Long-term comparison of renal and metabolic outcomes after sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes following treatment with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have not been directly compared. This study compared the impact of SGLT2i and GLP1RA therapy on renal function and metabolic parameters. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated SGLT2i or GLP1RA therapy in a tertiary hospital between January 2009 and August 2023 were included to assess composite renal outcomes, such as a 40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), onset of end-stage renal disease, renal death, or new-onset macroalbuminuria. Alterations in blood pressure, glucose regulation parameters, lipid profile, and anthropometric parameters, including body fat and muscle masses, were examined over 4-years. RESULTS: A total of 2,112 patients were enrolled using a one-to-three propensity-score matching approach (528 patients for GLP1RAs, 1,584 patients for SGLT2i). SGLT2i treatment was favoured over GLP1RA treatment, though not significantly, for composite renal outcomes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; p = 0.097). SGLT2i therapy preserved renal function effectively than GLP1RAs (decrease in eGFR, ≥ 40%; HR, 0.46; p = 0.023), with improving albuminuria regression (HR, 1.72; p = 0.036). SGLT2i therapy decreased blood pressure and body weight to a greater extent. However, more patients attained HbA1c levels < 7.0% with GLP1RAs than with SGLT2is (40.6% vs 31.4%; p < 0.001). GLP1RA therapy enhanced ß-cell function and decreased LDL-cholesterol levels below baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2is were superior for preserving renal function and reducing body weight, whereas GLP1RAs were better for managing glucose dysregulation and dyslipidaemia.

Binding sites and design strategies for small molecule GLP-1R agonists.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) is a pivotal receptor involved in blood glucose regulation and influencing feeding behavior. It has received significant attention in the treatment of obesity and diabetes due to its potent incretin effect. Peptide GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have achieved tremendous success in the market, driving the vigorous development of small molecule GLP-1RAs. Currently, several small molecules have entered the clinical research stage. Additionally, recent discoveries of GLP-1R positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) are also unveiling new regulatory patterns and treatment methods. This article reviews the structure and functional mechanisms of GLP-1R, recent reports on small molecule GLP-1RAs and PAMs, as well as the optimization process. Furthermore, it combines computer simulations to analyze structure-activity relationships (SAR) studies, providing a foundation for exploring new strategies for designing small molecule GLP-1RAs.

Diabetes with GLP-1R polymorphism (rs3765467) accompanied by myotonic dystrophy: A case of myotonic dystrophy with p.R131Q polymorphism at the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (rs3765467) resulting in marked effects of its agonist, dulaglutide.

A 47-year-old woman was diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy when admitted for traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Her glycemic control was poor despite administration of pioglitazone, a PPARɤ agonist, and subcutaneous insulin infusion. However, adding a GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist markedly improved blood glucose levels, resulting in eventual insulin withdrawal. Genetic testing revealed a heterozygous variant, p.R131Q, in the GLP1R (rs3765467), a common variant in Asia. This variant is known to be associated with increased endogenous insulin from beta cells in response to exogenous GLP-1 infusion. This is the first report and short review of a Japanese case of myotonic dystrophy accompanied by GLP-1R gene polymorphism.

Liraglutide for the Treatment of Weight Regain After Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity is well established, but their role in the treatment of weight regain after bariatric surgery remains unclear. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in January 2024. A random-effects model was employed to compute mean differences (MD) and events per 100 observations with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous and binary endpoints. Statistical analysis was performed using R software. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included and 881 individuals. Patients were mostly female (50%), aged 36 to 55 years, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 39.4 kg/m2, and had BS surgery 5 years prior. Over a mean follow-up time ranging from 3 months to 4 years, it was observed a statistically significant reduction in BMI (MD - 8.56 kg/m2; 95% CI 3.34 to 13.79; p < 0.01) and a mean reduction in total weight (MD - 16.03 kg; 95% CI 0.03 to 32.02; p = 0.05) after liraglutide use. Additionally, 65% of patients undertaking liraglutide showed total body weight loss (BWL) above 5% (65.8 events per 100 observations; 95% CI 54.96 to 75.20; p < 0.01), while 26% lost more than 10% of total BWL (26.77 events per 100 observations; 95% CI 19.17 to 36.02; p < 0.01). A limitation is a variability between the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of liraglutide for weight management in patients who experience weight regain after BS. Liraglutide is well tolerated and promotes significant weight loss, providing clinicians with a therapeutic option for this clinical challenge.

