The effects of basal insulin peglispro vs. insulin glargine on lipoprotein particles by NMR and liver fat content by MRI in patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In Phase 2/3 studies of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) compared to insulin glargine, patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulin and randomized to BIL had an increase in serum triglycerides (TGs). To further understand lipoprotein changes, a lipid substudy which included liver fat content was designed to assess relationships among the measured variables for each diabetes cohort and compare the hepato-preferential insulin BIL to glargine. METHODS: In three cohorts of patients with diabetes (type 1, type 2 insulin naïve, and type 2 previously on insulin; n = 652), liver fat content (LFC) was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and blood lipids were analyzed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks of treatment. Apolipoproteins, adiponectin, and other lipid parameters were also measured. Descriptive statistics were done, as well as correlation analyses to look for relationships among LFC and lipoproteins or other lipid measures. RESULTS: In patients with type 1 diabetes treated with BIL, but not glargine, small LDL and medium and large VLDL subclass concentrations increased from baseline. In patients with type 2 diabetes previously on insulin and treated with BIL, large VLDL concentration increased from baseline. In insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes treated with BIL, there were very few changes, while in those treated with glargine, small LDL and large VLDL decreased from baseline. Baseline LFC correlated significantly in one or more cohorts with baseline large VLDL, small LDL, VLDL size, and Apo C3. Changes in LFC by treatment showed generally weak correlations with lipoprotein changes, except for positive correlations with large VLDL and VLDL size. Adiponectin was higher in patients with type 1 diabetes compared to patients with type 2 diabetes, but decreased with treatment with both BIL and glargine. CONCLUSIONS: The lipoprotein changes were in line with the observed changes in serum TGs; i.e., the cohorts experiencing increased TGs and LFC with BIL treatment had decreased LDL size and increased VLDL size. These data and analyses add to the currently available information on the metabolic effects of insulins in a very carefully characterized cohort of patients with diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers and dates NCT01481779 (2011), NCT01435616 (2011), NCT01454284 (2011), NCT01582451 (2012).

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.

Basal-bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK: Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns and the Effect of Switching to Premixed Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing emphasis is being placed on insulin use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Basal-bolus (BB) therapy is regarded as the gold standard, but a high frequency of injections and the general complexity of this therapy are seen as barriers in real-world practice. Here we describe the characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with T2DM receiving BB in the UK, with specific focus on those switching to a simplified regimen of premixed insulin. METHODS: Patients with T2DM receiving BB from 1 January 2005 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Characteristics were described at treatment initiation or on 1 January 2005, and treatment patterns were assessed at 12 months of follow-up. Clinical factors were compared in two groups of patients who while receiving BB had one haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement of ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0%) and remained either on BB or switched to a premixed insulin regimen. RESULTS: Study criteria were met by 12,060 subjects (mean age 59 years; duration diabetes 12.4 years). The mean HbA1c concentration was 76 mmol/mol (9.1% of patients), and 84.0% of patients were overweight. At 12 months of follow-up, 74.5% of the patients who had started BB remained on it. While on BB, 8835 patients had a HbA1c measurement of ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0% of all patients); of these, 95.9% remained on BB and 4.1% switched to premixed insulin. Mean HbA1c levels were consistently higher for patients who switched to premixed insulin than for those who remained on BB, but the levels remained relatively unchanged over time. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of patients receiving insulin did not achieve good glycaemic control in clinical practice. A small subset with higher comorbidities and HbA1c levels switched to a simplified regimen. Little evidence was found that type of insulin therapy was associated with meaningful changes in key clinical factors over time. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and company.

Lipid changes during basal insulin peglispro, insulin glargine, or NPH treatment in six IMAGINE trials.

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel basal insulin with hepato-preferential action resulting from reduced peripheral effects. This report provides an integrated summary of lipid changes at 26 weeks with BIL and comparator insulins (glargine, NPH) from phase III studies in type 1 diabetes (T1D), insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), patients with T2D on basal insulin only and patients with T2D on basal-bolus therapy. BIL treatment had little effect on HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in all patients. The effect of both BIL and glargine treatment on triglycerides (TG) depended on whether patients had been previously treated with insulin. When BIL replaced conventional insulin glargine or NPH treatments, increases in TG levels were observed. When BIL or comparator insulins were given for 26 weeks to insulin-naïve patients with T2D, TG levels were unchanged from baseline with BIL but decreased with either glargine or NPH. The decreased peripheral action of BIL may reduce suppression of lipolysis in peripheral adipose tissue resulting in increased free fatty acid delivery to the liver and, hence, increased hepatic TG synthesis and secretion.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Basal Insulin Peglispro and Insulin Glargine in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Previously Treated With Basal Insulin: IMAGINE 5.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≤9% [75 mmol/mol]) treated with basal insulin alone or with three or fewer oral antihyperglycemic medications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 52-week, open-label, treat-to-target study randomized patients (mean HbA1c 7.42% [57.6 mmol/mol]) to BIL (n = 307) or glargine (n = 159). The primary end point was change from baseline HbA1c to 26 weeks (0.4% [4.4 mmol/mol] noninferiority margin). RESULTS: At 26 weeks, reduction in HbA1c was superior with BIL versus glargine (-0.82% [-8.9 mmol/mol] vs. -0.29% [-3.2 mmol/mol]; least squares mean difference -0.52%, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.38 [-5.7 mmol/mol, 95% CI -7.3 to -4.2; P < 0.001); greater reduction in HbA1c with BIL was maintained at 52 weeks. More BIL patients achieved HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) at weeks 26 and 52 (P < 0.001). With BIL versus glargine, nocturnal hypoglycemia rate was 60% lower, more patients achieved HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without nocturnal hypoglycemia at 26 and 52 weeks (P < 0.001), and total hypoglycemia rates were lower at 52 weeks (P = 0.03). At weeks 26 and 52, glucose variability was lower (P < 0.01), basal insulin dose was higher (P < 0.001), and triglycerides and aminotransferases were higher with BIL versus glargine (P < 0.05). Liver fat content (LFC), assessed in a subset of patients (n = 162), increased from baseline with BIL versus glargine (P < 0.001), with stable levels between 26 and 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: BIL provided superior glycemic control versus glargine, with reduced nocturnal and total hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability, and increased triglycerides, aminotransferases, and LFC.

