Combining incretin-based therapies with insulin: realizing the potential in type 2 diabetes

Simultaneous Versus Sequential Initiation of Lixisenatide and Basal Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes: Subgroup Analysis of a Japanese Post-Marketing Surveillance Study of Lixisenatide (PRANDIAL)

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide and basal insulin (BI) according to timing of treatment initiation, treatment compliance, and number of concomitant daily injections in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Each substudy analyzed subgroup data from the 3-year post-marketing surveillance PRANDIAL study. Endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial glucose, treatment response (HbA1c < 7.0% at week 24 and 156), and safety. Changes in HbA1c levels were analyzed using paired t tests; between-group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Of 2679 participants, 46.5% initiated BI before lixisenatide, 12.0% the same day, 2.7% between 1 and 90 days, and 2.8% at 91 or more days after lixisenatide; 36.0% did not receive BI. Overall, 85.4% of patients were compliant with lixisenatide treatment. The majority of patients (52.4%) received two injections/day (one was lixisenatide). Compared with other subgroups taking BI and lixisenatide, the subgroup starting them simultaneously had a mean change in HbA1c of - 0.69% [8 mmol/mol] (vs + 0.07% [0.8 mmol/mol] to - 0.79% [9 mmol/mol]) and numerically higher treatment response (21.0% vs 8.3-18.7%), but more hypoglycemia (8.1% vs 2.3-2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese people with T2D achieved better glycemic control by simultaneous as opposed to sequential initiation of lixisenatide and BI.

Efficacy and safety of gemigliptin as add-on therapy to insulin, with or without metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (ZEUS II study)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin added to a stable dose of insulin alone or of insulin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. After a two-week run-in period, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive gemigliptin 50 mg or placebo once daily as add-on to background therapy with insulin or insulin plus metformin for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline at Week 24. Baseline characteristics were similar between the gemigliptin (n = 188) and placebo (n = 95) groups in terms of HbA1c (8.1%). At Week 24, the gemigliptin group showed a statistically significant reduction in mean HbA1c from baseline as compared with placebo (between-group mean difference, -0.7% [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.4%]; P-value < 0.0001). The incidence of overall adverse events and the number of hypoglycaemic adverse events were similar between the study groups. Gemigliptin added to insulin alone or to insulin in combination with metformin resulted in superior glycaemic control compared to that in the placebo group and was well tolerated for 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, without causing weight gain or increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

High level of clinical inertia in insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes across Central and South-Eastern Europe: insights from SITIP study

AIMS

Little is known regarding initiation of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Central and South-Eastern European countries. Therefore, we conducted a survey to characterise the prescribing practices of specialist diabetes healthcare professionals in this region and assessed factors that influence clinical decision-making regarding insulin initiation in T2D.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey sampled 211 specialist diabetes healthcare prescribers from five Central and South-Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, and Slovenia). A structured questionnaire was developed which surveyed current clinical practices and influencing factors, barriers to insulin initiation, and combination therapy prescribing preferences.

RESULT

Only 9.4% (20 of out of 211 respondents) of healthcare professionals would initiate insulin therapy in T2D patients at the recommended HbA1c threshold of 7-7.9% [53-63 mmol/mol]. Large regional differences were evident in insulin initiation thresholds (≥ 9.0% [≥ 75 mmol/mol]: Bulgaria 80.8% vs. Slovenia 13.3%). Psychological distress was recorded as the major barrier to insulin initiation. Health insurance regulations were ranked more important than personal clinical experience and clinical guidelines in clinical decision-making. Information from peers was more influential than manufacturer information, clinical experience, and continuous medical education, respectively, for insulin initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite large regional variation, there is widespread delay of insulin initiation from specialist diabetes healthcare professionals in Central and South-Eastern Europe.

Clinical Characteristics and Glycemic Outcomes of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Requiring Maximum Dose Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide Fixed-Ratio Combination or Insulin Glargine in the LixiLan-L Trial

INTRODUCTION

iGlarLixi is a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar, 100 units/ml) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 LixiLan-L trial (NCT02058160) investigated baseline characteristics, glycemic control, and safety outcomes in participants who received the study-specified maximum dose (60 units/day) of iGlarLixi or iGlar vs. those who received < 60 units/day.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared for participants receiving 60 or < 60 units/day at week 30. Endpoints analyzed included change in A1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial glucose (2-h PPG), body weight, proportion of participants achieving A1C < 7.0%, proportion of participants receiving rescue therapy, documented symptomatic hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal adverse event (GI AE) incidence.

