Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Practice.

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is becoming a global disease with significant associated comorbidities. To date, there are no commercialized drugs to treat NASH, outside of India; however, there is an abundance of new molecular entities which are in clinical development, some in phase III trials. Many of these trials have created an especially heavy demand for USA-based subjects. Hepatologists currently play a major role in the diagnosis, treatment and clinical-trial enrolment of patients with NASH. However, NASH has a strong metabolic component, with patients often carrying comorbid diseases, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, hyperlipidaemia, hypothyroidism and sex steroid disorders. The primary care physician, internist and endocrinologist stand at a pivotal position in the NASH healthcare delivery system, as many of the diseases they commonly encounter are associated with a higher risk of developing NASH. Specialty society practice guidelines are evolving regarding the identification and care of patients with NASH. This review of the literature, and assessment of IQVIA's proprietary patient claims database of diagnosis codes, patient encounters and treatments, substantiates the importance of the primary care provider and endocrinologist in the clinical care and clinical research of patients with NASH.

Plasma glucose and insulin response to two oral nutrition supplements in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical trial was to compare the glucose usage of two oral nutritional supplement (ONS) products and to assess whether a diabetes-specific formulation provides improved glucose stabilization and management compared with a standard formula. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 12 subjects with type 2 diabetes (7 males and 5 females) completed a randomized, cross-over design trial. Each subject consumed isocaloric amounts of either the standard ONS or the diabetes-specific formula ONS on different dates, 1 week apart. Glucose and insulin measures were recorded at baseline, and 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210 and 240 min after the beverage was consumed and then used to calculate area under the curve (AUC) for each subject. RESULTS: The mean glucose AUC was lower in the diabetes-specific ONS group than in the standard group (p<0.0001), but there was not a significant difference observed for mean insulin AUC (p=0.068). A sensitivity analysis of the mean insulin AUC measures was performed by removing a potential outlier from the analysis, and this resulted in a significant difference between the groups (p=0.012). First-phase insulin measures and an insulinogenic index calculated for the beverages showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results of this trial of 12 subjects, the diabetes-specific ONS appears to provide better glucose maintenance in persons with type 2 diabetes when compared to the standard formula ONS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02612675.

A pooled analysis evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol extended release for chronic, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Data from two similarly designed studies of tapentadol extended release (ER) for managing neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN; NCT00455520, NCT01041859) in adults were pooled for this analysis, allowing a detailed evaluation of efficacy in patient subgroups and secondary endpoints. METHODS: In each study, patients were titrated to their optimal dose of open-label tapentadol ER [100-250 mg twice daily (bid)] over 3 weeks. Patients with ≥1-point improvement in average pain intensity [11-point numerical rating scale (NRS)] were randomized (1:1) to receive placebo or tapentadol ER during a 12-week, double-blind maintenance period. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) changes in pain intensity from baseline to week 12 of maintenance in the placebo (n = 343) and tapentadol ER (n = 360) groups, respectively, were 1.28 (2.41) and 0.08 (1.87) [least squares mean difference (LSMD): -1.14 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: -1.435, -0.838); P < 0.001, in favour of tapentadol ER]. Significant between-group differences were also observed in changes from the start of the double-blind treatment period to the double-blind endpoint for the Short Form-36 physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning and role-emotional subscale and physical component summary scores, and the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status index (all P < 0.05, in favour of tapentadol ER). No clinically relevant differences were observed in the efficacy of tapentadol ER across patient subgroups divided by age, sex, race, opioid experience and pain intensity. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were 56.0 % (192/343) with placebo and 74.7 % (269/360) with tapentadol ER during maintenance. CONCLUSION: Results of this pooled analysis indicate that tapentadol ER was effective for managing DPN-related pain, and provided consistent analgesic efficacy across different patient subgroups.

