug can be truly considered as a quintessential of GLP-1 agonists for management of type 2 diabetes.

Therapeutic Potential of Semaglutide, a Newer GLP-1 Receptor Agonist, in Abating Obesity, Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis and Neurodegenerative diseases: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide, a peptidic GLP-1 receptor agonist, has been clinically approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and is available in subcutaneous and oral dosage form. Diabetes, insulin resistance, and obesity are responsible for the pathological manifestations of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Similarly, insulin resistance in brain is also responsible for neurodegeneration and impaired cognitive functions.

BACKGROUND

Observations from phase-3 clinical trials like SUSTAIN and PIONEER indicated anti-obesity potential of semaglutide, which was established in STEP trials. Various pre-clinical and phase-2 studies have indicated the therapeutic potential of semaglutide in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

DISCUSSION

Significant weight reduction ability of semaglutide has been demonstrated in various phase-3 clinical trials, for which recently semaglutide became the first long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist to be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for management of obesity. Various pre-clinical and clinical studies have revealed the hepatoprotective effect of semaglutide in NASH and neuroprotective effect in Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

CONCLUSION

Many GLP-1 receptor agonists have shown hepatoprotective and neuroprotective activity in animal and human trials. As semaglutide is an already clinically approved drug, successful human trials would hasten its inclusion into therapeutic treatment of NASH and neurodegenerative diseases. Semaglutide improves insulin resistance, insulin signalling pathway, and reduce body weight which are responsible for prevention or progression of NASH and neurodegenerative diseases.

Deprescribing in type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: Recommendations for safe and effective initiation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients on insulin therapy

Select glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits in both primary and secondary prevention populations and are recommended in multiple guidelines for cardiovascular risk reduction in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite this, uptake of GLP-1 receptor agonists in clinical practice has been lagging. While the etiology of their underuse is multifactorial, lack of comfortability in adding a GLP-1 receptor agonist to established insulin regimens is a common barrier. Adjustments to basal and bolus insulin doses upon initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists in trials have varied. When recommending empiric dose adjustments during initiation of GLP-1 receptors agonists, the most recent A1C and the current blood glucose levels, if available, should be taken into consideration. When initiating in a person being managed with basal-only insulin regimens, an empiric 20 % dose reduction is recommended if the baseline A1C is ≤8 %. For individuals using intensive insulin regimens, empiric dose reductions of up to 25 % in basal and 50 % in bolus therapy were implemented and summarized further in this review. Overall, initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists can decrease insulin requirements and may permit deintensification of antihyperglycemic therapy through the reduction or discontinuation of bolus insulin therapy. As a result, this simplified regimen promotes increased adherence, reduces glycemic variability and hypoglycemia, and improves overall glycemic management and quality of life. This review aims to serve as a guide for clinicians to facilitate the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and deintensification of insulin by providing suggested dose adjustments based on available literature.

Effect of Subcutaneous Tirzepatide vs Placebo Added to Titrated Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-5 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The effects of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, as an addition to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes have not been described.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide added to insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted at 45 medical research centers and hospitals in 8 countries (enrollment from August 30, 2019, to March 20, 2020; follow-up completed January 13, 2021) in 475 adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control while treated with once-daily insulin glargine with or without metformin.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of 5-mg (n = 116), 10-mg (n = 119), or 15-mg (n = 120) tirzepatide or volume-matched placebo (n = 120) over 40 weeks. Tirzepatide was initiated at 2.5 mg/week and escalated by 2.5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was achieved.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 40. The 5 key secondary end points included mean change in body weight and percentage of patients achieving prespecified HbA1c levels.

