Effects of Tirzepatide vs Semaglutide on β-cell Function, Insulin Sensitivity, and Glucose Control During a Meal Test

CONTEXT

In a clinical study, tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GIP/GLP-1RA), provided superior glycemic control vs the GLP-1RA semaglutide. The physiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment effects by model-based analyses of mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) data.

DESIGN

A 28-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Two clinical research centers in Germany.

PATIENTS

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin.

INTERVENTIONS

Tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Glycemic control, model-derived β-cell function indices including insulin secretion rate (ISR) at 7.2-mmol/L glucose (ISR7.2), β-cell glucose (β-CG) sensitivity, insulin sensitivity, and estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio.

RESULTS

Tirzepatide significantly reduced fasting glucose and MMTT total glucose area under the curve (AUC) vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). Incremental glucose AUC did not differ significantly between treatments; therefore, greater total glucose AUC reduction with tirzepatide was mainly attributable to greater suppression of fasting glucose. A greater reduction in total ISR AUC was achieved with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01), in the context of greater improvement in insulin sensitivity with tirzepatide (P < 0.01). ISR7.2 was significantly increased with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.05), showing improved β-CG responsiveness. MMTT-derived β-CG sensitivity was increased but not significantly different between treatments. Both treatments reduced fasting glucagon and total glucagon AUC, with glucagon AUC significantly reduced with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). The estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio did not change substantially with either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the greater glycemic control observed for tirzepatide manifests as improved fasting glucose and glucose excursion control, due to improvements in ISR, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon suppression.

Retatrutide, a GIP, GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist, for people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 trial conducted in the USA

BACKGROUND

According to current consensus guidelines for type 2 diabetes management, bodyweight management is as important as attaining glycaemic targets. Retatrutide, a single peptide with agonist activity at the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed clinically meaningful glucose-lowering and bodyweight-lowering efficacy in a phase 1 study. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of retatrutide in people with type 2 diabetes across a range of doses.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 trial, participants were recruited from 42 research and health-care centres in the USA. Adults aged 18-75 years with type 2 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5% (53·0-91·3 mmol/mol), and BMI of 25-50 kg/m2 were eligible for enrolment. Eligible participants were treated with diet and exercise alone or with a stable dose of metformin (≥1000 mg once daily) for at least 3 months before the screening visit. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1:1:1:1:2) using an interactive web-response system, with stratification for baseline HbA1c and BMI, to receive once-weekly injections of placebo, 1·5 mg dulaglutide, or retatrutide maintenance doses of 0·5 mg, 4 mg (starting dose 2 mg), 4 mg (no escalation), 8 mg (starting dose 2 mg), 8 mg (starting dose 4 mg), or 12 mg (starting dose 2 mg). Participants, study site personnel, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until after study end. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks, and secondary endpoints included change in HbA1c and bodyweight at 36 weeks. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned, except inadvertently enrolled, participants, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04867785.

FINDINGS

Between May 13, 2021, and June 13, 2022, 281 participants (mean age 56·2 years [SD 9·7], mean duration of diabetes 8·1 years [7·0], 156 [56%] female, and 235 [84%] White) were randomly assigned and included in the safety analysis (45 in the placebo group, 46 in the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group, and 47 in the retatrutide 0·5 mg group, 23 in the 4 mg escalation group, 24 in the 4 mg group, 26 in the 8 mg slow escalation group, 24 in the 8 mg fast escalation group, and 46 in the 12 mg escalation group). 275 participants were included in the efficacy analyses (one each in the retatrutide 0·5 mg group, 4 mg escalation group, and 8 mg slow escalation group, and three in the 12 mg escalation group were inadvertently enrolled). 237 (84%) participants completed the study and 222 (79%) completed study treatment. At 24 weeks, least-squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c with retatrutide were -0·43% (SE 0·20; -4·68 mmol/mol [2·15]) for the 0·5 mg group, -1·39% (0·14; -15·24 mmol/mol [1·56]) for the 4 mg escalation group, -1·30% (0·22; -14·20 mmol/mol [2·44]) for the 4 mg group, -1·99% (0·15; -21·78 mmol/mol [1·60]) for the 8 mg slow escalation group, -1·88% (0·21; -20·52 mmol/mol [2·34]) for the 8 mg fast escalation group, and -2·02% (0·11; -22·07 mmol/mol [1·21]) for the 12 mg escalation group, versus -0·01% (0·21; -0·12 mmol/mol [2·27]) for the placebo group and -1·41% (0·12; -15·40 mmol/mol [1·29]) for the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group. HbA1c reductions with retatrutide were significantly greater (p<0·0001) than placebo in all but the 0·5 mg group and greater than 1·5 mg dulaglutide in the 8 mg slow escalation group (p=0·0019) and 12 mg escalation group (p=0·0002). Findings were consistent at 36 weeks. Bodyweight decreased dose dependently with retatrutide at 36 weeks by 3·19% (SE 0·61) for the 0·5 mg group, 7·92% (1·28) for the 4 mg escalation group, 10·37% (1·56) for the 4 mg group, 16·81% (1·59) for the 8 mg slow escalation group, 16·34% (1·65) for the 8 mg fast escalation group, and 16·94% (1·30) for the 12 mg escalation group, versus 3·00% (0·86) with placebo and 2·02% (0·72) with 1·5 mg dulaglutide. For retatrutide doses of 4 mg and greater, decreases in weight were significantly greater than with placebo (p=0·0017 for the 4 mg escalation group and p<0·0001 for others) and 1·5 mg dulaglutide (all p<0·0001). Mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting, and constipation, were reported in 67 (35%) of 190 participants in the retatrutide groups (from six [13%] of 47 in the 0·5 mg group to 12 [50%] of 24 in the 8 mg fast escalation group), six (13%) of 45 participants in the placebo group, and 16 (35%) of 46 participants in the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group. There were no reports of severe hypoglycaemia and no deaths during the study.

INTERPRETATION

In people with type 2 diabetes, retatrutide showed clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control and robust reductions in bodyweight, with a safety profile consistent with GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonists. These phase 2 data also informed dose selection for the phase 3 programme.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Triple-Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity - A Phase 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Retatrutide (LY3437943) is an agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucagon-like peptide 1, and glucagon receptors. Its dose-response relationships with respect to side effects, safety, and efficacy for the treatment of obesity are not known.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving adults who had a body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or higher or who had a BMI of 27 to less than 30 plus at least one weight-related condition. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1:1:1:2:2 ratio to receive subcutaneous retatrutide (1 mg, 4 mg [initial dose, 2 mg], 4 mg [initial dose, 4 mg], 8 mg [initial dose, 2 mg], 8 mg [initial dose, 4 mg], or 12 mg [initial dose, 2 mg]) or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary end points included the percentage change in body weight from baseline to 48 weeks and a weight reduction of 5% or more, 10% or more, or 15% or more. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

We enrolled 338 adults, 51.8% of whom were men. The least-squares mean percentage change in body weight at 24 weeks in the retatrutide groups was -7.2% in the 1-mg group, -12.9% in the combined 4-mg group, -17.3% in the combined 8-mg group, and -17.5% in the 12-mg group, as compared with -1.6% in the placebo group. At 48 weeks, the least-squares mean percentage change in the retatrutide groups was -8.7% in the 1-mg group, -17.1% in the combined 4-mg group, -22.8% in the combined 8-mg group, and -24.2% in the 12-mg group, as compared with -2.1% in the placebo group. At 48 weeks, a weight reduction of 5% or more, 10% or more, and 15% or more had occurred in 92%, 75%, and 60%, respectively, of the participants who received 4 mg of retatrutide; 100%, 91%, and 75% of those who received 8 mg; 100%, 93%, and 83% of those who received 12 mg; and 27%, 9%, and 2% of those who received placebo. The most common adverse events in the retatrutide groups were gastrointestinal; these events were dose-related, were mostly mild to moderate in severity, and were partially mitigated with a lower starting dose (2 mg vs. 4 mg). Dose-dependent increases in heart rate peaked at 24 weeks and declined thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with obesity, retatrutide treatment for 48 weeks resulted in substantial reductions in body weight. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04881760.).

Tirzepatide Reduces Appetite, Energy Intake, and Fat Mass in People With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of tirzepatide on body composition, appetite, and energy intake to address the potential mechanisms involved in body weight loss with tirzepatide.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study, the effects of tirzepatide 15 mg (N = 45), semaglutide 1 mg (N = 44), and placebo (N = 28) on body weight and composition, appetite, and energy intake were assessed at baseline and week 28.

RESULTS

Tirzepatide treatment demonstrated significant reductions in body weight compared with placebo and semaglutide, resulting in greater fat mass reduction. Tirzepatide and semaglutide significantly reduced appetite versus placebo. Appetite scores and energy intake reductions did not differ between tirzepatide and semaglutide.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in energy intake during ad libitum lunch were not sufficient to explain the different weight outcomes. Further evaluation is needed to assess mechanistic differences related to tirzepatide actions on 24-h energy intake, substrate utilization, and energy expenditure.