A single-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of oral hepatic-directed vesicle insulin add-on to oral antidiabetic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The dose response of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) to add-on, premeal oral hepatic-directed vesicle-insulin (HDV-I), an investigational lipid bio-nanoparticle hepatocyte-targeted insulin delivery system, was evaluated in a 3-test-meal/day model in type 2 diabetes patients. The single-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating trial enrolled 6 patients with HbA(1c) 8.6 ± 2.0% (70.0 ± 21.9 mmol/mol) and on stable metformin therapy. Patients received oral HDV-I capsules daily 30 minutes before breakfast, lunch, and dinner as follows: placebo capsules, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 U/kg on days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Outcome measures were PPG and incremental PPG area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). All 4 doses of oral HDV-I statistically significantly lowered mean PPG (P ≤ .0110 each) and incremental PPG (P ≤ .0352 each) AUC compared to placebo. A linear dose response was not observed. The 0.05 U/kg dose was the minimum effective dose in the dosage range studied. Three adverse events unrelated to treatment were observed. Add-on oral HDV-I 0.05-0.4 U/kg significantly lowered PPG excursions and the dose response curve was flat. These results are consistent with the lack of a linear dose response between portal and systemic plasma insulin concentrations in previous animal and human studies. Oral HDV-I was safe and well tolerated.

A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin enacarbil (GEn), a transported prodrug of gabapentin, provides sustained, dose-proportional gabapentin exposure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the dose response of GEn to select the optimal dose(s) for clinical use in subsequent diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) trials. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial with a study duration of approximately 20 weeks (Clinicaltrials.gov database, Identifier ! NCT00643760). Pregabalin (PGB) (Lyrica(®) ; Pfizer Inc.) was used as an active control to provide assay sensitivity of the trial. A total of 421 adult subjects with DPN were randomized in a ratio of 2:1:1:1:2 to receive oral GEn 3,600 mg/day, GEn 2,400 mg/day, GEn 1,200 mg/day, PGB 300 mg/day, or matching placebo, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to end of maintenance treatment with respect to the mean 24-hour average pain intensity score based on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS). Safety and tolerability assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory evaluations, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECG), neurological examination, and pedal edema. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference vs. placebo at the end of maintenance treatment with respect to the mean 24-hour average PI-NRS pain intensity score for GEn 1,200 mg (-0.35; [95% CI: -1.02, 0.31]; P = 0.295), GEn 2,400 mg (-0.02; [95% CI: -0.71, 0.66]; P = 0.946), and GEn 3,600 mg (-0.55; [95% CI: -1.10, 0.01]; P = 0.105) was not statistically significant. The active control, PGB (300 mg/day), did not differentiate from placebo. CONCLUSION: Overall, none of the GEn treatment groups differentiated from placebo. Analyses of the secondary endpoints showed comparable results across treatment groups. However, the majority of the endpoints, including all of the pain endpoints, showed the largest numerical treatment difference was between GEn 3,600 mg and placebo. The active control, PGB (300 mg/day), did not differentiate from placebo.

Saxagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: focus on recent studies.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycemic control without causing weight gain or increasing hypoglycemic risk in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The efficacy and tolerability of saxagliptin, a once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor, administered as monotherapy, as add-on therapy to metformin, a sulfonylurea, or a thiazolidinedione, and as initial combination therapy with metformin, was demonstrated in pivotal 24-week clinical trials. Additional information about the clinical profile of saxagliptin was recently obtained from extension studies, head-to-head clinical trials, and post-hoc analyses. In extension studies, the efficacy and tolerability of add-on saxagliptin and initial saxagliptin-plus-metformin therapy were maintained for up to 102 weeks. Saxagliptin plus metformin was shown to be non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin in lowering glycated hemoglobin from base-line, with reduced body-weight and lower hypoglycemic risk. Post-hoc analyses indicate that the clinical benefits of saxagliptin extend across demographic subgroups and special populations. A meta-analysis found no evidence for increased cardiovascular risk in T2DM patients exposed to saxagliptin for > 1 year. On the basis of this clinical profile, saxagliptin is an attractive option for initial and add-on therapy for T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control.

Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiles of ipragliflozin (ASP1941), a novel and selective inhibitor of sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) is a high-capacity, low-affinity transport system primarily expressed in the renal proximal tubules, where it plays an important role in the regulation of glucose levels. Inhibition of SGLT2 represents an innovative approach for plasma glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by blocking glucose reabsorption and enhancing glucose loss in the urine. METHODS: This Phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled study investigated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the novel oral SGLT2 inhibitor ipragliflozin (ASP1941) in T2DM patients. Sixty-one patients were randomized to placebo or ipragliflozin once daily at doses of 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg for 28 days. Patients were admitted to the clinic during the study and received a weight-maintenance diet. RESULTS: The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for placebo and ipragliflozin groups. There were no deaths, and no patients discontinued ipragliflozin because of adverse events. Ipragliflozin was absorbed rapidly, taking approximately 1 h to reach the maximum concentration. The area under the concentration-time curve and maximum ipragliflozin concentration at steady state displayed dose linearity. All ipragliflozin doses significantly reduced glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions compared with placebo. Significant dose-dependent increases in urinary glucose excretion were observed in all ipragliflozin groups. Mean weight decreased in the placebo and ipragliflozin groups, with greater reductions occurring in ipragliflozin-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Ipragliflozin was generally safe, well tolerated, and effective at blocking renal glucose reabsorption and decreasing plasma glucose levels in T2DM patients.