Long-term effects of adding exenatide to a regimen of metformin and/or sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetes: an uncontrolled, open-label trial in Hungary.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are needed to determine the durability of metabolic response and tolerability associated with long-term treatment. OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to provide long-term data on glycemic control, weight changes, and tolerability of exenatide 10 µg BID treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have failed to achieve glycemic targets with oral antihyperglycemic medication. METHODS: In this uncontrolled, open-label trial with treatment up to 156 weeks, patients received exenatide 10 µg BID while continuing treatment with metformin and/or a sulfonylurea (SFU). Intent-to-treat (ITT), 52-, 100-, and 132-week completer populations were defined. Metabolic changes were analyzed in the completer and ITT populations; adverse events (AEs) were summarized in the ITT population. Descriptive statistics were used for absolute and change-from-baseline data. Within-treatment comparisons were conducted using the paired t test. RESULTS: Of 155 patients in the ITT population (mean [SD]: age, 59 [9] years; 56% female; duration of diabetes, 9.1 [5.9] years; weight, 88.8 [16.5] kg; body mass index, 31.9 [4.7] kg/m(2); hemoglobin [Hb] A(1c), 8.7% [1.2%]), 133, 111, and 103 patients completed 52, 100, and 132 weeks of treatment, respectively. In the ITT population, the mean (SE) change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 132 was -1.0% (0.10%) (P < 0.0001). In patients completing 52, 100, and 132 weeks, HbA(1c) changes from baseline to end point were -1.3% (0.10%), -1.0% (0.12%), and -1.0 (0.13%) (P < 0.0001), with 40% of patients achieving HbA(1c) <7% at 132 weeks. Patients in the ITT and completer populations experienced mean (SE) weight changes of -3.7 (0.39) kg and -3.9 (0.51) kg (P < 0.0001) at week 132. Improved glycemic control and weight loss occurred in 63% of patients in the completer population at week 132. In addition, 38% of completers at week 132 achieved HbA(1c) <7% without weight gain. No relationship was found between the development of antiexenatide antibodies and change in HbA(1c). The most common AEs were gastrointestinal in nature, reported in 46% of patients and leading to discontinuation in 7 cases. Serious AEs were reported in 26% of patients, and 18% withdrew due to a treatment-emergent AE. Of 24% of patients in whom hypoglycemia was reported, 22% were on SFU or metformin + SFU combination, and 2% were on metformin. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this open-label, single-arm study characterized the response to exenatide 10 µg BID for up to 132 weeks. Significant, persistent improvements in HbA(1c) and weight were observed in patients receiving exenatide BID, with reported AEs consistent with those from studies of shorter duration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00044668.

Efficacy and safety of prandial premixed therapy using insulin lispro mix 50/50 3 times daily compared with progressive titration of insulin lispro mix 75/25 or biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, 16-week, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Prandial premixed therapy 3 times daily has been proposed recently for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who fail to achieve glycemic control with commonly used premixed insulin analogs, insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp70/30) BID. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy and safety of 3-times daily insulin lispro mix 50/50 (TID group) with progressive titration of twice-daily LM75/25 or BIAsp70/30 (BID group) administered along with metformin in T2DM patients. METHODS: This was an open-label, 16-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel trial. End point glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was the primary efficacy measure; HbA(1c) reduction from baseline to end point, percentage of patients reaching target HbA(1c) (<7.0% and ≤6.5%), postprandial blood glucose (BG), and BG excursions after lunch were secondary measures. Safety was evaluated by collecting adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients with mean (SD) age 57.7 (9.27) years, diabetes duration 11.2 (6.47) years, HbA(1c) 8.5% (1.23), fasting BG 184.0 (53.04) mg/dL, body weight 86.8 (14.79) kg, body mass index 31.7 (4.23) kg/m(2), and daily insulin dose ∼48 IU were randomized. No significant difference was observed in end point HbA(1c) between the 2 groups. Seven-point BG profiles showed lower fasting and postbreakfast BG in the BID group but lower postlunch BG in the TID group. Daily insulin dose change was similar in both groups, with more weight gain in the TID group (P = 0.0009). Overall hypoglycemic rates were similar in both groups, but nocturnal hypoglycemia was more frequent in the BID group (P = 0.0063). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM who have not achieved adequate glycemic control with LM75/25 and BiAsp70/30 BID plus metformin and who are not candidates for basal bolus therapy, switching either to treatment with LM50/50 TID or to progressive titration of premix insulin analogs BID did not produce sufficient evidence of a difference of overall glycemic control between the 2 treatment groups. Short study duration and less intensive dose adjustments might have contributed to these results.

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.