LY3437943, a novel triple GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes: a phase 1b, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, multiple-ascending dose trial

BACKGROUND

Treating hyperglycaemia and obesity in individuals with type 2 diabetes using multi-receptor agonists can improve short-term and long-term outcomes. LY3437943 is a single peptide with agonist activity for glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptors that is currently in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and for the treatment of obesity and associated comorbidities. We investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of multiple weekly doses of LY3437943 in people with type 2 diabetes in a 12-week study.

METHODS

In this phase 1b, proof-of-concept, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, multiple-ascending dose trial, adults (aged 20-70 years) with type 2 diabetes for at least 3 months, a glycated haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) value of 7·0-10·5%, body-mass index of 23-50 kg/m², and stable bodyweight (<5% change in previous 3 months) were recruited at four centres in the USA. Using an interactive web-response system, participants were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of LY3437943, placebo, or dulaglutide 1·5 mg over a 12-week period. Five ascending dose cohorts were studied, with randomisation in each cohort such that a minimum of nine participants received LY3437943, three received placebo, and one received dulaglutide 1·5 mg within each cohort. The top doses in the two highest dose cohorts were attained via stepwise dose escalations. The primary outcome was to investigate the safety and tolerability of LY3437943, and characterising the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics were secondary outcomes. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, and pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had evaluable data. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04143802.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 18, 2019, and Dec 28, 2020, 210 people were screened, of whom 72 were enrolled, received at least one dose of study drug, and were included in safety analyses. 15 participants had placebo, five had dulaglutide 1·5 mg and, for LY3437943, nine had 0·5 mg, nine had 1·5 mg, 11 had 3 mg, 11 had 3/6 mg, and 12 had 3/6/9/12 mg. 29 participants discontinued the study prematurely. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (63%), three (60%), and eight (54%) participants who received LY3437943, dulaglutide 1·5 mg, and placebo, respectively, with gastrointestinal disorders being the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events. The pharmacokinetics of LY3437943 were dose proportional and its half-life was approximately 6 days. At week 12, placebo-adjusted mean daily plasma glucose significantly decreased from baseline at the three highest dose LY3437943 groups (least-squares mean difference -2·8 mmol/L [90% CI -4·63 to -0·94] for 3 mg; -3·1 mmol/L [-4·91 to -1·22] for 3/6 mg; and -2·9 mmol/L [-4·70 to -1·01] for 3/6/9/12 mg). Placebo-adjusted sHbA_1c also decreased significantly in the three highest dose groups (-1·4% [90% CI -2·17 to -0·56] for 3 mg; -1·6% [-2·37 to -0·75] for 3/6 mg; and -1·2% [-2·05 to -0·45] for 3/6/9/12 mg). Placebo-adjusted bodyweight reduction with LY3437943 appeared to be dose dependent (up to -8·96 kg [90% CI -11·16 to -6·75] in the 3/6/9/12 mg group).

INTERPRETATION

In this early phase study, LY3437943 showed an acceptable safety profile, and its pharmacokinetics suggest suitability for once-weekly dosing. This finding, together with the pharmacodynamic findings of robust reductions in glucose and bodyweight, provides support for phase 2 development.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

LY3437943, a novel triple glucagon, GIP, and GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control and weight loss: From discovery to clinical proof of concept

With an increasing prevalence of obesity, there is a need for new therapies to improve body weight management and metabolic health. Multireceptor agonists in development may provide approaches to fulfill this unmet medical need. LY3437943 is a novel triple agonist peptide at the glucagon receptor (GCGR), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor (GIPR), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R). In vitro, LY3437943 shows balanced GCGR and GLP-1R activity but more GIPR activity. In obese mice, administration of LY3437943 decreased body weight and improved glycemic control. Body weight loss was augmented by the addition of GCGR-mediated increases in energy expenditure to GIPR- and GLP-1R-driven calorie intake reduction. In a phase 1 single ascending dose study, LY3437943 showed a safety and tolerability profile similar to other incretins. Its pharmacokinetic profile supported once-weekly dosing, and a reduction in body weight persisted up to day 43 after a single dose. These findings warrant further clinical assessment of LY3437943.

Effects of subcutaneous tirzepatide versus placebo or semaglutide on pancreatic islet function and insulin sensitivity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, shows a remarkable ability to lower blood glucose, enabling many patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes to achieve normoglycaemia. We aimed to understand the physiological mechanisms underlying the action of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 study was done at two centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 20-74 years, had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and were being treated with lifestyle advice and stable doses of metformin, with or without one additional stable dose of another oral antihyperglycaemic medicine, 3 months before study entry. Via a randomisation table, patients were randomly assigned (3:3:2) to subcutaneously receive either tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, or placebo once per week. Endpoint measurements were done at baseline and the last week of therapy (week 28). The primary endpoint was the effect of tirzepatide versus placebo on the change in clamp disposition index (combining measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity) from baseline to week 28 of treatment and was analysed in the pharmacodynamic analysis set, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug and had evaluable pharmacodynamic data. Safety was analysed in the safety population, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. Secondary endpoints included the effect of tirzepatide versus semaglutide on the change in clamp disposition index from baseline to week 28 of treatment, glucose control, total insulin secretion rate, M value (insulin sensitivity), and fasting and postprandial glucagon concentrations. Exploratory endpoints included the change in fasting and postprandial insulin concentrations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03951753, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between June 28, 2019, and April 8, 2021, we screened 184 individuals and enrolled 117 participants, all of whom were included in the safety population (45 in the tirzepatide 15 mg group, 44 in the semaglutide 1 mg group, and 28 in the placebo group). Because of discontinuations and exclusions due to missing or unevaluable data, 39 patients in each treatment group and 24 patients in the placebo group comprised the pharmacodynamic analysis set. With tirzepatide, the clamp disposition index increased from a least squares mean of 0·3 pmol m^-2 L min^-2 kg^-1 (SE 0·03) at baseline by 1·9 pmol m^-2 L min^-2 kg^-1 (0·16) to total 2·3 pmol m^-2 L min^-2 kg^-1 (SE 0·16) at week 28 and, with placebo, the clamp disposition index did not change much from baseline (least squares mean at baseline 0·4 pmol m^-2 L min^-2 kg^-1 [SE 0·04]; change from baseline 0·0 pmol m^-2 L min^-2 kg^-1 [0·03]; least squares mean at week 28 0·3 [SE 0·03]; estimated treatment difference [ETD] tirzepatide vs placebo 1·92 [95% CI 1·59-2·24]; p<0·0001). The improvement with tirzepatide in clamp disposition index was significantly greater than with semaglutide (ETD 0·84 pmol m^-2 L min^-2 kg^-1 [95% CI 0·46-1·21]). This result reflected significant improvements in total insulin secretion rate (ETD 102·09 pmol min^-1 m^-2 [51·84-152·33]) and insulin sensitivity (ETD 1·52 mg min^-1 kg^-1 [0·53-2·52]) for tirzepatide versus semaglutide. On meal tolerance testing, tirzepatide significantly reduced glucose excursions (lower insulin and glucagon concentrations) compared with placebo, with effects on these variables being greater than with semaglutide. The safety profiles of tirzepatide and semaglutide were similar, with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common (11 [24%], 13 [30%], and seven [25%] with nausea; nine [20%], 13 [30%], and six [21%] with diarrhoea; and three [7%], five [11%], and one [4%] with vomiting, for tirzepatide, semaglutide, and placebo, respectively). There were no deaths.

INTERPRETATION

The glycaemic efficacy of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes results from concurrent improvements in key components of diabetes pathophysiology, namely β-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon secretion. These effects were large and help to explain the remarkable glucose-lowering ability of tirzepatide seen in phase 3 studies.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg Versus Dulaglutide 1.5 mg in Metformin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in a Randomized Controlled Trial (AWARD-11)

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of dulaglutide at doses of 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg, or 4.5 mg for 52 weeks. The primary objective was determining superiority of dulaglutide 3.0 mg and/or 4.5 mg over 1.5 mg in HbA_1c reduction at 36 weeks. Secondary superiority objectives included change in body weight. Two estimands addressed efficacy objectives: treatment regimen (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication) and efficacy (on treatment without rescue medication) in all randomly assigned patients.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA_1c and BMI in randomly assigned patients (N = 1,842) was 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) and 34.2 kg/m², respectively. At 36 weeks, dulaglutide 4.5 mg provided superior HbA_1c reductions compared with 1.5 mg (treatment-regimen estimand: -1.77 vs. -1.54% [-19.4 vs. -16.8 mmol/mol], estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.24% (-2.6 mmol/mol), P < 0.001; efficacy estimand: -1.87 vs. -1.53% [-20.4 vs. -16.7 mmol/mol], ETD -0.34% (-3.7 mmol/mol), P < 0.001). Dulaglutide 3.0 mg was superior to 1.5 mg for reducing HbA_1c, using the efficacy estimand (ETD -0.17% [-1.9 mmol/mol]; P = 0.003) but not the treatment-regimen estimand (ETD -0.10% [-1.1 mmol/mol]; P = 0.096). Dulaglutide 4.5 mg was superior to 1.5 mg for weight loss at 36 weeks for both estimands (treatment regimen: -4.6 vs. -3.0 kg, ETD -1.6 kg, P < 0.001; efficacy: -4.7 vs. -3.1 kg, ETD -1.6 kg, P < 0.001). Common adverse events through 36 weeks included nausea (1.5 mg, 13.4%; 3 mg, 15.6%; 4.5 mg, 16.4%) and vomiting (1.5 mg, 5.6%; 3 mg, 8.3%; 4.5 mg, 9.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin, escalation from dulaglutide 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg provided clinically relevant, dose-related reductions in HbA_1c and body weight with a similar safety profile.