Gut hormone stimulation as a therapeutic approach in oral peptide delivery.

In this contribution to the Orations - New Horizons of the Journal of Controlled Release, I discuss the research that we have conducted on gut hormone stimulation as a therapeutic strategy in oral peptide delivery. One of the greatest challenges in oral drug delivery involves the development of new drug delivery systems that enable the absorption of therapeutic peptides into the systemic circulation at therapeutically relevant concentrations. This scenario is especially challenging in the treatment of chronic diseases (such as type 2 diabetes mellitus), wherein daily injections are often needed. However, for certain peptides, there may be an alternative in drug delivery to meet the need for increased peptide bioavailability; this is the case for gut hormone mimetics (including glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 or GLP-2). One plausible alternative for improved oral delivery of these peptides is the co-stimulation of the endogenous secretion of the hormone to reach therapeutic levels of the peptide. This oration will be focused on studies conducted on the stimulation of gut hormones secreted from enteroendocrine L cells in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, including a critical discussion of the limitations and future perspectives of implementing this approach in the clinical setting.

Cardiovascular and non-renal complications of chronic kidney disease: Managing risk.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) currently affects approximately 850 million people globally and is continuing to increase in prevalence as well as in importance as a cause of death. The excess mortality related to CKD is mostly caused by an increase in cardiovascular disease. This includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as many promoters of atherosclerosis, such as blood pressure, lipid levels and hypercoagulation, are increased in people with CKD. Diabetes is a leading cause of CKD contributing to the risk of CVD, and obesity is also increasingly prevalent. Management of these risk factors is therefore very important in CKD, and to reduce risk of CKD progression. Heart failure is also more prevalent in CKD and, again, many risk factors are shared. The concept of foundational pillars in the management of heart failure has been adapted to the treatment of CKD, with many organ-protective interventions, such renin-angiotensin system blockade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism, reducing the risk for mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but also for progression of CKD. Atrial fibrillation is also more common with CKD and affects the management of the former. In this review these non-renal complications of CKD are discussed, along with how the risk of these complications should be managed. Many new opportunities have demonstrated heart and kidney organ protection, but implementation is a challenge.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy vs placebo in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 11): a double-blind, Phase IIIa, randomised trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy vs placebo in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 11 trial was a double-blind, randomised, Phase IIIa trial conducted across 52 sites in the China region (mainland China and Taiwan), Hungary, Serbia and Ukraine. Eligible participants were ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan), had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes with HbA1c 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%) and were not receiving any glucose-lowering drugs. After a 4-week run-in period in which participants were treated with diet and exercise alone, those who fulfilled the randomisation criteria were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to receive once-daily oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg or placebo for 26 weeks (using a 4-week dose-escalation regimen for the higher doses). Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and body weight (kg), respectively. Safety was assessed in all participants exposed to at least one dose of the trial product. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and October 2021, a total of 774 participants were screened and 521 participants were randomised to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=130), 7 mg (n=130), 14 mg (n=130) or placebo (n=131); most participants (92.5%, n=482) completed the trial, with 39 participants prematurely discontinuing treatment. The number of participants contributing to the trial analyses was based on the total number of participants who were randomised at the beginning of the trial. The majority of participants were male (63.7%), and the mean age of participants was 52 years. At baseline, mean HbA1c and body weight were 63 mmol/mol (8.0%) and 79.6 kg, respectively. Oral semaglutide resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c than placebo at week 26 (p<0.001 for all doses). The estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CIs]) for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs placebo were -11 (-13, -9) mmol/mol, -16 (-18, -13) mmol/mol and -17 (-19, -15) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs in percentage points (95% CI) vs placebo were -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8), -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2) and -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3), respectively. Significantly greater reductions in body weight were also observed for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg than for placebo at week 26 (ETD [95% CI] -1.2 kg [-2.0 kg, -0.4 kg; p<0.01] and -2.0 kg [-2.8 kg, -1.2 kg; p<0.001], respectively), but not for oral semaglutide 3 mg (ETD [95% CI] -0.0 kg [-0.9 kg, 0.8 kg; not significant]). Similar reductions in HbA1c and body weight were observed in the Chinese subpopulation, which represented 74.9% of participants in the overall population. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in between 65.4% and 72.3% of participants receiving oral semaglutide (for all doses) and 57.3% of participants with placebo. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity, with few serious AEs reported; the most commonly reported AEs were gastrointestinal-related and were more frequent with semaglutide (all doses) than with placebo. The proportion of AEs was slightly higher in the Chinese subpopulation. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Oral semaglutide resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c across all doses and in significant body weight reductions for the 7 mg and 14 mg doses when compared with placebo in predominantly Chinese participants with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled by diet and exercise alone. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04109547. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin: PIONEER 12, a double-blind, Phase IIIa, randomised trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. METHODS: The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 12 trial was a randomised, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase IIIa trial conducted over 26 weeks at 90 sites across the China region (including mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong) and five other countries. Adults aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan) with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, HbA1c between 53 and 91 mmol/mol (inclusive) and treated with a stable daily dose of metformin were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to either once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. Treatment allocation was masked to both participants and investigators. Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. The confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight (kg) from baseline to week 26. All randomised participants were included in the full analysis set (FAS). All participants exposed to at least one dose of trial product were included in the safety analysis (SAS). RESULTS: Of 1839 participants screened, 1441 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=361), 7 mg (n=360), 14 mg (n=361) or sitagliptin 100 mg (n=359) and included in the FAS. A total of 1438 participants were included in the SAS. In total, 75.2% of participants were from the China region. A total of 1372 (95.2%) participants completed the trial and 130 participants prematurely discontinued treatment (8.3%, 8.6% and 15.0% for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively; 4.2% for sitagliptin 100 mg). Significantly greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were reported for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg. For oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg, the estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CI]) were -2 (-4, -1) mmol/mol, -8 (-9, -6) mmol/mol and -11 (-12, -9) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs (95% CI) in percentage points vs sitagliptin 100 mg were -0.2 (-0.3, -0.1), -0.7 (-0.8, -0.6) and -1.0 (-1.1, -0.8), respectively. Reductions in body weight were significantly greater for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg (ETD [95% CI] -0.9 [-1.4, -0.4] kg, -2.3 [-2.8, -1.8] kg and -3.3 [-3.8, -2.8] kg for 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively). In the subpopulation of participants from the China region (75.2% of trial participants), reductions in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to week 26 were similar to those seen in the overall population. The most frequent adverse events in the semaglutide treatment arms were gastrointestinal, although these were mostly transient and mild/moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Significantly greater reductions in both HbA1c and body weight over 26 weeks were seen with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg than with sitagliptin 100 mg in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04017832. FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.