RESULTS

By week 30, 27% (iGlarLixi) and 31% (iGlar) of participants received the maximum dose. Participants on 60 vs. < 60 units/day were younger and had higher body weight, body mass index (BMI), FPG, and baseline insulin dose. In both dose groups, A1C change from baseline was significantly greater with iGlarLixi vs. iGlar, and more participants treated with iGlarLixi vs. iGlar achieved A1C < 7.0%. No significant differences were observed in change from baseline for A1C, FPG, 2-h PPG, or GI AE incidence between insulin dose groups, regardless of treatment. In both treatment arms, incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was lower in participants receiving 60 units/day vs. those receiving < 60 units/day. Participants treated with iGlarLixi (< 60 or 60 units/day) had modest weight loss over 30 weeks vs. an increase in weight compared with iGlar.

CONCLUSIONS

Maximum doses of iGlarLixi were required in participants with a more insulin-resistant clinical phenotype (younger, higher BMI, FPG, and insulin doses). Benefits were observed with iGlarLixi vs. iGlar, even at 60 units/day, with more participants achieving glycemic goals, no increase in symptomatic hypoglycemia, and a modest reduction in body weight.

FUNDING

Sanofi US, Inc.

Effectiveness and Safety of Adding Basal Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Exhibiting Inadequate Response to Metformin and DPP-4 Inhibitors with or without Sulfonylurea

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of adding basal insulin to initiating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and metformin and/or sulfonylurea (SU) in achieving the target glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was a single-arm, multicenter, 24-week, open-label, phase 4 study in patients with inadequately controlled (HbA1c ≥7.5%) T2DM despite the use of DPP-4 inhibitor and metformin. A total of 108 patients received insulin glargine while continuing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c ≤7.0%. Other glycemic profiles were also evaluated, and the safety endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

The median HbA1c at baseline (8.9%; range, 7.5% to 11.1%) decreased to 7.6% (5.5% to 11.7%) at 24 weeks. Overall, 31.7% subjects (n=33) achieved the target HbA1c level of ≤7.0%. The mean differences in body weight and fasting plasma glucose were 1.2±3.4 kg and 56.0±49.8 mg/dL, respectively. Hypoglycemia was reported in 36 subjects (33.3%, 112 episodes), all of which were fully recovered. There was no serious AE attributed to insulin glargine. Body weight change was significantly different between SU users and nonusers (1.5±2.5 kg vs. -0.9±6.0 kg, P=0.011).

CONCLUSION

The combination add-on therapy of insulin glargine, on metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors with or without SU was safe and efficient in reducing HbA1c levels and thus, is a preferable option in managing T2DM patients exhibiting dysglycemia despite the use of OADs.

Achievement of Target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) by U.S. Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated With Basal Insulin in Both Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach glycemic goals despite basal insulin treatment. This study assessed the achievement of a target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) after initiation of basal insulin in two settings.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of pooled randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, from 11 24-week studies of patients initiating basal insulin performed between 2000 and 2005 and of outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) data from the General Electric Centricity database for insulin-naive patients initiating basal insulin between 2005 and 2012. Baseline characteristics stratified by target A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) attainment were compared descriptively.

RESULTS

In the RCT dataset, 49.0% of patients failed to achieve the target A1C at 6 months versus 72.4% and 72.9% at 6 and 12 months in the EMR dataset, respectively. Despite this, in the RCT dataset, 79.4% of patients achieved the target A1C and/or an FPG <130 mg/dL. In the EMR dataset, only 47.6% and 47.3% of patients achieved an A1C <7.0% and/or FPG <130 mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Overall, patients with an A1C >7.0% had a longer diabetes duration and were more likely to be female, nonwhite, and self-funding or covered by Medicaid. Among patients with an A1C >7.0%, more RCT patients (58.0%) had an FPG <130 mg/dL than EMR patients at 6 months (27.8%) and 12 months (27.7%).

CONCLUSION

Unmet needs remain after basal insulin initiation, particularly in real-world settings, where many patients require further insulin titration. In both populations, patients failing to achieve the target A1C despite attaining an FPG <130 mg/dL require interventions to improve postprandial control.

Approaches to rapid acting insulin intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not achieving glycemic targets

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing problem in the USA, affecting 30.3 million Americans, or 9.4% of the US population. Given that T2DM is a progressive disease, intensification of rapid acting insulin (RAI) to address hyperglycaemia is often required. The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend individualizing the treatment approach to glucose control, considering factors such as age, health behaviours, comorbidities and life expectancy. There are several validated treatment algorithms in the literature, which can be helpful for providing guidance on initiation of RAI while simultaneously considering patient preferences and clinical needs during treatment intensification. This paper provides expert recommendations on prandial insulin regimens and how to use treatment algorithms to promote better glucose control through best practice guidelines. To help patients reach HbA1c targets through treatment intensification, the FullSTEP, SimpleSTEP, ExtraSTEP and AUTONOMY algorithms are discussed in this paper. KEY MESSAGES Clinical inertia should be prevented with timely intensification of therapy when HbA1c levels are greater than 7% (or rising above a patient's individual target) according to national guidelines. Increased personalization in the intensification of T2D treatment is necessary to improve HbA1c targets while addressing risk of hypoglycaemia, concern about weight gain, and overall health goals. Healthcare providers are encouraged to address glycaemic control with a variety of strategies, including prandial insulin, while developing evidence-based treatment plans on the basis of algorithms discussed in the literature.