Dual GIP and GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Tirzepatide Improves Beta-cell Function and Insulin Sensitivity in Type 2 Diabetes

CONTEXT

Novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) tirzepatide demonstrated substantially greater glucose control and weight loss (WL) compared with selective GLP-1RA dulaglutide.

OBJECTIVE

Explore mechanisms of glucose control by tirzepatide.

DESIGN

Post hoc analyses of fasting biomarkers and multiple linear regression analysis.

SETTING

Forty-seven sites in 4 countries.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and sixteen subjects with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

Tirzepatide (1, 5, 10, 15 mg), dulaglutide (1.5 mg), placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Analyze biomarkers of beta-cell function and insulin resistance (IR) and evaluate WL contributions to IR improvements at 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) 2-B significantly increased with dulaglutide and tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg compared with placebo (P ≤ .02). Proinsulin/insulin and proinsulin/C-peptide ratios significantly decreased with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with placebo and dulaglutide (P ≤ .007). Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly decreased fasting insulin (P ≤ .033) and tirzepatide 10 mg significantly decreased HOMA2-IR (P = .004) compared with placebo and dulaglutide. Markers of improved insulin sensitivity (IS) adiponectin, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-2 significantly increased by 1 or more doses of tirzepatide (P < .05). To determine whether improvements in IR were directly attributable to WL, multiple linear regression analysis with potential confounding variables age, sex, metformin, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin A1c was conducted. WL significantly (P ≤ .028) explained only 13% and 21% of improvement in HOMA2-IR with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirzepatide improved markers of IS and beta-cell function to a greater extent than dulaglutide. IS effects of tirzepatide were only partly attributable to WL, suggesting dual receptor agonism confers distinct mechanisms of glycemic control.

Efficacy and tolerability of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in patients with type 2 diabetes: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate different dose-escalation regimens

AIM

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of tirzepatide treatment using three different dose-escalation regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or placebo. The tirzepatide dose groups and dose-escalation regimens were: 12 mg (4 mg weeks 0-3; 8 mg weeks 4-7; 12 mg weeks 8-11), 15 mg-1 (2.5 mg weeks 0-1; 5 mg weeks 2-3; 10 mg weeks 4-7; 15 mg weeks 8-11) and 15 mg-2 (2.5 mg weeks 0-3; 7.5 mg weeks 4-7; 15 mg weeks 8-11). The primary objective was to compare tirzepatide with placebo in HbA1c change from baseline at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 111 patients were randomized: placebo, 26; tirzepatide 12 mg, 29; tirzepatide 15 mg-1, 28; tirzepatide 15 mg-2, 28. The mean age was 57.4 years, HbA1c 8.4% and body mass index 31.9 kg/m² . At week 12, absolute HbA1c change from baseline (SE) was greater in the tirzepatide treatment groups compared with placebo (placebo, +0.2% [0.21]; 12 mg, -1.7% [0.19]; 15 mg-1, -2.0% [0.20]; 15 mg-2, -1.8% [0.19]). The incidence of nausea was: placebo, 7.7%; 12 mg group, 24.1%; 15 mg-1 group, 39.3%; 15 mg-2 group, 35.7%. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse events, one from each of the placebo, 12 mg and 15 mg-1 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirzepatide treatment for 12 weeks resulted in clinically significant reductions in HbA1c. This suggests that lower starting doses and smaller dose increments are associated with a more favourable side effect profile.

OR26-08 Efficacy and Safety of Higher Dulaglutide Doses (3.0 MG and 4.5 MG) When Added to Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel ARM Study (Award-11)

Dulaglutide (DU) approved at doses of 0.75 and 1.5 mg once-weekly is an effective glucose lowering agent for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We hypothesized that higher investigational DU doses may provide further improvements in glucose control and body weight (BW) with an acceptable safety profile. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of once-weekly DU 3 mg and/or 4.5 mg to DU 1.5 mg for A1C change from baseline (BL) at 36 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin therapy. Secondary objectives (controlled for multiplicity) included change in BW and % of pts achieving A1C <7% at 36 wks. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to once-weekly DU 1.5 mg (n=612), DU 3 mg (n=616), and DU 4.5 mg (n=614). All pts initiated once-weekly DU 0.75 mg for 4 wks, followed by step-wise dose escalation every 4 wks to the randomized dose of 1.5 mg, 3 mg, or 4.5 mg. Two estimands were defined for efficacy analyses: an efficacy estimand (data on-treatment without rescue medication) and a treatment-regimen estimand (all data regardless of adherence or initiation of rescue). At BL, patients had a mean of: age 57.1 yrs, T2D duration 7.6 yrs, and A1C 8.6%, BW 95.7 kg, and BMI 34.2 kg/m². Using the efficacy estimand, the DU 3 mg and 4.5 mg doses were superior to the DU 1.5 mg dose for A1C change from BL (1.5 mg, 1.53%; 3 mg, 1.71% [p=0.003]; 4.5 mg, 1.87% [p<0.001]), % of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (1.5 mg, 57%; 3.0 mg, 65% [p=0.006]; 4.5 mg, 71% [p<0.001]) and BW change from BL (1.5 mg, 3.1 kg; 3 mg, 4.0 kg [p=0.001]; 4.5 mg, 4.7 kg [p<0.001]). Using the treatment-regimen estimand, DU 4.5 mg was superior to DU 1.5 mg for A1C change, while the DU 3 mg dose did not achieve statistical significance (1.5 mg, 1.54%; 3.0 mg, 1.64% [p=0.096]; 4.5 mg, 1.77% [p<0.001]). Using the treatment-regimen estimand, more patients achieved A1C <7% with higher DU doses (1.5 mg, 50%; 3 mg, 56%; 4.5 mg, 62%) and results for BW change were similar to the efficacy estimand (1.5 mg, 3.0 kg; 3 mg, 3.8 kg; 4.5 mg, 4.6 kg), but the approach for type I error control did not permit formal statistical comparisons of these secondary objectives using this estimand. The safety profile for the higher DU doses was consistent with that known for 1.5 mg. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea (DU 1.5 mg, 13.4%; DU 3 mg, 15.6%; DU 4.5 mg, 16.4%), vomiting (DU 1.5 mg, 5.6%; DU 3 mg, 8.3%; DU 4.5 mg, 9.3%), and diarrhea (DU 1.5 mg, 7.0%; DU 3 mg, 11.4%; DU 4.5 mg, 10.7%). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events through 36 wks was low and similar across dose groups (DU 1.5 mg, 4.2%; DU 3 mg, 5.5%; DU 4.5 mg, 5.0%). In pts with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on metformin, escalation from DU 1.5 mg to DU 3 mg or DU 4.5 mg once-weekly provided clinically relevant, dose-related improvements in glycemic control and BW with an acceptable safety profile.

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycaemic patterns: A post hoc analysis of the AWARD-2 clinical trial

The long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide acts by stimulating insulin secretion and reducing glucagon levels in a glucose-dependent manner both in the fasting and postprandial states, resulting in reductions of both fasting glucose (FG) and postprandial glucose (PPG). In contrast, the main mechanism of action of basal insulin is to reduce elevated FG by inhibiting hepatic glucose production. The aim of the present post hoc analysis of the phase 3 AWARD-2 trial was to investigate whether specific baseline glycaemic patterns respond differentially to dulaglutide compared to insulin glargine (glargine). We categorized participants into four subgroups based on prespecified glucose thresholds and their baseline FG and daily 2-hour mean PPG: low FG/low PPG; low FG/high PPG; high FG/low PPG; and high FG/high PPG. Changes in glycaemic measures in response to treatment with dulaglutide or glargine were evaluated in each subgroup. At 52 weeks, significant reductions from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were observed in all subgroups with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with glargine (all P < .05), except in patients with low FG/low PPG who received glargine. Greater HbA1c reductions were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg compared to glargine in all subgroups (all P ≤ .05), except in the low FG/high PPG subgroup.

Efficacy and safety of an expanded dulaglutide dose range: A phase 2, placebo-controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes using metformin

AIMS

Dulaglutide, a once weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, is approved at two doses (1.5 and 0.75 mg) for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Two higher doses of dulaglutide (3.0 and 4.5 mg) were evaluated for safety and efficacy to determine whether these doses warrant further study for improved control of glucose and body weight.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 18-week, double-blind, phase 2 trial randomized 318 patients with T2D using ≥1500 mg metformin, to receive subcutaneous injection of placebo (n = 82), dulaglutide 1.5 mg (n = 81), dulaglutide 3.0 mg (n = 79) or dulaglutide 4.5 mg (n = 76). The primary objective was superiority of dulaglutide doses over placebo in reduction of HbA1c at 18 weeks. Secondary objectives included superiority of dulaglutide over placebo in change from baseline in body weight and fasting serum glucose (FSG) at 18 weeks. Investigational doses of dulaglutide were compared to the 1.5 mg dose as an exploratory objective.