MBX-8025, a novel peroxisome proliferator receptor-delta agonist: lipid and other metabolic effects in dyslipidemic overweight patients treated with and without atorvastatin.

CONTEXT: Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-δ agonists favorably affect multiple metabolic parameters that are otherwise proatherogenic, many that are not optimally managed with statins alone. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of MBX-8025 (a novel PPAR-δ agonist) on lipid and other metabolic parameters associated with increased atherosclerotic risk, administered alone and in combination with atorvastatin. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group proof-of-concept study conducted at 30 U.S. research sites. PARTICIPANTS: This study evaluated 181 overweight men and women with mixed dyslipidemia. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects were administered once daily placebo, atorvastatin 20 mg, or MBX-8025 at 50 or 100 mg alone or combined with atorvastatin for 8 wk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main efficacy measures included change from baseline in apolipoprotein B-100, lipid levels, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and additional metabolic parameters, as well as the effect on the metabolic syndrome and LDL particle size. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, MBX-8025 alone and in combination with atorvastatin significantly (P < 0.05) reduced apolipoprotein B-100 20-38%, LDL 18-43%, triglycerides 26-30%, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 18-41%, free fatty acids 16-28%, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein 43-72%; it raised high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1-12% and also reduced the number of patients with the metabolic syndrome and a preponderance of small LDL particles. MBX-8025 was safe and generally well-tolerated. MBX-8025 also reduced liver enzyme levels. CONCLUSION: MBX-8025, a novel PPAR-δ agonist, favorably affected multiple metabolic parameters with and without atorvastatin. A more complete understanding of MBX-8025 requires a larger future study.

Safety and efficacy of tapentadol ER in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) may not be adequately managed with available therapeutic options. This phase III, randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of tapentadol extended release (ER) for relieving painful DPN. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 588) with at least a 3-month history of opioid and/or non-opioid analgesic use for DPN, dissatisfaction with current treatment, and an average pain intensity score of at least 5 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0 = 'no pain,' 10 = 'pain as bad as you can imagine') were titrated to an optimal dose of tapentadol ER (100-250 mg bid) during a 3-week open-label phase. Subsequently, patients (n = 395) with at least a 1-point reduction in pain intensity were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or the optimal fixed dose of tapentadol ER determined during the open-label phase for a 12-week double-blind phase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00455520. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was the change in average pain intensity from randomization, determined by twice-daily NRS measurements. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: The least-squares mean difference between groups in the change in average pain intensity from the start of double-blind treatment to week 12 was -1.3 (95% confidence interval, -1.70 to -0.92; p < 0.001, tapentadol ER vs. placebo). A total of 60.5% (356/588) of patients reported at least a 30% improvement in pain intensity from the start to the end of the open-label titration phase; of the patients who were randomized to tapentadol ER, 53.6% (105/196) reported at least a 30% improvement from pre-titration to week 12 of the double-blind phase. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred during double-blind treatment with tapentadol ER included nausea, anxiety, diarrhea, and dizziness. Potential limitations of this study are related to the enriched enrollment randomized-withdrawal trial design, which may result in a more homogeneous patient population during double-blind treatment and may present a risk of unblinding because of changes in side effects from the open-label to the double-blind phase. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, tapentadol ER 100-250 mg bid provided a statistically significant difference in the maintenance of a clinically important improvement in pain 1 , 2 and was well-tolerated by patients with painful DPN.

Humalog(®) KwikPen™: an insulin-injecting pen designed for ease of use.