A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Once-Weekly Semaglutide with Other GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving Basal Insulin

INTRODUCTION

Once-weekly semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue that is currently available as 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg dose for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Currently, no head-to-head trial investigating once-weekly semaglutide as an add-on to basal insulin vs other GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is available. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide vs other GLP-1 RAs in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify all trials of GLP-1 RAs as an add-on to basal insulin in patients with T2D. Data at 24 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes (feasible for analysis in an NMA), including the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, and systolic blood pressure, and the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Data were synthesized using a NMA and a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

In total, eight studies were included across the base-case analyses. The results demonstrate that once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c (- 0.88% to - 1.39% vs comparators) and weight (- 1.49 to - 4.69 kg vs comparators) and similar odds of experiencing nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea vs all GLP-1 RA comparators. Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg was also equally effective at reducing systolic blood pressure compared with liraglutide 1.8 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs the majority of other GLP-1 RAs, except liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. The odds of experiencing nausea were significantly lower with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg compared with all GLP-1 RA comparators.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg as an add-on to basal insulin is likely to be the most efficacious GLP-1 RA for reducing HbA1c and weight from baseline after 6 months of treatment. The efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide is not associated with a significant increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal side-effects vs other GLP-1 RAs.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Initiating Titratable Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin Analogs and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: What You Need to Know

IN BRIEF Titratable fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of a basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist are new therapeutic options for people with type 2 diabetes. Two FRCs-insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine/lixisenatide-have been approved for use in the United States. The two components in these FRCs target different aspects of diabetes pathophysiology, working in a complementary manner to decrease blood glucose while mitigating the side effects associated with each component (hypoglycemia and weight gain with insulin and gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists). This article reviews these products and key considerations for their use.

What have we learnt from "real world" data, observational studies and meta-analyses

The incretin therapies glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors are now well-established as second and third-line therapies and in combination with insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, there is accumulating evidence of their efficacy and safety from both large multicentre randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies. Cardiovascular outcome trials have confirmed that several of these agents are also non-inferior to placebo with the GLP-1 RA liraglutide and semaglutide recently found to be superior in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. Observational studies and post-marketing surveillance provide real world evidence of safety and effectiveness of these agents and have provided reassurance that signals for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer seen in clinical trials are not of major concern in large patient populations. Well-designed real world studies complement RCTs and systematic reviews but appropriate data and methodologies, which are constantly improving, are necessary to answer appropriate clinical questions relating to the use of incretin therapies.

Glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes: Opportunities and challenges for peptides

This overview considers the opportunities and challenges that face the use of gluco-regulatory peptides to treat type 2 diabetes. New insulin analogues and formulations are being developed with pharmacokinetic properties to speed-up or prolong transfer from a subcutaneous injection site to the target tissues, or to selectively favour effects on the liver. Alternative routes of insulin administration continue to attract attention, and advances in the integration of glucose monitoring with insulin pump devices are improving miniaturised 'closed loop' artificial pancreas systems. Proof of concept has been established for non-cellular glucose-responsive insulin delivery ('smart insulins') to release insulin from implants or circulating depots in proportion to circulating glucose. The many peptides involved in blood glucose control offer diverse therapeutic opportunities. Exploitation of multiple selected receptor targets using constructs of hybrid and chimeric peptides, especially those based on glucagon and gastrointestinal hormones, has gained much credence from initial preclinical studies. Peptide templates identified from comparative endocrine studies have also provided valuable insights in this respect and indicated novel approaches to address associated conditions such as obesity and infections at the same time. Nevertheless, there are many challenges to the use of therapeutic peptides that impose on every step in the complex pathway from design and testing through to making a fully characterised therapeutic product, and optimising administration, tissue targeting and degradation. Stability of peptides and immunological uncertainties of novel structures require particular consideration as well as the need to avoid over-reduction of blood glucose into hypoglycaemia.

iGlarLixi, a titratable once-daily fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and lixisenatide for intensifying type 2 diabetes management for patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents

BACKGROUND

Achieving and maintaining glycemic control is important for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), to reduce disease-related complications and mortality; however, about half of US patients fail to meet glycemic targets. iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide for once-daily administration, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in adults with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin (<60 U daily) or lixisenatide. iGlar and lixisenatide have complementary mechanisms of action, primarily targeting fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose, respectively. In the US, iGlarLixi is available in a 3:1 ratio of iGlar and lixisenatide, respectively, across the dosage range of 15-60 U of iGlar and 5-20 µg of lixisenatide.