RESULTS

HbA1c reduction at 18 weeks was significantly greater with dulaglutide vs placebo (placebo, -0.44% ± 0.10% [-4.8 ± 1.1 mmol/mol]; dulaglutide 1.5 mg, -1.23% ± 0.10% [-13.5 ± 1.1 mmol/mol]; dulaglutide 3.0 mg, -1.31% ± 0.10% [-14.3 ± 1.1 mmol/mol]; dulaglutide 4.5 mg, -1.40% ± 0.10% [-15.3 ± 1.1 mmol/mol]; P < 0.001, each dose), as were changes in body weight (placebo, -1.6 ± 0.39 kg; dulaglutide 1.5 mg, -2.8 ± 0.39 kg; dulaglutide 3.0 mg, -3.9 ± 0.39 kg; dulaglutide 4.5 mg, -4.1 ± 0.41 kg; P < 0.001, each dose). All three dulaglutide doses significantly reduced FSG from baseline (1.5 mg, -36.2 ± 4.7 mg/dL [-2.0 ± 0.3 mmol/L]; 3.0 mg, -34.5 ± 4.5 mg/dL [-1.9 ± 0.3 mmol/L]; 4.5 mg, -38.0 ± 4.7 mg/dL [-2.1 ± 0.3 mmol/L]) vs placebo (-12.4 ± 4.5 mg/dL [-0.7 ± 0.3 mmol/L]) (P < 0.001, all). Safety profiles of the higher doses were consistent with the established safety profile for dulaglutide. Gastrointestinal events were mostly mild to moderate, and was dose-related for nausea.

CONCLUSION

All three dulaglutide doses were superior to placebo in improving glycaemic control and reducing body weight in participants with T2D using metformin. The potential for doses of dulaglutide of 3.0 and 4.5 mg to provide additional glycaemic benefit and weight reduction with an acceptable safety profile, compared with the 1.5 mg dose, warrants further study in a phase 3 trial.

Efficacy and safety of LY3298176, a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

LY3298176 is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is being developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of co-stimulation of the GLP-1 and GIP receptors with LY3298176 compared with placebo or selective stimulation of GLP-1 receptors with dulaglutide in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, phase 2 study, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous LY3298176 (1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg), dulaglutide (1·5 mg), or placebo for 26 weeks. Assignment was stratified by baseline glycated haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), metformin use, and body-mass index (BMI). Eligible participants (aged 18-75) had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months (HbA_1c 7·0-10·5%, inclusive), that was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone or with stable metformin therapy, and a BMI of 23-50 kg/m². The primary efficacy outcome was change in HbA_1c from baseline to 26 weeks in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one postbaseline measurement of any outcome). Secondary endpoints, measured in the mITT on treatment dataset, were change in HbA_1c from baseline to 12 weeks; change in mean bodyweight, fasting plasma glucose, waist circumference, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, and proportion of patients reaching the HbA_1c target (≤6·5% and <7·0%) from baseline to weeks 12 and 26; and proportion of patients with at least 5% and 10% bodyweight loss from baseline to 26 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03131687.

FINDINGS

Between May 24, 2017, and March 28, 2018, 555 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 318 were randomly assigned to one of the six treatment groups. Because two participants did not receive treatment, the modified intention-to-treat and safety populations included 316 participants. 258 (81·7%) participants completed 26 weeks of treatment, and 283 (89·6%) completed the study. At baseline, mean age was 57 years (SD 9), BMI was 32·6 kg/m² (5·9), duration from diagnosis of diabetes was 9 years (6), HbA_1c was 8·1% (1·0), 53% of patients were men, and 47% were women. At 26 weeks, the effect of LY3298176 on change in HbA_1c was dose-dependent and did not plateau. Mean changes from baseline in HbA_1c with LY3298176 were -1·06% for 1 mg, -1·73% for 5 mg, -1·89% for 10 mg, and -1·94% for 15 mg, compared with -0·06% for placebo (posterior mean differences [80% credible set] vs placebo: -1·00% [-1·22 to -0·79] for 1 mg, -1·67% [-1·88 to -1·46] for 5 mg, -1·83% [-2·04 to -1·61] for 10 mg, and -1·89% [-2·11 to -1·67] for 15 mg). Compared with dulaglutide (-1·21%) the posterior mean differences (80% credible set) for change in HbA_1c from baseline to 26 weeks with the LY3298176 doses were 0·15% (-0·08 to 0·38) for 1 mg, -0·52% (-0·72 to -0·31) for 5 mg, -0·67% (-0·89 to -0·46) for 10 mg, and -0·73% (-0·95 to -0·52) for 15 mg. At 26 weeks, 33-90% of patients treated with LY3298176 achieved the HbA_1c target of less than 7·0% (vs 52% with dulaglutide, 12% with placebo) and 15-82% achieved the HbA_1c target of at least 6·5% (vs 39% with dulaglutide, 2% with placebo). Changes in fasting plasma glucose ranged from -0·4 mmol/L to -3·4 mmol/L for LY3298176 (vs 0·9 mmol/L for placebo, -1·2 mmol/L for dulaglutide). Changes in mean bodyweight ranged from -0·9 kg to -11·3 kg for LY3298176 (vs -0·4 kg for placebo, -2·7 kg for dulaglutide). At 26 weeks, 14-71% of those treated with LY3298176 achieved the weight loss target of at least 5% (vs 22% with dulaglutide, 0% with placebo) and 6-39% achieved the weight loss target of at least 10% (vs 9% with dulaglutide, 0% with placebo). Changes in waist circumference ranged from -2·1 cm to -10·2 cm for LY3298176 (vs -1·3 cm for placebo, -2·5 cm for dulaglutide). Changes in total cholesterol ranged from 0·2 mmol/L to -0·3 mmol/L for LY3298176 (vs 0·3 mmol/L for placebo, -0·2 mmol/L for dulaglutide). Changes in HDL or LDL cholesterol did not differ between the LY3298176 and placebo groups. Changes in triglyceride concentration ranged from 0 mmol/L to -0·8 mmol/L for LY3298176 (vs 0·3 mmol/L for placebo, -0·3 mmol/L for dulaglutide). The 12-week outcomes were similar to those at 26 weeks for all secondary outcomes. 13 (4%) of 316 participants across the six treatment groups had 23 serious adverse events in total. Gastrointestinal events (nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of gastrointestinal events was dose-related (23·1% for 1 mg LY3298176, 32·7% for 5 mg LY3298176, 51·0% for 10 mg LY3298176, and 66·0% for 15 mg LY3298176, 42·6% for dulaglutide, 9·8% for placebo); most events were mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Decreased appetite was the second most common adverse event (3·8% for 1 mg LY3298176, 20·0% for 5 mg LY3298176, 25·5% for 10 mg LY3298176, 18·9% for 15 mg LY3298176, 5·6% for dulaglutide, 2·0% for placebo). There were no reports of severe hypoglycaemia. One patient in the placebo group died from lung adenocarcinoma stage IV, which was unrelated to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

The dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, LY3298176, showed significantly better efficacy with regard to glucose control and weight loss than did dulaglutide, with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Combined GIP and GLP-1 receptor stimulation might offer a new therapeutic option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Dulaglutide treatment results in effective glycaemic control in latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA): A post-hoc analysis of the AWARD-2, -4 and -5 Trials

AIMS

Patients with a type-2-diabetes (T2D) phenotype positive for glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies (GADA) represent the majority of cases of latent autoimmune diabetes of the adult (LADA). The GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide, recently introduced for treatment of T2D, has yet to be evaluated in LADA patients. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of dulaglutide on glycaemic control (HbA1c) in GADA-positive LADA vs GADA-negative T2D patients.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis was performed using data from 3 randomized phase 3 trials (AWARD-2,-4,-5; patients with GADA assessment) which were part of the dulaglutide clinical development programme in T2D. LADA patients were identified by GADA ≥5 IU/mL (ELISA). Changes in HbA1c during 12 months of treatment with dulaglutide or comparator were analysed using mixed-effect model repeated measures.

RESULTS

Of 2466 adults tested for GADA (dulaglutide, 1710; glargine, 298; sitagliptin, 294; placebo, 164), 2278 (92.4%) were GADA-negative and 188 (7.6%) were GADA-positive, including 58 GADA-high patients (> 200 IU/mL) and 130 GADA-low patients (≤200 and ≥5 IU/mL). Overall, baseline parameters were comparable between the groups. Dulaglutide resulted in comparable HbA1c reductions in GADA-negative (LS mean change [95%CI], -1.09% [-1.15, -1.03]) and GADA-positive patients (-0.94% [-1.15, -0.72]) at 12 months. HbA1c reductions were numerically, but not statistically, significantly larger in GADA-low patients (-1.02% [-1.26, -0.78]) vs GADA-high patients (-0.72% [-1.21,-0.24]) at 12 months. Similar outcomes were observed at 3 and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

These data are the first to indicate that dulaglutide was effective in reducing HbA1c in LADA patients.

