The effect of chronic twice daily exenatide treatment on ß-cell function in new onset type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of chronic daily exenatide treatment on ß-cell function in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists, such as exenatide, are commonly used to treat patients with T2DM. Drugs in this class are insulinotropic but lower blood glucose by multiple mechanisms such that effects on ß-cell function can be difficult to discern by conventional measures. DESIGN: Seventy-nine subjects with previously untreated T2DM were studied before and after 24 weeks of treatment with one of the two doses of exenatide, 5- or 10-µg twice daily, or placebo. All subjects had oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) before and after randomization with measurement of plasma glucose, insulin and C-peptide concentrations. Insulin secretion rates (ISR), peripheral insulin sensitivity (OGIS) and hepatic insulin resistance index (Hep-IR) were calculated. RESULTS: During the trial, all three groups lost similar, small but significant, amounts of weight. Compared to placebo, 24 weeks of daily high- or low-dose exenatide treatment reduced HbA1c and improved fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia. Exenatide was associated with improved OGIS and Hep-IR independent of changes in weight. Plasma insulin levels and ISR during the OGTT did not differ before or after treatment with exenatide or placebo. However, when considered as a function of plasma glucose and insulin sensitivity, both doses of exenatide improved ISR proportionately to the improvement in plasma glucose. The higher dose of exenatide was associated with a significant improvement in ß-cell sensitivity to glucose. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that in persons with early T2DM, chronic treatment with exenatide enhanced ISR and increased ß-cell sensitivity to glucose. These improvements in ß-cell function were not clearly reflected in plasma insulin and C-peptide levels, but became apparent when glycemia and insulin sensitivity were accounted for.

Effects of exenatide on systolic blood pressure in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have blood pressure (BP) exceeding the recommended value of <130/80 mm Hg. Optimal control of hyperglycemia and hypertension has been shown to reduce the incidence of macrovascular and microvascular complications due to diabetes. Treatment with the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide, previously demonstrated to reduce hemoglobin A(1C) and weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes, was associated with BP reduction in several studies. METHODS: This analysis explored the effects of exenatide vs. placebo or insulin on BP measurements in pooled data from six trials including 2,171 subjects studied for at least 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, 6 months of exenatide treatment was associated with a significantly greater reduction in systolic BP (SBP) compared with placebo (least squares mean (s.e.): difference of -2.8 mm Hg (0.75); P = 0.0002) or insulin (difference of -3.7 mm Hg (0.85); P < 0.0001). No significant intergroup differences in diastolic BP (DBP) were observed. The majority of the intergroup difference was observed in subjects with SBP > or = 130 mm Hg (difference of -3.8 mm Hg (1.08) from placebo: P = 0.0004; difference of -4.0 mm Hg (1.01) from insulin; P < 0.0001). The largest intertreatment differences between exenatide and comparators were observed in subjects with SBP >/=150 mm Hg. Similar responses were observed in African-American subjects. A weak correlation between the amount of weight lost and reduction in SBP was found (r = 0.09, P = 0.002) for exenatide-treated subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the need for a prospective, randomized, controlled study of BP changes during exenatide treatment in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

The effect of exenatide re-exposure on safety and efficacy.

Exenatide, a synthetic peptide originally isolated from salivary secretions of Heloderma suspectum, like other subcutaneously injected peptides, can cause antibody formation. Despite that antibody formation has been observed in some patients, results from previous clinical trials have not shown safety and efficacy concerns in exenatide-naïve patients. The objective of this multicenter, open-label study was to investigate the response of anti-exenatide antibody formation and the incidence of immune-related and hypersensitivity reactions after exenatide re-exposure. Fifty-eight patients (57% male; 59+/-10 years; weight 85+/-19kg; HbA1c 8.1+/-0.9%; duration of diabetes 10+/-5 years) were enrolled. At study initiation, 98.3% of patients were taking 1 or more antidiabetes drugs, including oral medication and various types of insulin. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at any time during the study were observed in 40 and 47% of patients with positive and negative treatment-emergent antibodies, respectively. Immune-related AEs were observed in 6 patients (4 were antibody positive). These AEs had not been reported in their previous exposure to exenatide. Re-exposure to exenatide did not result in increased hypersensitivity reactions. Overall, 72% of patients had a baseline to endpoint reduction in HbA1c (range -0.1 to -2.8%), and 87% of antibody negative versus 62% of antibody positive patients had an HbA1c endpoint reduction. The study design and the patients' baseline characteristics, including diabetes treatment at study initiation, are confounding factors limiting clinical conclusions on exenatide's glycemic effect in this patient population. The study results indicate that anti-exenatide antibody formation did not increase the incidence of TEAEs in patients re-exposed to exenatide.