RESULTS

Among 475 randomized participants (211 [44%] women; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.9] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.31% [0.85%]), 451 (94.9%) completed the trial. Treatment was prematurely discontinued by 10% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 12% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, 18% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group, and 3% in the placebo group. At week 40, mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.40% with 10-mg tirzepatide and -2.34% with 15-mg tirzepatide vs -0.86% with placebo (10 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.53% [97.5% CI, -1.80% to -1.27%]; 15 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.47% [97.5% CI, -1.75% to -1.20%]; P < .001 for both). Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.11% with 5-mg tirzepatide (difference vs placebo, -1.24% [95% CI, -1.48% to -1.01%]; P < .001]). Mean body weight change from baseline was -5.4 kg with 5-mg tirzepatide, -7.5 kg with 10-mg tirzepatide, -8.8 kg with 15-mg tirzepatide and 1.6 kg with placebo (5 mg: difference, -7.1 kg [95% CI, -8.7 to -5.4]; 10 mg: difference, -9.1 kg [95% CI, -10.7 to -7.5]; 15 mg: difference, -10.5 kg [95% CI, -12.1 to -8.8]; P < .001 for all). Higher percentages of patients treated with tirzepatide vs those treated with placebo had HbA1c less than 7% (85%-90% vs 34%; P < .001 for all). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups vs placebo group were diarrhea (12%-21% vs 10%) and nausea (13%-18% vs 3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control despite treatment with insulin glargine, the addition of subcutaneous tirzepatide, compared with placebo, to titrated insulin glargine resulted in statistically significant improvements in glycemic control after 40 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04039503.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapid-acting insulin aspart.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framework. Subanalyses of Japanese and international trials were performed.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (duration 26-30 weeks) were included. Mean difference in HbA1c change with iGlarLixi exceeded that for IDegAsp: -0.64 (95% credible interval -1.01, -0.28) %-units (-7.0 [-11.0, -3.1] mmol/mol) for all trials, -0.39 (-0.55, -0.23) %-units (-4.3 [-6.0, -2.5] mmol/mol) for international, and -0.88 (-1.11, -0.64) %-units (-9.6 [-12.1, -7.0] mmol/mol) for Japanese trials. HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%-units [<53 mmol/mol]) was greater for iGlarLixi in all trials (odds ratio 2.50 [1.06, 5.56]) and Japanese trials (2.17 [1.27, 3.70]), but not in international trials (2.17 [0.42, 11.11]). Analyses suggesting differences in mean postmeal self-measured plasma glucose were significantly lower by 1.0-2.0 mmol/L (18-36 mg/dL) with iGlarLixi in all analyses. Bodyweight change was more favourable (1-2 kg) for iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp for all analyses (P < 0.05). Comparisons of hypoglycaemia were inconclusive owing to differences in definitions between studies. Adverse events were more frequent with iGlarLixi because of gastrointestinal intolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi appears to offer clinical benefit in glucose control and bodyweight change in people needing both basal and meal-time intervention.

Future directions in insulin therapy

Insulin therapy has a long history at the cutting edge of technological development through purification, extended-action, molecular chemistry, and devices, and in support technologies including self-measurement and patient education. But unmet needs remain large. Today's therapy cannot deliver minute-to-minute control of glucose levels, and cannot imitate the reflex/incretin driven physiological insulin delivery at mealtimes. Further it depends on a raft of devices for administration several times a day, devices liked for their functionality, but disliked as an intrusive reminder of the condition, several times a day. Approaches to overcoming these barriers include closed-loop systems and further modification of insulin formulations, but are limited by fundamental underlying difficulties. While clinical studies of oral insulin are in progress, the barriers to success look daunting. Development of small-molecule approaches (insulin-mimetic tablets) appears to have stalled, while concepts for glucose-responsive insulin as yet fail to deliver the necessary insulin-to-glucose gradient. Gene therapy, feasible in animals in preliminary studies, is not capable of providing feedback control. Transplantation of cultured islets and islet B-cells from stem cells thus looks to the be the best long-term prospect for insulin delivery in terms of overcoming the above barriers, but is a true biotechnological tour-de-force which will take time to mature.

Insulin therapy development beyond 100 years

The first insulin preparation capable of consistently lowering blood glucose was developed in 1921. But 100 years later, blood glucose control with insulin in people with diabetes is nearly universally suboptimal, with essentially the same molecule still delivered by the same inappropriate subcutaneous injection route. Bypassing this route with oral administration appears to have become technologically feasible, accelerating over the past 50 years, either with packaged insulin peptides or by chemical insulin mimetics. Some of the problems of prospective unregulated absorption of insulin into the circulation from subcutaneous depots might be overcome with glucose-responsive insulins. Approaches to these problems could be modification of the peptide by adducts, or the use of nanoparticles or insulin patches, which deliver insulin according to glucose concentration. Some attention has been paid to targeting insulin preferentially to different organs, either by molecular engineering of insulin, or with adducts. But all these approaches still have problems in even beginning to match the responsiveness of physiological insulin delivery to metabolic requirements, both prandially and basally. As would be expected, for all these technically complex approaches, many examples of abandoned development can be found. Meanwhile, it is becoming possible to change the duration of action of subcutaneous injected insulin analogues to act even more rapidly for meals, and towards weekly insulin for basal administration. The state of the art of all these approaches, and the barriers to success, are reviewed here.