Dulaglutide as add-on therapy to SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (AWARD-10): a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes through different mechanisms. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to the ongoing treatment regimen in patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with SGLT2 inhibitors, with or without metformin.

METHODS

AWARD-10 was a phase 3b, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, 24-week study done at 40 clinical sites in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Spain, and the USA. Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA_1c concentration ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤9·5% [80 mmol/mol]), a BMI of 45 kg/m² or less, and taking stable doses (>3 months) of an SGLT2 inhibitor (with or without metformin) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to subcutaneous injections of either dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or placebo once per week for 24 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to dulaglutide and placebo assignment, and those assessing outcomes were masked to study drug assignment. The primary objective was to test for the superiority of dulaglutide (1·5 mg or 0·75 mg) versus placebo for change in HbA_1c concentration from baseline at 24 weeks. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02597049.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 7, 2015, and Feb 3, 2017, 424 patients were randomly assigned to dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=142), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=142), and placebo (n=140). One patient in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group was excluded from the analysis because they did not receive any dose of the study drug. The reduction in HbA_1c concentration at 24 weeks was larger in patients receiving dulaglutide (least squares mean [LSM] for dulaglutide 1·5 mg -1·34% [SE 0·06] or -14·7 mmol/mol [0·6]; dulaglutide 0·75 mg -1·21% [0·06] or -13·2 mmol/mol [0·6]) than in patients receiving placebo (-0·54% [0·06] or -5·9 mmol/mol [0·6]; p<0·0001 for both groups vs placebo). The LSM differences were -0·79% (95% CI -0·97 to -0·61) or -8·6 mmol/mol (-10·6 to -6·7) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·66% (-0·84 to -0·49) or -7·2 mmol/mol (-9·2 to -5·4) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg (p<0·0001 for both). Serious adverse events were reported for five (4%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, three (2%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and five (4%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in patients treated with dulaglutide than in patients who received placebo, mainly because of an increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Nausea (21 [15%] patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group vs seven [5%] in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group vs five [4%] in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [6%] vs 14 [10%] vs four [3%]), and vomiting (five [4%] vs four [3%] vs one [1%]) were more common with dulaglutide than with placebo. One episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group. Two (1%) patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg died, but these deaths were not considered to be related to study drug; no deaths occurred in the other groups.

INTERPRETATION

Dulaglutide as add-on treatment to SGLT2 inhibitors (with or without metformin) resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control, with acceptable tolerability that is consistent with the established safety profile of dulaglutide.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the addition of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide to titrated daily insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-9)

AIM

To compare the addition of weekly dulaglutide vs the addition of placebo to titrated glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with sub-optimum glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 300) from this phase III, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were randomized to weekly subcutaneous injections of dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo with titrated daily glargine (mean ± standard deviation baseline dose: 39 ± 22 U), with or without metformin (≥1500 mg/d). The primary endpoint was superiority of dulaglutide/glargine to placebo/glargine with regard to change from baseline in HbA1c level at 28 weeks.

RESULTS

Least squares (LS) mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c changes from baseline were -1.44 ± 0.09% (-15.74 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with dulaglutide/glargine and -0.67 ± 0.09% (-7.32 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with placebo/glargine at 28 weeks (LS mean difference [95% confidence interval] -0.77% [-0.97, -0.56]; P < .001). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide/glargine and increased with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: -2.41 ± 0.39 kg; P < .001). Increases from baseline in mean glargine dose were significantly smaller with dulaglutide/glargine vs placebo/glargine (13 ± 2 U [0.1 ± 0.02 U/kg] vs 26 ± 2 U [0.3 ± 0.02 U/kg], respectively; P < .001; LS mean ± s.e. final dose: dulaglutide/glargine, 51 ± 2 U; placebo/glargine, 65 ± 2 U). The hypoglycaemia rate (≤3.9 mmol/L threshold) was 7.69 ± 15.15 and 8.56 ± 16.13 events/patient/year, respectively (P = .488). One episode of severe hypoglycaemia occurred in the dulaglutide/glargine group. Common gastrointestinal adverse events with dulaglutide were nausea (12.0%), diarrhoea (11.3%) and vomiting (6.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg added to basal insulin is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option for patients with T2D.

Assessment of Pancreas Safety in the Development Program of Once-Weekly GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Dulaglutide

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of acute pancreatitis during treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist dulaglutide, placebo, and active comparators across phase 2/3 dulaglutide trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 6,005 patients with type 2 diabetes participated (dulaglutide group N = 4,006 [dose range 0.1-3.0 mg]; active comparator group [metformin, sitagliptin, exenatide twice daily, insulin glargine] N = 1,541; placebo group N = 703; 245 placebo-treated patients subsequently received dulaglutide or sitagliptin and were also included in these groups) for up to 104 weeks. The following events were adjudicated: investigator-reported pancreatitis, adverse events (AEs) of severe or serious abdominal pain of unknown etiology, and confirmed asymptomatic increases in pancreatic enzymes ≥3× the upper limit of normal range.

RESULTS

Overall, 203 events from 151 patients underwent adjudication (dulaglutide group n = 108; comparator group including placebo n = 43). Acute pancreatitis was confirmed by adjudication in seven patients (dulaglutide n = 3, placebo n = 1, sitagliptin n = 3). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates were as follows: dulaglutide group 0.85 patients/1,000 patient-years, placebo group 3.52 patients/1,000 patient-years, sitagliptin group 4.71 patients/1,000 patient-years. No events of pancreatitis were confirmed by adjudication in patients treated with exenatide twice daily, metformin, or glargine. Increases in median values of lipase and pancreatic amylase within the normal range were observed with all treatments except glargine. These changes were not associated with AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The exposure-adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in dulaglutide-treated patients was similar to the rates with placebo, with few reported cases during the entire program.

Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in combination with prandial insulin lispro: an AWARD-4 substudy

AIM

To conduct a substudy, using 24-hour continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), of the AWARD-4 trial, which was designed to compare insulin + glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment with an insulin-only regimen.

METHODS

The AWARD-4 trial randomized 884 conventional insulin regimen-treated patients to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg and glargine, all in combination with prandial insulin lispro. The CGM substudy included 144 patients inserted with a Medtronic CGMS iPro CGM device to enable 3-day glucose monitoring. CGM sessions were completed at weeks 0, 13, 26 and 52. CGM measures included mean 24-hour glucose, percentage time in target glucose ranges, hyper- and hypoglycaemia and glucose variability. The primary objective was treatment comparison for percentage time spent with CGM glucose values in the 3.9-7.8 mmol/L range after 26 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 26, mean CGM values decreased in all treatment groups (change from baseline -2.8 ± 0.3, -2.4 ± 0.3 and -2.5 ± 0.3 mmol/L for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg and glargine, respectively); between-group differences were not statistically significant. Treatment groups were similar for percentage time in the 3.9-7.8 mmol/L range. Percentage time in the 3.9-10.0 mmol/L range was greater for dulaglutide 1.5 mg than for glargine (p < 0.05). Dulaglutide and glargine were associated with decreased glucose variability for all CGM variability indices. The overall within-patient standard deviation (s.d.) was significantly reduced with dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus glargine (p < 0.05). At week 52, there were no significant differences among the groups with regard to measures of normoglycaemia or near-normoglycaemia and for the overall within-patient s.d. Treatment with glargine was associated with greater increases in percentage time spent with glucose values ≤3.9 mmol/L, with statistically significant differences between the groups at 52 weeks (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with prandial lispro, treatment with dulaglutide and glargine resulted in similar proportions of glucose values in the normoglycaemic range, but dulaglutide provided an improved balance between the proportion of values within the near-normoglycaemia range and values within the hypoglycaemic range.

Differential effects of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide and metformin on pancreatic β-cell and insulin sensitivity during a standardized test meal in patients with type 2 diabetes

This substudy of the AWARD-3 trial evaluated the effects of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, dulaglutide, versus metformin on glucose control, pancreatic function and insulin sensitivity, after standardized test meals in patients with type 2 diabetes. Meals were administered at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks to patients randomized to monotherapy with dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week (n = 133), dulaglutide 0.75 mg/week (n = 136), or metformin ≥1500 mg/day (n = 140). Fasting and postprandial serum glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon levels were measured up to 3 h post-meal. β-cell function and insulin sensitivity were assessed using empirical variables and mathematical modelling. At 26 weeks, similar decreases in area under the curve for glucose [AUCglucose (0-3 h)] were observed among all groups. β-cell function [AUCinsulin /AUCglucose (0-3 h)] increased with dulaglutide and was unchanged with metformin (p ≤ 0.005, both doses). Dulaglutide improved insulin secretion rate at 9 mmol/l glucose (p ≤ 0.04, both doses) and β-cell glucose sensitivity (p = 0.004, dulaglutide 1.5 mg). Insulin sensitivity increased more with metformin versus dulaglutide. In conclusion, dulaglutide improves postprandial glycaemic control after a standardized test meal by enhancing β-cell function, while metformin exerts a greater effect on insulin sensitivity.