Reduced daily risk of glycemic variability: comparison of exenatide with insulin glargine.

BACKGROUND: Conventional methods describing daily glycemic variability (i.e., standard deviation and coefficient of variation) do not express risk. Low and High Blood Glucose Indices (LBGI and HBGI, respectively) and Average Daily Risk Range (ADRR) are parameters derived from self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) data that quantify risk of glycemic excursions and temporal aspects of variability. In the present study, variability parameters were used to assess effects of exenatide and insulin glargine on risk of acute blood glucose extremes. METHODS: New (LBGI, HBGI, and ADRR) and conventional variability analyses were applied retrospectively to SMBG data from patients with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with metformin and a sulfonylurea plus exenatide or insulin glargine as a next therapeutic step. Exenatide- (n = 282) and insulin glargine-treated (n = 267) patients were well matched. RESULTS: Exenatide treatment reduced ADRR overall (exenatide, mean +/- SEM, 16.33 +/- 0.45; insulin glargine, 18.54 +/- 0.49; P = 0.001). Seventy-seven percent of exenatide-treated patients were at low risk for glucose variability compared with 62% of glargine-treated patients (P = 0.00023). LBGI for exenatide remained minimal for all categories and significantly lower than glargine for all comparisons, and HBGI for exenatide remained low or moderate for all categories and significantly lower than glargine after the morning and evening meals. Reduced variability in exenatide-treated patients was shown by conventional methods but provided no indications of risk. CONCLUSIONS: Average glycemic control was similar for both treatment groups. However, exenatide treatment minimized risk for glycemic variability and extremes to a greater degree than insulin glargine treatment.

Exenatide exhibits dose-dependent effects on glycemic control over 12 weeks in Japanese patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes.

This study assessed the dose-dependent efficacy and safety of exenatide over 12 weeks in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled despite therapeutic doses of sulfonylurea (SU), SU plus biguanide, or SU plus thiazolidinedione. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo (N = 40), 2.5 microg (N = 38), 5 microg (N = 37), or 10 microg (N = 38) exenatide administered subcutaneously twice daily (BID). Patients randomly assigned to 10 microg exenatide received 5 microg BID for the first 4 weeks, with the dose escalated to 10 microg BID for the final 8 weeks. Patients were 60.3 +/- 9.7 years old, with body mass index 25.3 +/- 4.3 kg/m(2) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.0 +/- 0.8%. Baseline-to-endpoint HbA1c changes (%) were +0.02 +/- 0.1 (placebo), -0.9 +/- 0.1 (2.5 microg), -1.2 +/- 0.1 (5 microg), and -1.4 +/- 0.1 (10 microg) (all p < 0.001 vs. placebo). Of patients with baseline HbA1c -7%, 5.1% (placebo), 50.0% (2.5 microg), 71.4% (5 microg), and 79.4% (10 microg) achieved HbA1c <7% at endpoint (p < 0.001, trend test). Baseline-to-endpoint fasting plasma glucose changes (mg/dL) were +6.0 +/- 4.8 (placebo), -18.6 +/- 5.7 (2.5 microg), -25.0 +/- 7.0 (5 microg), and -28.9 +/- 5.9 (10 microg) (all p < or = 0.001 vs. placebo). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly mild; dose-dependent increases in incidence were observed for hypoglycemia, nausea, anorexia, decreased appetite, and diarrhea (all p < or = 0.044, trend test). Over 12 weeks, exenatide dose-dependently improved glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of exenatide in patients of Asian descent with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin or metformin and a sulphonylurea.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of exenatide in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral agents. METHODS: Patients taking metformin (MET) alone or with a sulphonylurea (SU) were randomly assigned to exenatide 5 microg then 10 microg twice-daily for 4 and 12 weeks, respectively, or placebo. The primary endpoint was baseline to endpoint HbA(1c) change. RESULTS: 466 patients (age 54+/-9 years, weight 68.7+/-11.2 kg, BMI 26.3+/-3.3 kg/m(2), and HbA(1c) 8.3+/-1.1%; mean+/-S.D.) were enrolled in the full analysis set. Endpoint HbA(1c) reduction (mean [95% CI]) with exenatide was superior to placebo (-1.2 [-1.3, -1.1]% vs. -0.4 [-0.5, -0.2]%, p<0.001). More exenatide- than placebo-treated patients achieved HbA(1c)

Efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy over 24 weeks in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes may be of clinical interest based on improvements in glycemic control and weight that have been reported with the use of exenatide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes naive to antidiabetic agents and whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: This 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 23 centers across the United States, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russia, and India. Patients aged >or=18 years with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive exenatide 5 microg, exenatide 10 microg, or placebo administered SC BID. Patients were instructed by investigators to maintain their individualized prestudy diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. Efficacy measures included: glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)); fasting serum glucose (FSG); 6-point self-monitored blood glucose; percentages of patients achieving HbA(1c) values or=1 treatment-emergent adverse event. Nausea was reported with the greatest incidence (5 microg, 3%; 10 microg, 13%; placebo, 0%; P = 0.010 for the combined exenatide group vs placebo). Most (88%) treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. Hypoglycemia was reported in 5%, 4%, and 1% of patients in the exenatide 5- and 10-microg and placebo groups, respectively (P = NS), with no incidents of severe hypoglycemia reported. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with type 2 diabetes naive to treatment with antidiabetic agents, exenatide monotherapy was associated with improved HbA(1c), improved fasting and postprandial glucose control, reduced weight, improved beta-cell function (HOMA-B), and improved blood pressure, and was well tolerated. These results suggest that exenatide monotherapy may provide a viable treatment option beyond diet and exercise and support further study of exenatide monotherapy in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of exenatide administered before the two largest daily meals of Latin American patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether exenatide administered before breakfast and dinner (BD) or before lunch and dinner (LD) provided similar glycemic control in Latin American patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who consume a small breakfast. METHODS: In this open-label, 2-arm study, patients taking metformin, sulfonylureas, and/or thiazolidinediones were randomized to exenatide before BD or before LD (5-mug exenatide for 4 weeks, then 10-microg exenatide for 8 weeks). Treatment assignment was determined by a computer-generated random sequence using an interactive response system. Patients were eligible for study inclusion if they consumed <15% of their total caloric intake at breakfast. The primary endpoint was HbA(1c) change from baseline to endpoint. Secondary endpoints included fasting serum glucose (FSG) level, 7-point SMBG profile, and safety. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00359879. RESULTS: 377 participants (55% female, age 54 +/- 10 years, weight 82 +/- 15 kg, BMI 31 +/- 4 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 8.4 +/- 0.9%; mean +/- SD) from Brazil and Mexico were randomized to study treatment. HbA(1c) reduction with exenatide administration before BD was non-inferior to administration before LD (mean difference between (LD-BD) treatments: 0.14%; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32%, p=0.120). Both treatments resulted in statistically significant HbA(1c) reductions at endpoint (BD -1.2% and LD -1.1%, respectively, p<0.001). In Brazil, the non-inferiority criteria were met for HbA(1c) reduction between treatment arms (-0.12%; CI -0.37 to 0.13%, p=0.344), whereas in Mexico, there was a difference favoring exenatide administration before BD (0.41%; CI 0.16 to 0.66%, p=0.002). At endpoint, there were no statistical significant differences between the BD and LD arms in mean change in FSG (0.50 mmol/L; CI -0.02 to 1.02 mmol/L, p=0.058) and daily mean change in SMBG (0.19 mmol/L; CI -0.17 to 0.54 mmol/L, p=0.295). The rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia (5.2 events/patient-year vs. 6.1 events/patient-year) and nausea (23% vs. 25%), were similar between the BD and LD arms, respectively. A limitation of the study design was that caloric intake of patients and meal times were not monitored. CONCLUSIONS: In T2DM patients who consume a small breakfast, exenatide administration before breakfast or lunch resulted in significant improvement in glycemic control.

Quantifying the effect of exenatide and insulin glargine on postprandial glucose excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes.