METHODS

This study identified phase 3 trials which assessed the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi. Relevant trials were LixiLan-O, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar or lixisenatide alone in insulin-naïve patients, and LixiLan-L, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar alone in insulin-experienced patients.

RESULTS

Patients on iGlarLixi experienced greater A1C reduction and were more likely to achieve A1C <7.0% than its comparators. iGlarLixi mitigated the weight gain associated with iGlar without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and resulted in a lower frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with lixisenatide.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi provides a new approach to therapy intensification in patients with T2D. iGlarLixi showed greater A1C efficacy compared with either iGlar or lixisenatide, mitigating iGlar-associated weight gain, without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and reducing the gastrointestinal side-effects seen with lixisenatide.

The impact of extended release exenatide as adjuvant therapy on hemoglobin A1C, weight, and total daily dose of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using U-500 insulin

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant exenatide extended release (ER) therapy in patients treated with regular U-500 insulin.

METHODS

In this retrospective chart review at an ambulatory care center in the Midwest, 18 patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with regular U-500 insulin and adjuvant exenatide ER were identified. These patients were evaluated for outcomes following the addition of exenatide ER. The primary outcome was change in HbA_1C from baseline to 3, 6, and 12months. Secondary outcomes included change in weight, total daily dose (TDD) of insulin, and hypoglycemia. Repeated measures ANOVA was performed to assess the differences in mean scores over four time periods.

RESULTS

A total of 18 of 50 patients met inclusion criteria with sufficient data to be included in analysis. HbA_1C showed non-significant findings from baseline to 12months (8.08% vs. 8.23%; p=0.75). A non-significant, modest weight loss occurred (146.4kgvs. 144.2kg; -2.2kg; p=0.31). A significant decrease in TDD of insulin was observed (378 units vs. 326 units; p<0.001). There was a trend towards hypoglycemia from baseline to month 3 post addition of exenatide ER (0.33 events vs. 1.33 events; p=0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with regular U-500 insulin, adjuvant exenatide ER therapy showed no significant improvement in HbA_1C, but did show modest weight loss as well as decreased insulin requirements to achieve a HbA_1C that was comparable to baseline.

Sitagliptin 100 mg vs glimepiride 1-3 mg as an add-on to insulin and metformin in type 2 diabetes (SWIM)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of sitagliptin (100 mg) vs glimepiride (1-3 mg) as add-on therapy in Indian type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients on treatment with insulin and metformin (SWIM study).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 24-week, controlled, open-label study randomized T2DM patients (n = 440) receiving a stable dose of metformin and insulin combination therapy to sitagliptin (100 mg) or glimepiride (1-3 mg) as add-on therapy. Baseline HbA1c was ≥7.3% and ≤8.5%. After a 6-week titration period for glimepiride (dose titrated every 2 weeks by 1 mg up to a maximum of 3 mg daily), patients were continued for 18 weeks on their respective tolerable doses of glimepiride (ranging from 1 mg to 3 mg) or sitagliptin (100 mg) along with metformin and insulin.

RESULTS

Greater reductions in HbA1c and TDD of insulin were achieved with sitagliptin compared to glimepiride. HbA1c targets and reductions in TDD were achieved by more patients on sitagliptin than on glimepiride. Reductions in both body weight and BMI were also noted among patients on sitagliptin when compared to those on glimepiride, and more hypoglycemic events occurred with glimepiride treatment than with sitagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Sitagliptin (100 mg), when compared to glimepiride (1-3 mg), bestowed beneficial effects to T2DM patients in terms of achieving greater glycemic control and also brought significant reductions in total daily dose of insulin required, bodyweight, BMI and hypoglycemic events. Overall, the results suggest that sitagliptin (100 mg) is a superior agent over glimepiride (1-3 mg) as an add-on to insulin-metformin therapy among Asian Indians with T2DM.

Bolus Insulin Prescribing Recommendations for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Timely initiation and titration of bolus insulin can help improve outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Reduction of postprandial glucose by lixisenatide vs sitagliptin treatment in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes on background insulin glargine: A randomized phase IV study (NEXTAGE Study)

AIM

To evaluate the pharmacodynamics of lixisenatide once daily vs sitagliptin once daily in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin glargine U100.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre, open-label, phase IV study (NEXTAGE Study; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02200991) randomly assigned 136 patients to either lixisenatide once daily via subcutaneous injection (10 µg initially increased weekly by 5 up to 20 µg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 50 mg. The primary endpoint was the change in postprandial glucose (PPG) exposure 4 hours after a standardized breakfast (PPG area under the plasma glucose concentration-time curve [AUC_0:00-4:00h ]) from baseline to day 29.