Insulin pens offer significant benefits over vial and syringe injections for patients with diabetes who require insulin therapy. Insulin pens are more discreet, easier for patients to hold and inject, and provide better dosing accuracy than vial and syringe injections. The Humalog(®) KwikPen™ (prefilled insulin lispro [Humalog] pen, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) is a prefilled insulin pen highly rated by patients for ease of use in injections, and has been preferred by patients to both a comparable insulin pen and to vial and syringe injections in comparator studies. Together with an engineering study demonstrating smoother injections and reduced dosing error versus a comparator pen, recent evidence demonstrates the Humalog KwikPen device is an accurate, easy-to-use, patient-preferred insulin pen.

Correct use of a new reusable insulin injection pen by patients with diabetes: a design validation study.

BACKGROUND: Insulin pen devices are currently being used by approximately half of insulin users worldwide. ClikSTAR® (sanofi-aventis) is a novel reusable insulin pen for injecting either long-acting insulin glargine or short-acting insulin glulisine. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that individuals with diabetes could use the ClikSTAR pen correctly. METHODS: In this open-label, single-center study, people with diabetes delivered three 40 U insulin doses after receiving training from a diabetes specialist (group A, n = 256) or after self-training (group B, n = 47). Administration of a dose of 75-115% of the intended dose was considered successful. Adverse events (AEs) and product technical complaints (PTCs) were recorded. RESULTS: In group A (68% females, 93% Hispanic ethnicity, 97% type 2 diabetes mellitus, mean ± standard deviation age 52 ± 11 years, diabetes duration 11 ± 7 years), half of the participants had prior experience in using insulin pen devices. All except one participant (99.6%) in group A successfully delivered three insulin doses. The lower one-tailed 95% confidence limit for the success rate (98.2%) was higher than the predefined target of 90%. Demographic/baseline characteristics were similar in group B, but 70% had not previously used an injection pen. Group B also showed success; 93.6% of participants successfully completed three dose deliveries. No AEs were reported, although one participant (0.4%) in group A reported one PTC during the training period that was due to a blocked needle. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully validated the ClikSTAR pen for use by individuals with diabetes.

Insulin pharmacokinetics following dosing with Technosphere insulin in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: Insulin exposure after inhalation has been reported to be altered significantly in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this study, the rate and extent of insulin exposure was compared in healthy volunteers and subjects with COPD following administration of Technosphere * Insulin (TI), a dry powder insulin formulation for pulmonary delivery. METHODS: Insulin pharmacokinetics were evaluated in an open-label, single-dose, hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic glucose clamp study in 19 nondiabetic, nonsmoking healthy subjects (mean age [±SD] = 50.9 ± 14.1 years, body mass index = 29.1 ± 3.5 kg/m(2), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) = 3.52 ± 1.02 L) and 17 nondiabetic subjects with mild-to-moderate COPD (mean age = 60.0 ± 9.0 years, body mass index = 28.5 ± 5 kg/m(2), FEV(1) = 2.56 ± 0.83 L). Subjects received a single 30-U dose of TI. Serial blood samples were obtained for insulin and C-peptide determination through 480 min after dosing. Insulin concentrations were adjusted for endogenous insulin by C-peptide correction; pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using the corrected values. RESULTS: For the COPD and non-COPD groups, respectively, mean peak insulin (C(max)) was 34.7 µU/mL and 39.5 µU/mL (p = 0.29), median t(max) was 15 and 12 min (p = 0.24), and mean insulin exposure from time 0 to 240 min (AUC(0-240)) was 2037 µU/mL · min and 2279 µU/mL · min (p = 0.47). Cough was the most common respiratory adverse event observed. One instance of hypoglycemia was reported and was attributed to trial procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid insulin absorption and the resulting insulin pharmacokinetic profile following TI inhalation were not significantly altered in the mild-to-moderate COPD population studied; however, long-term safety and efficacy of TI have not been established in patients with mild or moderate COPD. Longer-term experience is needed to fully characterize the effects of COPD on insulin PK following TI administration.