In this report, we quantify the effects of exenatide and glargine on the relative contributions of fasting and postprandial glucose (PPG) excursion to overall hyperglycemia based on self-monitored blood glucose. After 26 weeks of treatment, insulin glargine reduced fasting glucose to a greater extent than exenatide without significant effect on PPG excursion. The principal effect of exenatide on hyperglycemia was mitigating the rise in PPG with moderate improvement on fasting glucose. These findings may be limited by the fact that glucose measurements were collected through self-monitoring with six time points measured during the daytime, the meals were not standardized and the exact time for glucose measurements was unknown.

Effects of exenatide versus insulin analogues on weight change in subjects with type 2 diabetes: a pooled post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In two previously reported multi-center, randomized, open-label, comparator (insulin) controlled trials in patients with type 2 diabetes sub-optimally controlled with metformin and a sulfonylurea, treatment with exenatide and insulin analogue therapy produced similar reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin A(1c) (A1C). However, treatment with exenatide was associated with a reduction in body weight while insulin analogue therapy was associated with weight gain. This analysis further characterizes the relative impact of commonly employed insulin analogues versus exenatide on weight change over a 6-month period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this pooled post-hoc analysis of two trials, 1047 subjects with diabetes were compared regarding the relative impact of an adjunctive treatment - an insulin analogue (glargine or biphasic insulin aspart) or exenatide (5 mug twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 mug thereafter) - on body weight. RESULTS: While exenatide treatment provided similarly effective glycemic control compared with insulin analogue therapy, it was also associated with weight reduction in the majority of subjects (73.3%, averaging 3 kg decrease by endpoint), with approximately 22% achieving > or =5% weight loss, and 3.2% of subjects achieving > or =10% weight loss. In contrast, by the end of the study most insulin-treated subjects (75.9%) had gained weight (mean 3 kg). Only 2% of insulin-treated subjects achieved > or =5% weight loss, and 0.2% of subjects achieved > or =10% weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of exenatide as a treatment option in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes and who are overweight and sub-optimally controlled by metformin and sulfonylurea. However, these results should be interpreted with caution given the exploratory nature of this post-hoc analysis.

Tolerability and efficacy of exenatide and titrated insulin glargine in adult patients with type 2 diabetes previously uncontrolled with metformin or a sulfonylurea: a multinational, randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of exenatide and insulin glargine therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glucose control with metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: This multinational, randomized, open-label, crossover noninferiority study compared the efficacy of exenatide 10 pg BID and insulin glargine QD (titrated targeting a fasting serum glucose (FSG) level < or =5.6 mmol/L) in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a single oral antidiabetic agent. The study included two 16-week treatment periods. The primary a priori outcome variable was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(lc)). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving the American Diabetes Association (ADA) target HbA(lc) of < or =7% and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes target of < or =6.5%, the change in FSG, end-point values and change in the 7-point self-monitored glucose profile, and change in body weight. Adverse events were assessed based on standard laboratory tests and patient reports. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized to study treatment (52.9% female, 47.1% male; 79.7% white; mean [SEM] age, 54.9 [0.8] years; duration of diabetes, 7.4 [0.4] years; body mass index, 31.1 [0.4] kg/m(2); weight, 84.8 [1.4] kg) while continuing to receive metformin (55.1%) or a sulfonylurea (44.9%). The population had a baseline least squares (LS) mean (SEM) HbA(lc) of 8.95% (0.09%) and an LS mean FSG concentration of 12.0 (0.3) mmol/L. Both exenatide and titrated insulin glargine therapy were associated with similar significant changes from baseline in HbA(1c) (both, -1.36% [0.09%]; P < 0.001); the difference between groups was not statistically significant. The LS mean HbA(1c) at end point was above the ADA target with both treatments (exenatide, 7.57% [0.09%]; insulin glargine, 7.58% [0.09%]). Similar proportions of patients achieved an HbA(1c) < or =7% (37.5% and 39.8%, respectively; P = NS) or < or =6.5% (21.5% and 13.6%). Patients lost weight during exenatide treatment, whereas they gained weight during insulin glargine treatment; the between-group difference in weight change was statistically significant (LS mean difference, -2.2 [0.3] kg; 95% CI, -2.8 to-1.7; P < 0.001). Both exenatide and insulin glargine were associated with significant reductions from baseline in FSG (-2.9 [0.2] and -4.1 [0.2] mmol/L, respectively; both, P < 0.001), although the reduction was significantly greater with insulin glargine compared with exenatide (LS mean difference, 1.2 [0.3] mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.7; P < 0.001). Compared with insulin glargine, exenatide was associated with significantly lower 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions (P < 0.016) and total daily mean glucose excursion (P < 0.001). The proportions of patients reporting nausea during exenatide and insulin glargine treatment were 42.6% and 3.1%, respectively; the proportions reporting vomiting were 9.6% and 3.1%. The incidence of hypoglycemia in the 2 groups was 14.7% and 25.2% (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, crossover study, treatment with exenatide or insulin glargine for 16 weeks was associated with similar significant improvements from baseline in HbA(1c), independent of treatment order. The improvements in HbA(1c) from baseline did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Exenatide therapy was associated with significant reductions in body weight and PPG excursions compared with insulin glargine, whereas insulin glargine was associated with a significantly greater reduction in FSG compared with exenatide. These findings provide additional information to guide treatment decisions in patients with type 2 diabetes who are potential candidates for either therapy.