RESULTS

Lixisenatide reduced PPG exposure to a statistically significantly greater extent than sitagliptin: least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in PPG AUC_0:00-4:00h was -347.3 h·mg/dL (-19.3 h·mmol/L) in the lixisenatide group and -113.3 h·mg/dL (-6.3 h·mmol/L) in the sitagliptin group (LS mean between-group difference -234.0 h·mg/dL [-13.0 h·mmol/L], 95% confidence interval -285.02 to -183.00 h·mg/dL [-15.8 to -10.2 h·mmol/L]; P < .0001). Lixisenatide led to significantly greater LS mean reductions in maximum PPG excursion than sitagliptin (-122.4 vs -46.6 mg/dL [-6.8 vs -2.6 h·mmol/L]; P < .0001). Change-from-baseline reductions in exposure to C-peptide, fasting glycoalbumin levels, and the gastric emptying rate were greater in the lixisenatide than in the sitagliptin group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with lixisenatide (60.9%) than with sitagliptin (16.4%), with no serious events or severe hypoglycaemia reported.

CONCLUSION

Lixisenatide reduced PPG significantly more than sitagliptin, when these agents were added to basal insulin glargine U100, and was well tolerated.

Lixisenatide as add-on treatment among patients with different β-cell function levels as assessed by HOMA-β index

BACKGROUND

The effect of lixisenatide-a prandial once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist-on glycaemic control in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), stratified by baseline β-cell function, was assessed.

METHODS

The 24-week GetGoal-M, -P and -S trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents. This post hoc analysis used data from patients receiving lixisenatide in these trials, divided into matched cohorts by propensity scoring, and stratified according to baseline homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β) index levels, high HOMA-β: > median HOMA-β (28.49%); low HOMA-β: ≤ median.

RESULTS

The matched "low" and "high" HOMA-β index cohorts (N = 546 patients) had comparable baseline parameters. Mean change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c ) was -0.85% and -0.94% for low and high HOMA-β cohorts, respectively (P = .2607). Reductions from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG; -0.77 vs -1.04 mmol/L; P = .1496) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG; -5.82 vs -5.61 mmol/L; P = .7511) were similar in the low versus high HOMA-β index cohorts. Reduction in body weight was significantly greater in the low versus high HOMA-β index cohort (-2.06 vs -1.13 kg, respectively; P = .0006).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM, lixisenatide was associated with reduction in HbA_1c and improvements in both FPG and PPG, regardless of β-cell function, indicating that lixisenatide is effective in reducing hyperglycaemia, even in patients with more advanced stages of T2DM and poor residual β-cell function.

iGlarLixi: A Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL and Lixisenatide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To review the safety and efficacy of iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. Data Sources: A literature search of MEDLINE for all English-language primary articles through June 2016, using the terms LixiLan, iGlarLixi and insulin glargine and lixisenatide, and a search of abstracts presented at the 2016 Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association were performed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All studies assessing the efficacy and/or safety of iGlarLixi were evaluated. Data Synthesis: iGlarLixi has been approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with basal insulin (<60 U/d) or lixisenatide. In clinical trials, iGlarLixi was associated with significantly greater reductions from baseline in glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) than iGlar or lixisenatide alone. Reductions in postprandial glucose were also greater with iGlarLixi than with iGlar or lixisenatide. iGlarLixi was weight neutral compared with the weight gain with iGlar and loss with lixisenatide alone, and there was no increase in hypoglycemia with iGlarLixi compared with iGlar despite the greater A1C reduction. Gastrointestinal events, frequently associated with lixisenatide, were less common with iGlarLixi. Potential drawbacks of iGlarLixi include reduced flexibility in dosing and the absence of long-term efficacy and safety data. Conclusions: iGlarLixi is a titratable fixed-ratio combination that shows improved efficacy and comparable or improved safety outcomes relative to its separate constituents, offering an alternative approach to intensification of therapy in T2D.

The Role of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

The role of GLP-1 agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been shown to be viable options for add-on therapy in diabetic patients, as well as potential monotherapy options. With six available GLP-1 agents, and new combination products in the pipeline, they are a promising drug class for type 2 diabetic patients, especially due to their extended dosing interval and potential weight loss benefits.

Efficacy and safety of coadministration of sitagliptin with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aim of the randomized present study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of a combination of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor, plus insulin glargine (GL + sita) with that of premixed insulin aspart 30 (NOV) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients controlled with oral hypoglycemic drugs (HbA1c 7 %-9 %).