Hormonal and metabolic effects of morning or evening dosing of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: Vildagliptin is an orally active, potent inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase IV and was developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. In clinical trials, once or twice daily dosing with vildagliptin (up to 100 mg day(-1)) has been shown to reduce endogenous glucose production and fasting plasma glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes. The comparative efficacy of vildagliptin under a morning vs. evening dosing regimen has not previously been determined. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Once daily dosing with vildagliptin 100 mg for 28 days improved glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes independent of whether vildagliptin was administered in the morning or evening. Morning or evening dosing with vildagliptin had similar effects on 24 h glycaemic control and plasma concentrations of the hormones insulin, glucagon and glucagon-like peptide 1. AIM: This randomized, double-blind, crossover study compared post-prandial hormonal and metabolic effects of vildagliptin, (an oral, potent, selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase IV [DPP-4]) administered morning or evening in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Forty-eight patients were randomized to once daily vildagliptin 100 mg administered before breakfast or before dinner for 28 days then crossed over to the other dosing regimen. Blood was sampled frequently after each dose at baseline (day -1) and on days 28 and 56 to assess pharmacodynamic parameters. RESULTS: Vildagliptin inhibited DPP-4 activity (>80% for 15.5 h post-dose), and increased active glucagon-like peptide-1 compared with placebo. Both regimens reduced total glucose exposure compared with placebo (area under the 0-24 h effect-time curve [AUE(0,24 h)]: morning -467 mg dl(-1) h, P= 0.014; evening -574 mg dl(-1) h, P= 0.003) with no difference between regimens (P= 0.430). Reductions in daytime glucose exposure (AUE(0,10.5 h)) were similar between regimens. Reduction in night-time exposure (AUE(10.5,24 h) was greater with evening than morning dosing (-336 vs.-218 mg dl(-1) h, P= 0.192). Only evening dosing significantly reduced fasting plasma glucose (-13 mg dl(-1), P= 0.032) compared with placebo. Insulin exposure was greater with evening dosing (evening 407 microU ml(-1) h; morning 354 microU ml(-1) h, P= 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Both morning and evening dosing of once daily vildagliptin 100 mg significantly reduced post-prandial glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes; only evening dosing significantly decreased fasting plasma glucose. Although evening dosing with vildagliptin 100 mg tended to decrease night-time glucose exposure more than morning dosing, both regimens were equally effective in reducing 24 h mean glucose exposure (AUE(0,24 h)) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Phase 1 study of anti-CTGF monoclonal antibody in patients with diabetes and microalbuminuria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This report summarizes the first phase 1 trial treating patients with microalbuminuric diabetic kidney disease (DKD) using FG-3019, a human monoclonal antibody to connective tissue growth factor (CTGF). CTGF is critically involved in processes of progressive fibrosis, including DKD. This phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation trial evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and possible therapeutic effects of FG-3019 on albuminuria, proteinuria, and tubular proteins. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Microalbuminuric subjects (n = 24) with type 2 (79%) or type 1 (21%) diabetes received 3 or 10 mg/kg FG-3019 dosed intravenously every 14 days for four doses. Albuminuria and safety follow-up were to days 62 and 365, respectively. RESULTS: No infusion was interrupted for symptoms, although 5 of 24 subjects had mild infusion-day adverse events thought to be possibly drug-related. No subject developed anti-FG-3019 antibodies. FG-3019 clearance was lower at 10 mg/kg than at 3 mg/kg, suggesting a saturable elimination pathway. Although this study was not designed for efficacy testing, it was notable that urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) decreased significantly from mean pretreatment ACR of 48 mg/g to mean post-treatment (day 56) ACR of 20 mg/g (P = 0.027) without evidence for a dose-response relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of microalbuminuric DKD subjects using FG-3019 was well tolerated and associated with a decrease in albuminuria. The data demonstrate a saturable pathway for drug elimination, minimal infusion adverse events, and no significant drug-attributable adverse effects over the year of follow-up. Changes in albuminuria were promising but require validation in a prospective, randomized, blinded study.