Exploring the substitution of exenatide for insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin in combination with oral antidiabetes agents.

OBJECTIVE: This 16-week study explored the safety of substituting exenatide for insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin in combination with oral antidiabetes agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Successful maintenance of glycemic control was predefined as an A1C increase of < 0.5%. A total of 49 patients (aged 53 +/- 8 years, with BMI 34 +/- 4 kg/m2, A1C 8.1 +/- 1.1%, and duration of diabetes 11 +/- 7 years) were randomized to either substitute exenatide for insulin or remain on their current insulin regimen. Patients who either completed > or = 8 weeks of study or discontinued because of loss of glycemic control were included in primary efficacy analysis. RESULTS: A total of 62% (18 of 29) of the exenatide-treated patients maintained glycemic control compared with 81% (13 of 16) of the insulin-treated patients. Of the 11 exenatide-treated patients who did not maintain control, 5 discontinued before week 16 because of loss of glucose control. The overall safety profile was generally consistent with previous exenatide trials. The mean overall hypoglycemia rates were 1.72 and 0.97 events/patient-year for the exenatide and insulin reference groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that it is feasible to sustain glycemic control when substituting exenatide for insulin. Although it is not possible to characterize clear predictors of outcome given the size and exploratory nature of the study, the data suggest that patients with longer disease duration, who are taking higher doses of insulin and have less endogenous beta-cell function, may experience deterioration in glucose control if exenatide is substituted for insulin therapy.

The effect of adding exenatide to a thiazolidinedione in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide therapy is effective in combination with metformin or sulfonylureas for treating type 2 diabetes. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) also are commonly used, but the efficacy of exenatide with a TZD has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of exenatide versus placebo on glycemic control. DESIGN: Placebo run-in, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from May 2004 to August 2005. SETTING: 49 sites in Canada, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: 233 (exenatide group, n = 121; placebo group, n = 112) patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with TZD treatment (with or without metformin). Mean (+/-SE) baseline glycated hemoglobin A1c level was 7.9% +/- 0.1%. INTERVENTIONS: Subcutaneous abdominal injections of 10 microg of exenatide or placebo twice daily, added to a TZD (with or without metformin) for 16 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c level. Other outcomes were fasting serum glucose level, body weight, self-monitored blood glucose level, and any adverse events. RESULTS: Exenatide treatment reduced hemoglobin A(1c) level (mean difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.21% to -0.74%]), serum fasting glucose level (mean difference, -1.69 mmol/L [-30.5 mg/dL] [CI, -2.22 to -1.17 mmol/L {-40.0 to -21.1 mg/dL}]), and body weight (mean difference, -1.51 kg [CI, -2.15 to -0.88 kg]). Sixteen percent of patients in the exenatide group and 2% of patients in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. In the exenatide group, 40% (n = 48) of patients experienced nausea (mostly mild [n = 21] or moderate [n = 19]), 13% experienced vomiting, and 11% experienced hypoglycemia. In the placebo group, 15% of patients experienced nausea, 1% experienced vomiting, and 7% experienced hypoglycemia. LIMITATIONS: Combinations with TZDs and sulfonylureas were not tested. Trial duration was relatively short. Only 71% and 86% of patients in the exenatide and placebo groups, respectively, completed the study. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide therapy improved glycemic control, reduced body weight, and caused gastrointestinal symptoms more than placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with TZD therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00099320. For more information on exenatide click here.