Low incidence of anti-drug antibodies in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide

Therapeutic administration of peptides may result in anti-drug antibody (ADA) formation, hypersensitivity adverse events (AEs) and reduced efficacy. As a large peptide, the immunogenicity of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist dulaglutide is of considerable interest. The present study assessed the incidence of treatment-emergent dulaglutide ADAs, hypersensitivity AEs, injection site reactions (ISRs), and glycaemic control in ADA-positive patients in nine phase II and phase III trials (dulaglutide, N = 4006; exenatide, N = 276; non-GLP-1 comparators, N = 1141). Treatment-emergent dulaglutide ADAs were detected using a solid-phase extraction acid dissociation binding assay. Neutralizing ADAs were detected using a cell-based assay derived from human endothelial kidney cells (HEK293). A total of 64 dulaglutide-treated patients (1.6% of the population) tested ADA-positive versus eight (0.7%) from the non-GLP-1 comparator group. Of these 64 patients, 34 (0.9%) had dulaglutide-neutralizing ADAs, 36 (0.9%) had native-sequence GLP-1 (nsGLP-1) cross-reactive ADAs and four (0.1%) had nsGLP-1 neutralization ADAs. The incidence of hypersensitivity AEs and ISRs was similar in the dulaglutide versus placebo groups. No dulaglutide ADA-positive patient reported hypersensitivity AEs. Because of the low incidence of ADAs, it was not possible to establish their effect on glycaemic control.

Factors Associated With Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Myocardial Infarction

CONTEXT

Decreasing risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease remains a challenge to survival in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the association between demographic, glycemic, and other clinical factors and CV risk in the Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus trial. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTION: We used discrete-time survival tree analysis to examine data collected for up to 4.6 years in 1115 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus experiencing acute myocardial infarction (MI) less than or equal to 18 days before enrollment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary objective was to identify demographic, glycemic, and CV risk factors best separating survival curves over time for a composite end point: CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes, or coronary revascularization planned after randomization.

RESULTS

Average change across visits in mean 2-hour blood glucose level after meals was associated with the greatest difference in event-free survival probability for the primary end point: mean time to 75% event-free survival for an average change across visits less than or equal to -0.14 mmol/L, 73.48 weeks; for visits with average change more -0.14 mmol/L, 29.10 weeks. An average change across visits in the hemoglobin A1c level less than or equal to -0.92% (-10.06 mmol/mol) and the absence of a history of stroke or acute MI increased CV event-free survival time further. Fasting blood glucose and randomized insulin treatment strategy were weak predicting factors of event-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Postprandial glycemia should be considered a potential target in trials to reduce CV morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 2 years in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-5): a randomized, phase III study

AIMS

To compare the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor dulaglutide with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin after 104 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

This AWARD-5 study was a multicentre, double-blind trial that randomized participants to dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or sitagliptin 100 mg for 104 weeks or placebo (reported separately) for 26 weeks. Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration from baseline was the primary efficacy measure. A total of 1098 participants with HbA1c concentrations ≥7.0% (≥53.0 mmol/mol) and ≤9.5% (≤80.3 mmol/mol) were randomized, and 657 (59.8%) completed the study. We report results for dulaglutide and sitagliptin at the final endpoint.

RESULTS

Changes in HbA1c at 104 weeks were (least squares mean ± standard error) -0.99 ± 0.06% (-10.82 ± 0.66 mmol/mol), -0.71 ± 0.07% (-7.76 ± 0.77 mmol/mol) and -0.32 ± 0.06% (-3.50 ± 0.66 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg and sitagliptin, respectively (p < 0.001, both dulaglutide doses vs sitagliptin). Weight loss was greater with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (p < 0.001) and similar with 0.75 mg versus sitagliptin (2.88 ± 0.25, 2.39 ± 0.26 and 1.75 ± 0.25 kg, respectively). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg versus sitagliptin (nausea 17 and 15% vs 7%, diarrhoea 16 and 12% vs 6%, vomiting 14 and 8% vs 4% respectively). Pancreatic, thyroid, cardiovascular and hypersensitivity safety were similar across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide doses provided superior glycaemic control and dulaglutide 1.5 mg resulted in greater weight reduction versus sitagliptin at 104 weeks, with acceptable safety.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus bedtime insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

For patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve target glycaemic control with conventional insulin treatment, advancing to a basal-bolus insulin regimen is often recommended. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We did this 52 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with an interactive voice-response system, to receive once-weekly dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine. Randomisation was stratified by country and metformin use. Participants and study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but were unaware of dulaglutide dose assignment. The primary outcome was a change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191268.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 9, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 884 patients to receive dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296). At 26 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was greater in patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg (-1·64% [95% CI -1·78 to -1·50], -17·93 mmol/mol [-19·44 to -16·42]) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (-1·59% [-1·73 to -1·45], -17·38 mmol/mol [-18·89 to -15·87]) than in those receiving glargine (-1·41% [-1·55 to -1·27], -15·41 mmol/mol [-16·92 to -13·90]). The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was -0·22% (95% CI -0·38 to -0·07, -2·40 mmol/mol [-4·15 to -0·77]; p=0·005) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and -0·17% (-0·33 to -0·02, -1·86 mmol/mol [-3·61 to -0·22]; p=0·015) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg. Five (<1%) patients died after randomisation because of septicaemia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group); pneumonia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group). We recorded serious adverse events in 27 (9%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, 44 (15%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group. The most frequent adverse events, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting.

INTERPRETATION

Dulaglutide in combination with lispro resulted in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patients unable to achieve glycaemic targets with conventional insulin treatment.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Dose-finding results in an adaptive, seamless, randomized trial of once-weekly dulaglutide combined with metformin in type 2 diabetes patients (AWARD-5)

AIMS

AWARD-5 was an adaptive, seamless, double-blind study comparing dulaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, with placebo at 26 weeks and sitagliptin up to 104 weeks. The study also included a dose-finding portion whose results are presented here.

METHODS

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients on metformin were randomized 3 : 1 : 1 to seven dulaglutide doses, sitagliptin (100 mg), or placebo. A Bayesian algorithm was used for randomization and dose selection. Patients were adaptively randomized to dulaglutide doses using available data on the basis of a clinical utility index (CUI) of glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) versus sitagliptin at 52 weeks and weight, pulse rate (PR) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) versus placebo at 26 weeks. The algorithm randomly assigned patients until two doses were selected.

RESULTS

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was determined to be the optimal dose. Dulaglutide 0.75 mg met criteria for the second dose. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg showed the greatest Bayesian mean change from baseline (95% credible interval) in HbA1c versus sitagliptin at 52 weeks -0.63 (-0.98 to -0.20)%. Dulaglutide 2.0 mg showed the greatest placebo-adjusted mean change in weight [-1.99 (-2.88 to -1.20) kg] and in PR [0.78 (-2.10 to 3.80) bpm]. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg showed the greatest placebo-adjusted mean change in DBP [-0.62 (-3.40 to 2.30) mmHg].

CONCLUSIONS

The Bayesian algorithm allowed for an efficient exploration of a large number of doses and selected dulaglutide doses of 1.5 and 0.75 mg for further investigation in this trial.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 52 weeks in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-5)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of two doses of once-weekly dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, to sitagliptin in uncontrolled, metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective was to compare (for noninferiority and then superiority) dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus sitagliptin in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 52 weeks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicenter, adaptive, double-blind, parallel-arm study randomized patients (N = 1,098; mean baseline age 54 years; HbA1c 8.1% [65 mmol/mol]; weight 86.4 kg; diabetes duration 7 years) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo (placebo-controlled period up to 26 weeks). The treatment period lasted 104 weeks, with 52-week primary end point data presented.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c changes to 52 weeks were (least squares mean ± SE): -1.10 ± 0.06% (-12.0 ± 0.7 mmol/mol), -0.87 ± 0.06% (9.5 ± 0.7 mmol/mol), and -0.39 ± 0.06% (4.3 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and sitagliptin, respectively. Both dulaglutide doses were superior to sitagliptin (P < 0.001, both comparisons). No events of severe hypoglycemia were reported. Mean weight changes to 52 weeks were greater with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (-3.03 ± 0.22 kg) and dulaglutide 0.75 mg (-2.60 ± 0.23 kg) compared with sitagliptin (-1.53 ± 0.22 kg) (P < 0.001, both comparisons). The most common gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events in dulaglutide 1.5- and 0.75-mg arms were nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dulaglutide doses demonstrated superior glycemic control versus sitagliptin at 52 weeks with an acceptable tolerability and safety profile.

Monotherapy with the once-weekly GLP-1 analogue dulaglutide for 12 weeks in patients with Type 2 diabetes: dose-dependent effects on glycaemic control in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

AIMS

Evaluate dose-dependent effects of once-weekly dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, on glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle measures with or without previous metformin.