Evaluation of the potential for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between dutogliptin, a novel DPP4 inhibitor, and metformin, in type 2 diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Dutogliptin is a novel, orally available, potent, and selective DPP4 inhibitor that improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions, as well as the tolerability, of dutogliptin and metformin alone and in combination in type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, 3-way, crossover study in type 2 diabetic patients. All patients received three treatment regimens, each of 5 days duration in order to reach steady state: 400 mg once daily of dutogliptin (the anticipated clinical dose); 1000 mg metformin twice daily (maximum effective clinical dose); and concomitant administration of 400 mg dutogliptin once daily and 1000 mg metformin twice daily. RESULTS: Co-administration of dutogliptin and metformin did not alter the pharmacokinetics of either agent. The geometric mean ratio, GMR (dutogliptin + metformin/dutogliptin) of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0-24h)) at steady state was 0.91 (90% CI: 0.79-1.06; p = 0.29); the GMR of the maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) was 0.95 (90% CI: 0.76-1.19; p = 0.70); the time to maximum plasma concentrations (T(max)) was essentially the same for dutogliptin with or without metformin. The GMR (dutogliptin + metformin/metformin) of AUC(0-12h) at steady state was 0.99 (90% CI: 0.84-1.17; p = 0.93); the GMR of C(max) was 0.91 (90% CI: 0.79-1.04; p = 0.18); T(max) was comparable for metformin with or without dutogliptin. Metformin added to dutogliptin had no effect on plasma DPP4 inhibition. All three treatment regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, multiple dose study, the steady state pharmacokinetics of either dutogliptin or metformin were not altered by co-administration of the two agents. Dutogliptin and metformin were well tolerated either alone or in combination and co-administered metformin did not alter the ex vivo DPP4 inhibition by dutogliptin. There is no need to consider pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions when determining the dosage of either agent for co-administration. A phase 3 clinical trial is underway to provide more definitive data on the safety and efficacy of dutogliptin administered on a background of metformin treatment.

Effects of exenatide and lifestyle modification on body weight and glucose tolerance in obese subjects with and without pre-diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of exenatide on body weight and glucose tolerance in nondiabetic obese subjects with normal or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Obese subjects (n = 152; age 46 +/- 12 years, female 82%, weight 108.6 +/- 23.0 kg, BMI 39.6 +/- 7.0 kg/m(2), IGT or IFG 25%) were randomized to receive exenatide (n = 73) or placebo (n = 79), along with lifestyle intervention, for 24 weeks. RESULTS Exenatide-treated subjects lost 5.1 +/- 0.5 kg from baseline versus 1.6 +/- 0.5 kg with placebo (exenatide--placebo, P < 0.001). Placebo-subtracted difference in percent weight reduction was -3.3 +/- 0.5% (P < 0.001). Both groups reduced their daily calorie intake (exenatide, -449 cal; placebo, -387 cal). IGT or IFG normalized at end point in 77 and 56% of exenatide and placebo subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide plus lifestyle modification decreased caloric intake and resulted in weight loss in nondiabetic obesity with improved glucose tolerance in subjects with IGT and IFG.

Improved glycemic control with insulin glargine versus pioglitazone as add-on therapy to sulfonylurea or metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To compare glycemic control with add-on insulin glargine versus pioglitazone treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This 48-week, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label study randomized 389 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [A1C], 8.0% to 12.0%), despite > or =3 months of sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy, to receive add-on therapy with insulin glargine or pioglitazone. Outcomes included A1C change from baseline to end point (primary), percentage of patients achieving A1C levels < or =7.0%, and changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, weight, and serum lipids. The safety analysis included incidence of adverse events and rates of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: At end point, insulin glargine yielded a significantly greater reduction in A1C in comparison with pioglitazone (-2.48% versus -1.86%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -0.93 to -0.31; P = .0001, 48-week modified intent-to-treat population). Insulin glargine also yielded significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose at all time points (end point difference, -34.9 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, -47.6 to -22.2; P<.0001). In comparison with pioglitazone, insulin glargine resulted in a lower overall incidence of possibly related treatment-emergent adverse events (12.0% versus 20.7%) and fewer study discontinuations (2.2% versus 9.1%), but a higher rate (per patient-year) of confirmed clinically relevant hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <70 mg/dL and all severe hypoglycemia) (4.97 versus 1.04; P<.0001) and severe hypoglycemia (0.07 versus 0.01; P = .0309). Weight and body mass index changes were similar between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of insulin glargine early in the diabetes treatment paradigm in patients for whom sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy had failed resulted in significantly greater improvements in glycemic control in comparison with the addition of pioglitazone. Although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in patients with insulin glargine therapy, hypoglycemic events occurred in <5% of patients in the insulin glargine treatment group.