METHODS

Sixty-five patients were randomized (1:  1) to the GL + sita (n = 33) and NOV (n = 32) groups and were treated with the combination regimen or premixed insulin twice a day for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was mean change in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints included fasting blood glucose, blood glucose profiles (seven time points), rate of achieving target HbA1c (<7 % or ≤6.5 %), insulin dose, incidence of hypoglycemia, and body weight.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks, there was no significant difference in HbA1c between the two groups, although more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0 % in the GL + sita group. There was a significant difference in body weight changes between the GL + sita and NOV groups (-0.45 vs 1.52 kg, respectively; P < 0.001). Mean plasma glucose and the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion were significantly lower in the GL + sita than NOV group (P < 0.005), as was the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia (2.85 % vs. 13.3 %, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The combination of GL + sita greatly improved HbA1c in T2D patients (HbA1c 7 %-9 %) with an efficacy that was equal to that of premixed insulin. Thus, GL + sita treatment is a viable option for patients who fail to achieve glycemic control using oral hypoglycemic drugs.

Improving drug-like properties of insulin and GLP-1 via molecule design and formulation and improving diabetes management with device & drug delivery

There is an increased incidence of diabetes worldwide. The discovery of insulin revolutionized the management of diabetes, the revelation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and introduction of GLP-1 receptor agonists to clinical practice was another breakthrough. Continued translational research resulted in better understanding of diabetes, which, in combination with cutting-edge biology, chemistry, and pharmaceutical tools, have allowed for the development of safer, more effective and convenient insulins and GLP-1. Advances in self-administration of insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies with use of drug-device combination products have further improved the outcomes of diabetes management and quality of life for diabetic patients. The synergies of insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist actions have led to development of devices that can deliver both molecules simultaneously. New chimeric GLP-1-incretins and insulin-GLP-1-incretin molecules are also being developed. The objective of this review is to summarize molecular designs to improve the drug-like properties of insulin and GLP-1 and to highlight the continued advancement of drug-device combination products to improve diabetes management.

Addition of or switch to insulin therapy in people treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A real-world study in 66 583 patients

BACKGROUND

Real world outcomes of addition or switch to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients on glucagon-like paptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) with inadequately controlled hyperglycaemia, are not known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with T2DM (n = 66 583) with a minimum of 6 months of GLP-1RA treatment and without previous insulin treatment were selected. Those who added insulin (n = 39 599) or switched to insulin after GLP-1RA cessation (n = 4706) were identified. Adjusted changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and LDL cholesterol were estimated over 24 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Among those who continued with GLP-1RA treatment without adding or switching to insulin, the highest adjusted mean HbA1c change was achieved within 6 months, with no further glycaemic benefits observed during 24 months of follow-up. Addition of insulin within 6 months of GLP-1RA initiation was associated with 18% higher odds of achieving HbA1c <7% at 24 months, compared with adding insulin later. At 24 months, those who added insulin reduced HbA1c significantly by 0.55%, while no glycaemic benefit was observed in those who switched to insulin. Irrespective of intensification with insulin, weight, SBP and LDL cholesterol were significantly reduced by 3 kg, 3 mm Hg, and 0.2 mmol/L, respectively, over 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant delay in intensification of treatment by addition of insulin is observed in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with GLP-1RA. Earlier addition of insulin is associated with better glycaemic control, while switching to insulin is not clinically beneficial during 2 years of treatment. Non-responding patients on GLP-1RA would benefit from adding insulin therapy, rather than switching to insulin.

Practical combination therapy based on pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a complex, chronic, and progressive condition that often necessitates the use of multiple medications to achieve glycemic goals. Clinical guidelines generally recommend intensifying pharmacotherapy if glycemic goals are not achieved after 3 months of treatment. However, for many patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment intensification is delayed or does not occur. Initiating combination therapy early in the disease course has the potential to delay disease progression and improve patient outcomes. Guidelines generally provide a list of agents that may be used in combination regimens and emphasize individualization of treatment. The purpose of this review is to discuss the rationale for combination therapy, considering treatment effects on pathophysiologic aspects of type 2 diabetes and individual drug profiles. The combination of newer antidiabetes therapies with complementary mechanisms of action provides the opportunity to target multiple sites of tissue, organ, and cellular dysfunction.

Effect of adding insulin degludec to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and liraglutide: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (BEGIN: ADD TO GLP-1 Study)

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding insulin degludec (IDeg) to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving liraglutide and metformin and qualifying for treatment intensification because of inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

In this 26-week, double-blind trial, patients who still had inadequate glycaemic control after a 15-week run-in period with initiation and dose escalation of liraglutide to 1.8 mg in combination with metformin (≥1500 mg) were randomized to addition of once-daily IDeg ('IDeg add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 174) or placebo ('placebo add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 172), with dosing of both IDeg and placebo based on titration guidelines.