Simplification of complex insulin therapy: a story of dogma and therapeutic resignation

The combination of rapid-acting plus long-acting insulins has been the cornerstone of therapy of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and has also become the gold standard of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). A significant proportion of T2DM patients are overtreated, with potential harms of insulin therapy exceeding its benefits. Treatment simplification aims to decrease the complexity of insulin regimens, including, but not limited to fewer administration times and fewer blood glucose checks. Few small studies in T2DM patients with good glycemic control have shown that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or sodium-glucose cotrasporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors can be a safe and effective alternative to bolus insulin, if basal insulin administration is continued. Two larger and controlled trials have thrown some light about simplification of complex insulin regimens in patients with T2DM and poor glycemic control. Although different in their design (randomized controlled trial versus pragmatic trial), their results provide evidence that it is possible to switch from a basal bolus insulin regimen to a combination of basal insulin plus either a GLP-1RA or a daily gliflozin pill, with same or better glycemic control, less injections, less insulin doses, less hypoglycemia and increased satisfaction of therapy. The dogma about the untouchability of basal bolus insulin regimen has been confuted.

Feasibility of Simplification From a Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen to a Fixed-Ratio Formulation of Basal Insulin Plus a GLP-1RA or to Basal Insulin Plus an SGLT2 Inhibitor: BEYOND, a Randomized, Pragmatic Trial

OBJECTIVE

BEYOND trial evaluated the feasibility of either basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or basal insulin plus sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) to replace a full basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen in participants with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to: 1) intensification of the BBI regimen (n = 101), 2) fixed ratio of basal insulin plus GLP-1RA (fixed-combo group; n = 102), and 3) combination of basal insulin plus SGLT2i (gliflo-combo group; n = 102). The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline in HbA_1c at 6 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar among the three groups (mean HbA_1c was 8.6% [70 mmol/mol]). At 6 months, patients experienced similar reduction in HbA_1c level (-0.6 ± 0.8, -0.6 ± 0.8, and -0.7 ± 0.9%, mean ± SD, respectively; noninferiority P < 0.001 vs. BBI), and the proportion of patients with HbA_1c ≤7.5% was also similar (34%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; P = 0.489). Total insulin dose increased in the BBI group (62 units/day) and decreased both in the fixed-combo and gliflo-combo groups (27 units/day and 21 units/day, respectively; P < 0.01). The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia was 17.8%, 7.8%, and 5.9%, respectively (P = 0.015). There were 12 dropouts in the fixed-combo group, 9 in the gliflo-combo group, and none in the BBI group.

CONCLUSIONS

BEYOND provides evidence that it is possible and safe to switch from a BBI regimen to either a once-daily fixed-combo injection or once-daily gliflozin added to basal insulin, with similar glucose control, fewer insulin doses, fewer injections daily, and less hypoglycemia.

Deintensification of basal-bolus insulin after initiation of GLP-1RA in patients with type 2 diabetes under routine care

AIMS

We evaluated de-intensification of basal-bolus insulin (BBI) after initiation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) under routine care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter study conducted at outpatient clinics in North-East Italy collected data on patients with T2D on BBI who initiated a GLP-1RA. Patients were divided according to whether they de-intensified BBI at the end of observation by stopping prandial insulin.

RESULTS

We included 425 patients with mean age of 61.3 years and 13 years of diabetes duration. Baseline HbA1c was 8.6% and BMI was 35.5 kg/m². After 14 months. 58.6% of patients de-intensified BBI after initiating GLP-1RA: they were younger, had a shorter disease duration, lower HbA1c and insulin dose, and less frequent microangiopathy than those who continued BBI. A probability estimation based on these variables was validated in an independent cohort of 40 patients. Body weight improved in both groups, but HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose significantly declined only among patients who de-intensified BBI. Patients who de-intensified BBI and persisted on GLP-1RA at the last observation (80.7%) had greater HbA1c reductions.

CONCLUSION

Under routine care, GLP-1RA initiation frequently allowed discontinuing BBI, especially among patients with shorter disease duration, lower insulin requirement, and better glucose control.