The effect of colesevelam hydrochloride on insulin sensitivity and secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effect of colesevelam hydrochloride on insulin sensitivity, potential binding to glucose, and chronic effect(s) on fasting and postprandial glucose and insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Patients meeting inclusion criteria were withdrawn from all antidiabetes agents for 2 weeks and randomized to colesevelam 3.75 grams/day (n = 17) or placebo (n = 18) for 8 weeks. Hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp studies were performed at baseline (week -1) and weeks 2 and 8. A meal tolerance test was conducted at weeks -1, 0, 2, and 8. The meal tolerance test and study drug were coadministered at week 0 to assess the direct effect of colesevelam on glucose absorption. RESULTS: Insulin sensitivity as measured by the insulin clamp method did not change, but the Matsuda Index, a measure of whole-body insulin sensitivity calculated from postmeal tolerance test glucose and insulin levels, increased significantly within the colesevelam group from baseline to week 8 with last observation carried forward (P = 0.020). The postprandial area under the curve for glucose decreased with colesevelam versus placebo at weeks 2 and 8 with last observation carried forward (P = 0.012 and P = 0.061, respectively); the area under the curve for insulin did not decrease in concert with the decrease in area under the curve for glucose at week 2 (P = 0.585). Colesevelam had no effect on postmeal tolerance test glucose levels at week 0. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that colesevelam has no effect on peripheral insulin sensitivity or glucose absorption, but may improve glucose control by improving whole-body insulin sensitivity, although not by an acute effect on glucose absorption. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT00361153.

Treatment of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the benefits and risks of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Achievement of glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is complicated by many factors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (ie, lowering of glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)]), the risk of hypoglycemia associated with these agents, and the effects of these agents on body weight in elderly patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: The PubMed and Biosis databases were searched for reports of clinical trials and meeting presentations (eg, abstracts, posters) published in English between January 1, 2000, and October 25, 2009, that included elderly patients with type 2 DM who were treated with sitagliptin, saxagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, BI-1356, DSP-7238, or PF-734200. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies were excluded from the review, as were studies that did not specifically provide quantitative clinical data on glycemic parameters or specifically list patients aged ≥65 years. RESULTS: Eighty-five articles and 5 presentations were identified in the search; of those, 18 articles and 3 presentations were included in the review. These publications described studies of DPP-4 inhibitors administered as monotherapy or in combination with metformin, a thiazolidinedione, glimepiride, glibenclamide, or insulin. Quantitative data indicated that, in these elderly patients (generally defined as ≥65 years of age) with type 2 DM, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with significant HbA(1c) reductions that ranged from ~0.7% (baseline HbA(1c) = 7.8%; P < 0.001) to 1.2% (baseline HbA(1c) = 8.3%; P < 0.05). Additional studies that did not quantify the number of elderly patients (as would a subanalysis), but did specify that elderly patients were included and that patient age did not influence the results, were incorporated in this review to support the quantitative results. No significant differences were noted in the HbA(1c)-lowering effects of these agents between elderly and younger patients. Less information about the incidence of hypoglycemia or weight gain in elderly patients was reported, but the available results suggested that the risk of hypoglycemia with DPP-4 inhibitors was not significantly different from that with placebo (sitagliptin 50 or 100 mg/d [0%] vs placebo [0%]; saxagliptin 5 mg/d [6.3%] vs placebo [8.0%]; vildagliptin 100 mg/d [2.32 events per patient-year] vs placebo [2.64 events per patient-year]; alogliptin 12.5 mg/d [8.0%] vs placebo [10.5%]) and that these agents were weight neutral (change, ≤0.9 kg). CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients with type 2 DM, reductions in HbA(1c) after treatment with a DPP-4 inhibitor were not significantly different from those in younger patients. Use of DPP-4 inhibitors in these studies was associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and these agents were weight neutral.

Effect of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to a low-dose metformin.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the addition of vildagliptin to low-dose metformin and compare it to an uptitration of metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who have inadequate control with metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to receive vildagliptin 100 mg qd or metformin (500 mg qd for 2 wk and then 500 mg bid) added to open label metformin 500 mg bid for the 24 wk. The primary endpoint was baseline to endpoint hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) change. RESULTS: The adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) at the 24th wk was -0.51% in the vildagliptin/metformin group (mean baseline HbA(1c): 7.4%) and -0.37% in the metformin monotherapy group (mean baseline HbA(1c): 7.3%). The mean difference was -0.14% with 95% Confidence Interval (-0.24%, -0.05%). As non-inferiority (margin of 0.4%) was achieved, a test for superiority was performed. This test showed statistically significant superiority of the combination over monotherapy group (P = 0.002). Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events were significantly more frequent in the metformin group than the combination group (21.0% vs 15.4%, P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: In patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin up to 1000 mg daily, the addition of vildagliptin 100 mg daily achieved larger HbA(1c) reduction with fewer GI events than with increasing the metformin dose.