RESULTS

At 26 weeks, the mean change in glycated haemoglobin level was greater in the IDeg add-on to liraglutide arm (-1.04%) than in the placebo add-on to liraglutide arm (-0.16%; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean fasting plasma glucose reduction was greater, and self-measured plasma glucose values were lower at all eight time points, with IDeg add-on versus placebo add-on (both p < 0.0001). At 26 weeks, the IDeg dose was 51 U (0.54 U/kg). During the run-in period with liraglutide, body weight decreased by ∼3 kg in both groups. After 26 weeks, the mean change was +2.0 kg (IDeg add-on to liraglutide) and -1.3 kg (placebo add-on to liraglutide). Confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were low in both groups, although higher with IDeg than with placebo (0.57 vs. 0.12 episodes/patient-years of exposure; p = 0.0002). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was infrequent in both groups, with no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, and no marked differences in adverse events with either treatment approach.

CONCLUSION

The addition of liraglutide and IDeg to patients sub-optimally treated with metformin and liraglutide and requiring treatment intensification was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

Pursuit of a perfect insulin

Insulin remains indispensable in the treatment of diabetes, but its use is hampered by its narrow therapeutic index. Although advances in peptide chemistry and recombinant DNA-based macromolecule synthesis have enabled the synthesis of structurally optimized insulin analogues, the growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes have emphasized the need for diabetes therapies that are more efficacious, safe and convenient. Accordingly, a broad set of drug candidates, targeting hyperglycaemia plus other disease abnormalities, is now progressing through the clinic. The development of an insulin therapy that is responsive to glucose concentration remains an ultimate goal, with initial prototypes now reaching the proof-of-concept stage. Simultaneously, the first alternatives to injectable delivery have progressed to registration.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors with insulin in type 2 diabetes: Clinical perspectives

The treatment of type 2 diabetes is a challenging problem. Most subjects with type 2 diabetes have progression of beta cell failure necessitating the addition of multiple antidiabetic agents and eventually use of insulin. Intensification of insulin leads to weight gain and increased risk of hypoglycemia. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a class of antihyperglycemic agents which act by blocking the SGLT2 in the proximal tubule of the kidney. They have potential benefits in terms of weight loss and reduction of blood pressure in addition to improvements in glycemic control. Further, one of the SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin has proven benefits in reducing adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in a CV outcome trial. Adding SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin in subjects with type 2 diabetes produced favorable effects on glycemic control without the weight gain and hypoglycemic risks associated with insulin therapy. The general risks of increased genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infections, volume, and osmosis-related adverse effects in these subjects were similar to the pooled data of individual SGLT2 inhibitors. There are subsets of subjects with type 2 diabetes who may have insulin deficiency, beta cell autoimmunity, or is prone to diabetic ketoacidosis. In these subjects, SGLT2 inhibitors should be used with caution to prevent the rare risks of ketoacidosis.

IDegLira Versus Alternative Intensification Strategies in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin Therapy

INTRODUCTION

IDegLira is a once-daily combination of insulin degludec (IDeg) and liraglutide. Trials directly comparing IDegLira with alternative strategies for intensifying basal insulin are ongoing. While awaiting results, this analysis compared indirectly how different strategies affected glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) and other outcomes.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of five completed Novo Nordisk randomized clinical trials in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin was used to compare indirectly IDegLira (N = 199) with: addition of liraglutide to basal insulin (N = 225) [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) add-on strategy]; basal-bolus (BB) insulin [insulin glargine (IGlar) + insulin aspart] (N = 56); or up-titration of IGlar (N = 329). A supplementary analysis was performed with the BB arm including patients who received IGlar or IDeg as basal insulin in the relevant trial (N = 210). All trials had comparable inclusion/exclusion criteria and baseline characteristics. Individual patient-level data were analyzed using multivariable statistical models with potential baseline heterogeneity accounted for using explanatory variables.

RESULTS

At end of study, differences between IDegLira and BB or up-titrated IGlar, respectively, were as follows: reduction in HbA_1c -0.30%, 95% confidence interval (-0.58; -0.01) and -0.65% (-0.83; -0.47); change in body weight -6.89 kg (-7.92; -5.86) and -4.04 kg (-4.69; -3.40) all in favor of IDegLira. Confirmed hypoglycemia rate was 122.8 (90.7; 166.1), 1060.8 (680.2; 1654.4), and 286.1 (231.1; 354.1) events/100 patient-years for IDegLira, BB, and up-titrated IGlar, respectively. Odds ratios for achieving HbA_1c <7.0%, <7.0% without hypoglycemia, and <7.0% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain were greater with IDegLira versus up-titrated IGlar. The supplementary analysis yielded similar results to the main analysis. Results with IDegLira were similar to those for the 'GLP-1RA add-on' arm.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that IDegLira may be more effective, with lower hypoglycemia rates and less weight gain, than up-titrated basal insulin or BB in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin.