METHODS

This 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response trial randomized 167 patients who were anti-hyperglycaemic medication-naïve or had discontinued metformin monotherapy [mean baseline HbA(1c) 59 ± 8 to 61 ± 8 mmol/mol (7.6 ± 0.7 to 7.8 ± 0.8%)] to once-weekly injections of placebo or dulaglutide (0.1, 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 mg).

RESULTS

A significant dose-dependent reduction in HbA(1c) (least squares mean ± SE) was observed across doses (P < 0.001). HbA(1c) reductions in the 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mg dulaglutide groups were greater than in the placebo group [-10 ± 1, -11 ± 1 and -11 ± 1 vs. 0 ± 1 mmol/mol (-0.9 ± 0.1, -1.0 ± 0.1 and -1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 0.0 ± 0.1%), respectively, all P < 0.001]. Dose-dependent reductions in fasting plasma glucose were also observed [least squares mean difference (95% CI) ranging from -0.43 (-1.06 to 0.19) mmol/l for dulaglutide 0.1 mg to -1.87 (-2.56 to -1.19) mmol/l for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, P < 0.001]. Dose-dependent weight loss was demonstrated across doses (P = 0.009), but none of the groups were different from placebo. The most common adverse events were nausea and diarrhoea.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed dulaglutide dose-dependent reduction in HbA(1c) and its acceptable safety profile support further clinical development for treatment of Type 2 diabetes.

Post hoc subgroup analysis of the HEART2D trial demonstrates lower cardiovascular risk in older patients targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia

OBJECTIVE

To identify the Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) trial subgroups with treatment difference.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In 1,115 type 2 diabetic patients who had suffered from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the HEART2D trial compared two insulin strategies targeting postprandial or fasting/premeal glycemia on time until first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome). The HEART2D trial ended prematurely for futility. We used the classification and regression tree (CART) to identify baseline subgroups with potential treatment differences.

RESULTS

CART estimated the age of >65.7 years to best predict the difference in time to first event. In the subgroup aged>65.7 years (prandial, n=189; basal, n=210), prandial patients had a significantly longer time to first event and a lower proportion experienced a first event (n=56 [29.6%] vs. n=85 [40.5%]; hazard ratio 0.69 [95% CI 0.49-0.96]; P=0.029), despite similar A1C levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Older type 2 diabetic AMI survivors may have a lower risk for a subsequent cardiovascular event with insulin targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia.

Initiation of prandial insulin therapy with AIR inhaled insulin or insulin lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes is often delayed because of concerns about injections. Our objective was to compare the effects of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) with those of injectable insulin on glycemic control and safety.

METHODS

This was planned as a 24-month, open-label, randomized study in adults with diabetes inadequately controlled by one or more oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs). Following a 2-week baseline period, patients continued OAMs and were randomized to AIR insulin (n = 208) or insulin lispro (n = 203) before meals. The primary end point was hemoglobin A1C (A1C) change from baseline to 6 months. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in A1C change was < or =0.4%.

RESULTS

Early termination of the study diminished the number of patients for the 12- and 24-month analyses, but not for the primary 6-month end point analyses. AIR insulin and injectable insulin groups had comparable baseline A1C values (8.18% vs. 8.21%, respectively). Change in A1C from baseline to 6-month end point was similar (least squares mean, -0.81 +/- 0.09% and -0.87 +/- 0.09%; 95% confidence interval for the difference -0.117, 0.234; P = 0.51) and so were final A1C values of 7.36% and 7.31% for AIR insulin and injectable insulin, respectively. At 6 months, no differences were observed in eight-point profiles, overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia, and weight gain. Greater decreases in spirometry were observed in the AIR insulin group at 12 months. Cough was the most frequently reported adverse event (20% [AIR insulin] vs. 10% [insulin lispro]; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with AIR insulin resulted in similar improvement in glycemic control compared with insulin lispro. More frequent cough and greater decrease in spirometry were observed with AIR insulin.

Efficacy and safety of AIR inhaled insulin compared to insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a 6-month, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 1 diabetes may prefer features of AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.) over insulin injection, but the two methods need to be compared for efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This multicenter, 6-month, parallel-group, noninferiority trial had 500 patients with type 1 diabetes randomized to morning doses of basal insulin glargine plus either preprandial injectable insulin lispro or preprandial AIR insulin. We hypothesized that AIR insulin is noninferior (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval < or = 0.4%) to insulin lispro for change-from-baseline hemoglobin A1C (A1C).

RESULTS

Baseline A1C was 7.95 +/- 0.08% for both groups. At end point, A1C was lower with insulin lispro than with AIR insulin by 0.27% (95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.43; P< 0.001). Noninferiority of AIR insulin to insulin lispro was not demonstrated, but similar percentages of patients in each group achieved A1C <7.0% (P = 0.448). Overall daily blood glucose was similar between groups at baseline (P = 0.879) and end point (P = 0.161). Two-hour postprandial blood glucose change from baseline was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with AIR insulin (20.77 +/- 4.33 mg/dL at 3 months and 15.85 +/- 3.08 mg/dL at end point) than with insulin lispro (3.29 +/- 4.14 mg/dL at 3 months and 1.67 +/- 2.91 mg/dL at end point). Overall hypoglycemia was similar between treatment groups (P = 0.355). The AIR insulin group had greater decrease in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide at end point (P = 0.020) and greater incidence of cough (P = 0.024) and dyspnea (P = 0.030). Body weight decreased in the AIR insulin group and increased in the insulin lispro group.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin lispro provided lower A1C than AIR insulin, but the difference may not be clinically relevant.

Effects of prandial versus fasting glycemia on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: the HEART2D trial

OBJECTIVE

Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) is a multinational, randomized, controlled trial designed to compare the effects of prandial versus fasting glycemic control on risk for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients (type 2 diabetes, aged 30-75 years) were randomly assigned within 21 days after AMI to the 1) prandial strategy (PRANDIAL) (three premeal doses of insulin lispro targeting 2-h postprandial blood glucose <7.5 mmol/l) or the 2) basal strategy (BASAL) (NPH twice daily or insulin glargine once daily targeting fasting/premeal blood glucose <6.7 mmol/l).

RESULTS

A total of 1,115 patients were randomly assigned (PRANDIAL n = 557; BASAL n = 558), and the mean patient participation after randomization was 963 days (range 1-1,687 days). The trial was stopped for lack of efficacy. Risks of first combined adjudicated primary cardiovascular events in the PRANDIAL (n = 174, 31.2%) and BASAL (n = 181, 32.4%) groups were similar (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.8-1.21]). Mean A1C did not differ between the PRANDIAL and BASAL groups (7.7 +/- 0.1 vs. 7.8 +/- 0.1%; P = 0.4) during the study. The PRANDIAL group showed a lower daily mean postprandial blood glucose (7.8 vs. 8.6 mmol/l; P < 0.01) and 2-h postprandial blood glucose excursion (0.1 vs. 1.3 mmol/l; P < 0.001) versus the BASAL group. The BASAL group showed lower mean fasting blood glucose (7.0 vs. 8.1 mmol/l; P < 0.001) and similar daily fasting/premeal blood glucose (7.7 vs. 7.3 mmol/l; P = 0.233) versus the PRANDIAL group.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating diabetic survivors of AMI with prandial versus basal strategies achieved differences in fasting blood glucose, less-than-expected differences in postprandial blood glucose, similar levels of A1C, and no difference in risk for future cardiovascular event rates.

Cytogenetic effects of 8-Cl-cAMP on human and animal chromosomes

PURPOSE

To assess the cytogenetic effects in vitro and in vivo of a non-cytotoxic antitumor agent with biomodulator activity, 8-chloro-3',5' cyclic adenosine monophosphate (8-ClcAMP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cytogenetic effects of 8-Cl-cAMP where evaluated using the in vitro chromosome cytogenetic assay (CA) on human peripheral blood lymphocytes of healthy individuals and by bone marrow micronucleus assay in adult BALB/c mice.

RESULTS

In the in vitro chromosome CA, 8-Cl-cAMP (in all respective doses; 1.5 and 15 microm) induced mitotic inhibition and premature centromere separation (PCS) but no chromosomal damage in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes. In the in vivo test, single intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of 8-Cl-cAMP in doses of 10, 80 and 150 mg/kg showed a dose-related effect on the frequency of micronuclei, detected in murine polychromatic erythrocytes (PCE).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study show that genotoxicity of 8-Cl-cAMP has a different matrix of response when comparing results in vitro and in vivo, suggesting that high metabolic activity in vivo is responsible for the clastogenic potential of 8-Cl-cAMP. These comparative results indicate a need of having an available battery of genotoxic tests in order to evaluate possible cytogenetic effects of novel antitumor agents.