Patient-reported outcomes in a trial of exenatide and insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported measures can be used to examine whether drug differences other than clinical efficacy have an impact on outcomes that may be important to patients. Although exenatide and insulin glargine appear to have similar efficacy for treatment of type 2 diabetes, there are several differences between the two treatments that could influence outcomes from the patient's perspective. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether the two drugs were comparable as assessed by patient-reported outcomes using data from a clinical trial in which these injectable medications were added to pre-existing oral treatment regimens. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either twice daily exenatide or once daily insulin glargine during a 26-week international trial. At baseline and endpoint, five patient-reported outcome measures were administered: the Vitality Scale of the SF-36, The Diabetes Symptom Checklist - Revised (DSC-R), the EuroQol EQ-5D, the Treatment Flexibility Scale (TFS), and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Change from baseline to endpoint was analyzed within each treatment group. Group differences were examined with General linear models (GLMs), controlling for country and baseline scores. RESULTS: A total of 549 patients with type 2 diabetes were enrolled in the trial, and current analyses were conducted with data from the 455 per protocol patients (228 exenatide and 227 insulin glargine). The sample was primarily Caucasian (79.6%), with slightly more men (55.2%) than women, and with a mean age of 58.5 years. Paired t-tests found that both treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant baseline to endpoint change on several of the health outcomes instruments including the DSC-R, DTSQ, and the SF-36 Vitality subscale. GLMs found no statistically significant differences between groups in change on the health outcomes instruments. CONCLUSION: This analysis found that both exenatide and insulin glargine were associated with significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes when added to oral medications among patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite an additional daily injection and a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, treatment satisfaction in the exenatide group was comparable to that of the glargine group, possibly because of weight reduction observed in patients treated with exenatide.

Exenatide versus insulin glargine in patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Physicians may use either insulin or exenatide injections for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have poor glycemic control despite taking oral blood glucose-lowering drugs. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of exenatide and insulin glargine on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that is suboptimally controlled with metformin and a sulfonylurea. DESIGN: 26-week multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 82 outpatient study centers in 13 countries. PATIENTS: 551 patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (defined as hemoglobin A1c level ranging from 7.0% to 10.0%) despite combination metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. INTERVENTION: Exenatide, 10 microg twice daily, or insulin glargine, 1 daily dose titrated to maintain fasting blood glucose levels of less than 5.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). MEASUREMENTS: Hemoglobin A1c level, fasting plasma glucose level, body weight, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose, standardized test-meal challenge, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Baseline mean hemoglobin A1c level was 8.2% for patients receiving exenatide and 8.3% for those receiving insulin glargine. At week 26, both exenatide and insulin glargine reduced hemoglobin A1c levels by 1.11% (difference, 0.017 percentage point [95% CI, -0.123 to 0.157 percentage point]). Exenatide reduced postprandial glucose excursions more than insulin glargine, while insulin glargine reduced fasting glucose concentrations more than exenatide. Body weight decreased 2.3 kg with exenatide and increased 1.8 kg with insulin glargine (difference, -4.1 kg [CI, -4.6 to -3.5 kg]). Rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia were similar, but nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred less frequently with exenatide (0.9 event/patient-year versus 2.4 events/patient-year; difference, -1.6 events/patient-year [CI, -2.3 to -0.9 event/patient year]). Gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in the exenatide group than in the insulin glargine group, including nausea (57.1% vs. 8.6%), vomiting (17.4% vs. 3.7%) and diarrhea (8.5% vs. 3.0%). LIMITATIONS: The trial was open-label and did not assess clinical complications related to diabetes. Of the 551 participants, 19.4% of those receiving exenatide and 9.7% of those receiving insulin glargine withdrew from the study. Only 21.6% of the insulin glargine group and 8.6% of the exenatide group achieved the target level for fasting plasma glucose of less than 5.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide and insulin glargine achieved similar improvements in overall glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with oral combination therapy. Exenatide was associated with weight reduction and had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects than insulin glargine.