Combination therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: adding empagliflozin to basal insulin

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management is complex, with few patients successfully achieving recommended glycemic targets with monotherapy, most progressing to combination therapy, and many eventually requiring insulin. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are an emerging class of antidiabetes agents with an insulin-independent mechanism of action, making them suitable for use in combination with any other class of antidiabetes agents, including insulin. This review evaluates a 78-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the impact of empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, as add-on to basal insulin in patients with inadequate glycemic control on basal insulin, with or without metformin and/or a sulfonylurea. Empagliflozin added on to basal insulin resulted in significant and sustained reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels compared with placebo. Empagliflozin has previously been shown to induce weight loss, and was associated with sustained weight loss in this study. This combination therapy was well tolerated, with similar levels of hypoglycemic adverse events in the empagliflozin and placebo groups over the 78-week treatment period. Urinary tract infections and genital infections, side effects associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, were reported more commonly in the empagliflozin group; however, such events led to treatment discontinuation in very few patients. These findings suggest that, with their complementary mechanisms of action, empagliflozin added on to basal insulin may be a useful treatment option in patients on basal insulin who need additional glycemic control without weight gain.

Can a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide help Type 2 diabetes patients to optimize glycemic control across the day?

'IDegLira' combines insulin degludec (IDeg) with the glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide (Lira) at a ratio of 1 unit IDeg to 0.036 mg Lira. The two components have complementary therapeutic actions for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. Studies have shown that combinations of basal insulin with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists can be clinically successful, lowering elevated blood glucose with a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. IDegLira is being assessed in a series of studies (two already published), which provide insights into its clinical utility in previously insulin-naive patients and those failing to achieve good glycemic control on a basal-only insulin regimen. This article critically examines the available data to assess the product's likely clinical profile.

Current and Emerging Treatment Options in Diabetes Care

Diabetes constitutes an increasing threat to human health, particularly in newly industrialized and densely populated countries. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes arise from different etiologies but lead to similar metabolic derangements constituted by an absolute or relative lack of insulin that results in elevated plasma glucose. In the last three decades, a set of new medicines built upon a deeper understanding of physiology and diabetic pathology have emerged to enhance the clinical management of the disease and related disorders. Recent insights into insulin-dependent and insulin-independent molecular events have accelerated the generation of a series of novel medicinal agents, which hold the promise for further advances in the management of diabetes. In this chapter, we provide a historical context for what has been accomplished to provide perspective for future research and novel emerging treatment options.

New developments in insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes

Insulin has classically been considered a treatment of last resort for individuals with type 2 diabetes, delayed until all other efforts by the patient and healthcare provider have failed. Recent treatment guidelines recommend the use of insulin, in particular basal insulin, as part of a treatment regimen earlier in the disease process. Many patients are reticent about initiating insulin, so therapies that allow insulin treatment to be more tailored to individual needs are likely to result in greater acceptance and patient adherence with therapy. To meet this need, a range of insulin products are in development that aim to increase absorption rate or prolong the duration of action, reduce peak variability and weight gain associated with insulin treatment, and offer alternative delivery methods. This review describes insulin products in clinical development, new combination therapies, and new devices for insulin delivery.

Basal insulin combined incretin mimetic therapy with glucagon-like protein 1 receptor agonists as an upcoming option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a practical guide to decision making

The combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like protein 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is a new intriguing therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes. In our daily practice we abbreviate this therapeutic concept with the term BIT (basal insulin combined incretin mimetic therapy) in a certain analogy to BOT (basal insulin supported oral therapy). In most cases BIT is indeed an extension of BOT, if fasting, prandial or postprandial blood glucose values have not reached the target range. In our paper we discuss special features of combinations of short- or prandial-acting and long- or continuous-acting GLP-1 RAs like exenatide, lixisenatide and liraglutide with basal insulin in relation to different glycemic targets. Overall it seems appropriate to use a short-acting GLP-1 RA if, after the near normalization of fasting blood glucose with BOT, the prandial or postprandial values are elevated. A long-acting GLP-1 RA might well be given, if fasting blood glucose values are the problem. Based on pathophysiological findings, recent clinical studies and our experience with BIT and BOT as well as BOTplus we developed chart-supported algorithms for decision making, including features and conditions of patients. The development of these practical tools was guided by the need for a more individualized antidiabetic therapy and the availability of the new BIT principle.

Insulin plus incretin: A glucose-lowering strategy for type 2-diabetes

There are many advantages of combining incretin therapy [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors] with insulin therapy as a glucose-lowering strategy in type 2 diabetes. One important advantage is the complementary mode of the mechanistic action of incretin and insulin therapy. Another advantage is the reduction in risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain when adding incretin therapy to insulin. Several clinical trials have studied the addition of GLP-1 receptor agonists [exenatide BID (twice daily), lixisenatide, albiglutide] or DPP-4 inhibitors (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin) to ongoing insulin therapy or adding insulin to ongoing therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide). These studies show improved glycemia in the presence of limited risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain with the combination of incretin therapy with insulin. This article reviews the background and clinical studies on this combination.