Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide added onto pioglitazone and metformin versus exenatide in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-1).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide, a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, with placebo and exenatide in type 2 diabetic patients. The primary objective was to determine superiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus placebo in HbA1c change at 26 weeks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 52-week, multicenter, parallel-arm study (primary end point: 26 weeks) randomized patients (2:2:2:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, exenatide 10 µg, or placebo (placebo-controlled period: 26 weeks). Patients were treated with metformin (1,500-3,000 mg) and pioglitazone (30-45 mg). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1% (65 mmol/mol). RESULTS: Least squares mean ± SE HbA1c change from baseline to the primary end point was -1.51 ± 0.06% (-16.5 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, -1.30 ± 0.06% (-14.2 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg, -0.99 ± 0.06% (-10.8 ± 0.7 mmol/mol) for exenatide, and -0.46 ± 0.08% (-5.0 ± 0.9 mmol/mol) for placebo. Both dulaglutide doses were superior to placebo at 26 weeks (both adjusted one-sided P < 0.001) and exenatide at 26 and 52 weeks (both adjusted one-sided P < 0.001). Greater percentages of patients reached HbA1c targets with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg than with placebo and exenatide (all P < 0.001). At 26 and 52 weeks, total hypoglycemia incidence was lower in patients receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg than in those receiving exenatide; no dulaglutide-treated patients reported severe hypoglycemia. The most common gastrointestinal adverse events for dulaglutide were nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Events were mostly mild to moderate and transient. CONCLUSIONS: Both once-weekly dulaglutide doses demonstrated superior glycemic control versus placebo and exenatide with an acceptable tolerability and safety profile.

Advancing insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes previously treated with glargine plus oral agents: prandial premixed (insulin lispro protamine suspension/lispro) versus basal/bolus (glargine/lispro) therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare two analog insulin therapies (prandial premixed therapy [PPT] versus basal/bolus therapy [BBT]) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with insulin glargine (>or=30 units/day) plus oral agents, with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of PPT to BBT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to PPT (lispro mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% lispro; n = 187) t.i.d. with meals or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime lispro; n = 187) in a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Investigators could replace lispro mix 50/50 with lispro mix 75/25 at the evening meal if the fasting plasma glucose target was unachievable. RESULTS: Baseline A1C was similar (PPT 8.8%; BBT 8.9%; P = 0.598). At week 24, A1C was lower with BBT (6.78 vs. 6.95%, P = 0.021). A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both therapies (P < 0.0001). The difference in A1C change from baseline to the end point (BBT minus PPT) was -0.22% (90% CI -0.38 to -0.07). Noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. The percentages of patients achieving target A1C <7.0% (PPT versus BBT, respectively) were 54 vs. 69% (P = 0.009) and for target