Molecular characterization of hsp90 isoforms in colorectal cancer cells and its association with tumour progression

A key role of hsp90 in the activity of various oncogenic proteins and pathways is currently of intense interest. To clarify the molecular basis of biological behaviour of colorectal cancers we analysed the expression characteristics of hsp90 in cytosolic, nuclear and plasma membranous fractions of cancer cells. As determined by Western blot assay all hsp90 isoforms studied, alpha (84 kDa), beta (86 kDa) and hsp90N (75 kDa), were up-regulated and differentially expressed in various stages of colorectal carcinoma. The inducible hsp90alpha isoform is a component of invasive phenotype of cancer cells thus pointing to the importance of hsp90alpha for metastasis generation. The expression of hsp90beta is definitely higher in poorly-differentiated carcinomas than in well-differentiated cancers, suggesting an involvement of hsp90beta in the inhibition of cancer cell differentiation. Especially, the expression of cytosolic hsp90N isoform in malignant cells points to the possibility that induction or overexpression of hsp90N might be causally related to tumour formation. Hsp90N is the plasma-membrane-associated protein in poorly-differentiated colorectal cancers with metastasis. This suggests that the expression of hsp90N is elevated with progressive dedifferentiation often associated with advanced cancer stages. Hsp90 was exclusively localized in the invasive front in a majority of metastatic cancers as visualized by immunohistochemical study. Consistent with these facts, the frequent expression of hsp90alpha and hsp90N on the surface of colorectal cancer cells may enable hsp90 to act as a mediator of metastasis generation. The above results indicate more complex roles for hsp90 in colorectal tumourigenesis. In this way, the hsp90 would be at the crossroads of both signalling and cell migration events.

Mealtime 50/50 basal + prandial insulin analogue mixture with a basal insulin analogue, both plus metformin, in the achievement of target HbA1c and pre- and postprandial blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multinational, 24-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparison

BACKGROUND

In people without diabetes, approximately 50% of daily insulin secretion is basal and the remainder is postprandial. Hence, it would be expected that insulin replacement therapy in a 50/50 ratio with each meal would mimic physiologic insulin secretion better than treatment with once-daily basal insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus. Using lispro mix (LM) 50/50 before meals may be a logical approach to achieving glycemic targets (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(lc)] and pre- and postprandial blood glucose [BG] concentrations) in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that treatment with a premixed insulin analogue containing 50/50 basal + prandial insulins administered before each meal would achieve lower overall and mealtime glycemic control than once-daily basal insulin analogue, both plus metformin (Met), in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This 24-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted at 38 sites across Australia, Greece, India, The Netherlands, Poland, Puerto Rico, and the United States. Male and female patients aged 35 to 75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus and an HbA(1c) level of 6.5% to 11.0%, who were receiving metformin and/or a sulfonylurea with a stable dose of 0 to 2 daily insulin injections over the previous 3 months were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive LM50/50 (50% insulin lispro protamine suspension [ILPS] and 50% lispro) TID plus metformin (to a maximally tolerated daily dosage of 500-1000 mg BID) (LM50/50 + Met) or insulin glargine QD at bedtime plus metformin (500-1000 mg BID) (G + Met) for 24 weeks. With LM50/50 + Met, the insulin dose was titrated to target a fasting BG (FBG) level of <6.7 mmol/L (<120 mg/dL) and a 2-hour post-prandial BG (PPBG) level of <8.0 mmol/L (<144 mg/dL); those who did not reach the FBG target would be switched from presupper LM50/50 to LM75/25 (75% ILPS, 25% lispro).

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients were randomized and received treatment (158 women, 157 men; mean age, 57.7 years; mean body mass index, 32.1 kg/m2; LM50/50 + Met, 157 patients; G + Met, 158 patients). At 24 weeks, the mean (SD)HbA(1c) level was significantly lower in the LM50/50 + Met group than in the G + Met group (7.1% [0.9%] vs 7.5% [1.0%]; P<0.001), and the proportion who reached an HbA(1c) target of < or = 7.0% was greater (88 [56.1%] vs 63 [39.9%]; P = 0.005). The G + Met group had a lower mean (SD)FBG value (6.5 [1.6] vs 8.1 [1.8] mmol/L; P<0.001). The LM50/50 + Met group had lower mean preprandial BG levels prelunch (7.4 [1.9] vs 7.9 [2.1] mmol/L; P=0.03) and presupper (8.3 [2.0] vs 8.9 [2.8] mmol/L; P=0.04). The LM50/50 + Met group also had lower mean 2-hour PPBG values postbreakfast (8.7 [2.2] vs 9.2 [2.5] mmol/L; P=0.03), postlunch (8.4 [1.9] vs 9.8 [2.6], mmol/L; p<0.001), and postsupper (8.7 [2.2] vs 10.7 [3.2], mmol/L; P<0.001). The mean (SD) total insulin doses at study end point were 0.7 (0.3) U/kg in the LM50/50 + Met group and 0.6 (0.3) U/kg in the G + Met group (P<0.001). The mean (SD)M-value (an expression of mean glycemia and the effect of glucose swings) was statistically similar between the 2 groups at baseline but significantly lower in the LM50/50 + Met group at end point (17.3 [13.8] vs 25.1 [24.8] mmol/L; P<0.001). During the entire treatment period, mean (SD) overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia rates (episodes per patient for 30 days) were statistically similar between the 2 groups (overall, 0.8 [1.4] vs 0.5 [1.0]; nocturnal, 0.2 [0.7] vs 0.3 [0.6]). At end point, the mean (SD) nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were similar between the 2 groups (0.2 [0.9] vs 0.2 [0.6]), but the overall and non-nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were higher with LM50/50 + Met (overall, 0.7 [1.7] vs 0.3 [0.8]; P=0.02; non-nocturnal, 0.5 [1.2] vs 0.1 [0.4]; P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

In these patients with type 2 diabetes, mealtime LM50/50 + Met was associated with lower overall (HbA(1c)) and preprandial BG and PPBG levels (except for FBG), with similar nocturnal hypoglycemia and less glycemic variability, compared with G + Met.

Natural history of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: role of hyperglycemia

Atherosclerotic vascular disease is more common in diabetic than in nondiabetic individuals. Diabetic macrovascular disease also has a more severe course with greater prevalence of multiple-vessel coronary artery disease and more diffuse elongated atheromas in affected blood vessels. In this review, we discuss possible reasons for increased incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events in individuals with diabetes. Although an increased prevalence of standard CV risk factors has been clearly documented in association with diabetes, diabetes-related abnormalities, particularly hyperglycemia, also play an important role. Epidemiological studies suggest that the effect of hyperglycemia on CV risk is independent of other known risk factors, but no data from primary interventional trials are available yet. Analysis of datasets from populations that included individuals with impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose suggest that the pathogenic role of hyperglycemia on the blood vessel wall already exists in the early stages of glucose intolerance. The effect of postprandial or postchallenge hyperglycemia seems to be greater than the effect of fasting blood glucose abnormalities. The relationship of postprandial glycemia, fasting blood glucose, and CV risk in individuals with diagnosed (or overt) diabetes is less clear, although most reports indicate a greater pathogenic potential of postprandial hyperglycemia rather than fasting hyperglycemia. Based on the results of epidemiological reports, the most appropriate targets in interventional trials are postprandial hyperglycemia or A1C.

Deregulated sequential motion of centromeres induced by antitumor agents may lead to genome instability in human peripheral blood lymphocytes

PURPOSE

Segregation of chromosomes in anaphase is preceded by a sequential order of centromere separation. Alteration of the sequence of centromere separation or premature centromere division (PCD) has been found to be significantly higher in populations exposed to various xenobiotics. The purpose of this study was to investigate if PCD induced by various cytostatics can alter the stability of chromosomes and lead to aneuploidy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Peripheral blood lymphocytes of 10 healthy, non smoking subjects were exposed to 8-Cl-cAMP at a dose of 1, 5 and 15 microM, paclitaxel at a dose of 0.01, 0.05 and 0.2 microM, and cycloheximide (CX) at a dose of 5, 10 and 25 microg/ml. By using the cytohalasin B (CB)-micronucleus (MN) test in vitro, in combination with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), the presence of MN was analyzed in 1000 binuclear cells for each experimental and negative control group. For analysis of MN content we used the alpha-centromeric probe for chromosome 18.

RESULTS

8-Cl-cAMP and paclitaxel induced an increase in the frequency of MN in peripheral blood lymphocytes. 8-Cl-cAMP and paclitaxel proved clastogenic, i.e. they increased the frequency of MN and induced PCD in all respective doses. CX proved not clastogenic in the respected doses when using the CB-MN test in vitro, although CX is a specific PCD inducer. No correlation of PCD and aneuploidy of chromosome 18 was found in cells exposed to 8-Cl-cAMP and paclitaxel by using FISH. In cells exposed to CX we found PCD of chromosome 18 in binuclear cells and single signals in scarce MN. These findings were not statistically significant compared to the negative control group.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the properties of the investigated antitumor agents to induce PCD in peripheral blood lymphocytes and, therefore, aneuploidy and genome instability, is highly based on the nature of the alteration of centromere function, i.e. the temporal order of centromere kinetics are more regulated through the sequence of centromere separation than by the segregation processes. We suggest that PCD induced by novel antitumor agents could be included in preclinical and clinical genetic risk assessment analysis.