A joint industry-sponsored data monitoring committee model for observational, retrospective drug safety studies in the real-world setting.

PURPOSE: To share better practice in establishing data monitoring committees (DMCs) for observational, retrospective safety studies with joint-industry sponsorship. METHODS: A DMC model was created to monitor data from an observational, retrospective, post-authorization safety study investigating risk of medullary thyroid cancer in patients treated with long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (LA GLP-1RAs) (NCT01511393). Sponsors reviewed regulatory guidelines, best practice and sponsors' standard operation procedures on DMCs. Discussions were held within the four-member consortium, assessing applicability to observational, retrospective, real-world studies. A DMC charter was drafted based on a sponsor-proposed, adapted DMC model. Thereafter, a kick-off meeting between sponsors and DMC members was held to receive DMC input and finalize the charter. RESULTS: Due to this study's observational, retrospective nature, assuring participant safety - central for traditional explanatory clinical trial models - was not applicable to our DMC model. The overall strategy and key indication for our real-world model included preserving study integrity and credibility. Therefore, DMC member independence and their contribution of expert knowledge were essential. To ensure between-sponsor data confidentiality, all study committees/corporations and sponsors, besides the DMC, received blinded data only (adapted to refer to data blinding that revealed the specific marketed LA GLP-1RA/sponsor). Communication and blinding/unblinding of these data were facilitated by the contract research organization, which also provided crucial operational oversight. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, we have established the first DMC model for joint industry-sponsored, observational, retrospective safety studies. This model could serve as a precedent for others performing similar post-marketing, joint industry-sponsored pharmacovigilance activities.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: Past, present, and future.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)-based therapy improves glycaemic control through multiple mechanisms, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and the additional benefit of clinically relevant weight loss. Since Starling and Bayliss first proposed the existence of intestinal secretions that stimulate the pancreas, tremendous progress has been made in the area of incretins. As a number of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continue to become available, physicians will soon face the challenge of selecting the right option customized to their patient's needs. The following discussion, derived from an extensive literature search using the PubMed database, applying the terms incretin, GLP-1, exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and taspoglutide, provides a comprehensive review of existing and upcoming molecules in the GLP-1 RA class in terms of their structure, pharmacological profiles, efficacy, safety, and convenience. Search Methodology: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database, applying the terms incretin, GLP-1, exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and taspoglutide. Relevant articles were those that discussed structural, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences, classification, long-acting and short-acting GLP-1 RAs, phase 3 trials, and expert opinions. Additional targeted searches were conducted on diabetes treatment guidelines and reviews on safety, as well as the American Diabetes Association/European Society for Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) statement on pancreatic safety.

Physician perceptions of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the UK.

Objectives Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been used to treat type 2 diabetes for almost a decade, and new treatments in this class have recently been introduced. The purpose of this study was to examine perceptions of GLP-1 receptor agonists among physicians who treat patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. Methods A total of 670 physicians (226 diabetes specialists; 444 general practice [GP] physicians) completed a survey in 2014. Results Almost all physicians had prescribed GLP-1 receptor agonists (95.4% total sample; 99.1% specialists; 93.5% GP), most frequently to patients whose glucose levels are not adequately controlled with oral medications (85.9% of physicians) and obese/overweight patients (83.7%). Physicians' most common reasons for prescribing a GLP-1 receptor agonist were: associated with weight loss (65.8%), good efficacy (55.7%), less hypoglycemia risk than insulin (55.2%), not associated with weight gain (34.5%), and better efficacy than oral medications (32.7%). Factors that most commonly cause hesitation when prescribing this class were: not considered first line therapy according to guidelines (56.9%), injectable administration (44.6%), cost (36.7%), gastrointestinal side effects (33.4%), and risk of pancreatitis (26.7%). Almost all specialists (99.1%) believed they had sufficient knowledge to prescribe a GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with 76.1% of GPs. Conclusions Results highlight the widespread use of GLP-1 receptor agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK. However, almost a quarter of GPs reported that they do not have enough knowledge to prescribe GLP-1s, suggesting a need for increased dissemination of information to targeted groups of physicians. Study limitations were that the generalizability of the clinician sample is unknown; survey questions required clinicians to select answers from multiple response options rather than generating the responses themselves; and responses to this survey conducted in 2014 do not reflect perceptions of the most recently introduced GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Once-weekly exenatide versus once- or twice-daily insulin detemir: randomized, open-label, clinical trial of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin alone or in combination with sulfonylureas.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm study compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly (EQW) with titrated insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (with or without sulfonylureas). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to EQW (2 mg) or detemir (once or twice daily, titrated to achieve fasting plasma glucose ≤5.5 mmol/L) for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving A1C ≤7.0% and weight loss ≥1.0 kg at end point, analyzed by means of logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included measures of glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Of 216 patients (intent-to-treat population), 111 received EQW and 105 received detemir. Overall, 44.1% (95% CI, 34.7-53.9) of EQW-treated patients compared with 11.4% (6.0-19.1) of detemir-treated patients achieved the primary outcome (P < 0.0001). Treatment with EQW resulted in significantly greater reductions than detemir in A1C (least-square mean ± SE, -1.30 ± 0.08% vs. -0.88 ± 0.08%; P < 0.0001) and weight (-2.7 ± 0.3 kg vs. +0.8 ± 0.4 kg; P < 0.0001). Gastrointestinal-related and injection site-related adverse events occurred more frequently with EQW than with detemir. There was no major hypoglycemia in either group. Five (6%) patients in the EQW group and six (7%) patients in the detemir group experienced minor hypoglycemia; only one event occurred without concomitant sulfonylureas (detemir group). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with EQW resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving target A1C and weight loss than treatment with detemir, with a low risk of hypoglycemia. These results suggest that EQW is a viable alternative to insulin detemir treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control using oral antidiabetes drugs.