Pharmacotherapeutic options for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: where are we today?

INTRODUCTION: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is defined by hepatic steatosis and cardiometabolic risk factors like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Persistent metabolic injury may promote inflammatory processes resulting in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and liver fibrosis. Mechanistic insights helped to identify potential drug targets, thereby supporting the development of novel compounds modulating disease drivers. AREAS COVERED: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved the thyroid hormone receptor ß-selective thyromimetic resmetirom as the first compound to treat MASH and liver fibrosis. This review provides a comprehensive overview of current and potential future pharmacotherapeutic options and their modes of action. Lessons learned from terminated clinical trials are discussed together with the first results of trials investigating novel combinational therapeutic approaches. EXPERT OPINION: Approval of resmetirom as the first anti-MASH agent may revolutionize the therapeutic landscape. However, long-term efficacy and safety data for resmetirom are currently lacking. In addition, heterogeneity of MASLD reflects a major challenge to define effective agents. Several lead compounds demonstrated efficacy in reducing obesity and hepatic steatosis, while anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects of monotherapy appear less robust. Better mechanistic understanding, exploration of combination therapies, and patient stratification hold great promise for MASLD therapy.

Strategies to address diabetic kidney disease burden in Mexico: a narrative review by the Mexican College of Nephrologists.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing global public health challenge worldwide. In Mexico, CKD prevalence is alarmingly high and remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Diabetic kidney disease (DKD), a severe complication of diabetes, is a leading determinant of CKD. The escalating diabetes prevalence and the complex regional landscape in Mexico underscore the pressing need for tailored strategies to reduce the burden of CKD. This narrative review, endorsed by the Mexican College of Nephrologists, aims to provide a brief overview and specific strategies for healthcare providers regarding preventing, screening, and treating CKD in patients living with diabetes in all care settings. The key topics covered in this review include the main cardiometabolic contributors of DKD (overweight/obesity, hyperglycemia, arterial hypertension, and dyslipidemia), the identification of kidney-related damage markers, and the benefit of novel pharmacological approaches based on Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitors (SGLT2i) and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RA). We also address the potential use of novel therapies based on Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists (MRAs) and their future implications. Emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary treatment, this narrative review aims to promote strategies that may be useful to alleviate the burden of DKD and its associated complications. It underscores the critical role of healthcare providers and advocates for collaborative efforts to enhance the quality of life for millions of patients affected by DKD.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and new-onset diabetes in overweight/obese individuals with prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) is incretin-based therapy that possessed significant glucose lowering and weight loss properties. The present study aims to analyze the efficacy of GLP-1RA in the management of overweight/obese individuals with prediabetes. METHODS: A thorough search was carried out on the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Medline databases until April 3rd, 2024, using a mix of pertinent keywords. This review incorporates randomized clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of GLP-1RA for prediabetes. The primary outcome was regression to normoglycemia and/or progression to type 2 diabetes (T2D). We used random-effect models to examine the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD). RESULTS: A total of eight RCTs were incorporated. The results of our meta-analysis indicated that GLP-1RA therapy was associated with higher odds of regression to normoglycemia (OR 4.80; 95%CI: 3.40-6.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 67 %) and lower risk of progression into T2D (OR 0.27; 95%CI: 0.18-0.42, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0 %) in overweight/obese individuals with prediabetes. Administration of GLP-1RA was also associated with higher reduction in HbA1c (MD -0.28 %; p < 0.00001), fasting glucose (MD -0.45 mmol/L; p < 0.00001), and BMI (MD -1.71 kg/m2; p < 0.00001) in comparison to placebo. However, the administration of GLP-1RA was associated with higher incidence of total adverse events (TAEs), treatment discontinuation due to AEs, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal AEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that while GLP-1RA is a potent therapeutic agent for prediabetes, its adverse effects are concerning, thereby precluding its recommendation as a prediabetes therapy.

No Differences in Kidney Function Decline Between People With Type 2 Diabetes Starting a Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor or a Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist: A Real-world Retrospective Comparative Observational Study.

PURPOSE: Diabetic nephropathy represents the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease in developed countries. Cardiovascular outcome trials have found that in participants who received a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1RA) and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), the risk of incidence and progression of diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus was reduced. The aim of this study was to compare the decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among people taking a GLP1RA with that among people taking an SGLT2i in a real-world setting. METHODS: Data for 478 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated therapy with a GLP1RA (n = 254) or an SGLT2i (n = 224) between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2021 were extracted. The primary outcome was any reduction ≥30% in eGFR after the start of therapy. Weight loss and drug discontinuation were also assessed. FINDINGS: Over a median follow-up of 24 months, an eGFR reduction ≥30% occurred in 34 of 254 patients (13.4%) starting a GLP1RA and in 26 of 223 patients (11.6%) starting an SGLT2i (hazard ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.54-1.49; P = 0.67). Median eGFR change over the whole follow-up was similar between groups (SGLT2i: median, -2 mL/min/1.73 m2; 25th, 75th percentile, -13, 8 mL/min/1.73 m2; GLP1RA: median, 0 mL/min/1.73 m2; 25th, 75th percentile, -10, 7 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = 0.54). No worsening of kidney function was observed, even when considering the ratio eGFR mean. The value of eGFR at baseline indicated a statistically significant indirect correlation with the observed absolute value of eGFR change over the follow-up (ρ = -0.36; P < 0.001). The difference in eGFR changes over time observed by eGFR categories was statistically significant (P = 0.0001) in both treatment groups. No significant differences in weight loss and drug discontinuations were observed between groups. IMPLICATIONS: Although acting on different molecular mechanisms, both GLP1RA and SGLT2i might have similar effects on eGFR decline in diabetes, as suggested by the results of the present study conducted in a real-world setting. (Clin Ther. 2024;46:XXX-XXX) © 2024 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Case report: Nerve fiber regeneration in children with melanocortin 4 receptor gene mutation related obesity treated with semaglutide.

Melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R) mutations are the commonest cause of monogenic obesity through dysregulation of neuronal pathways in the hypothalamus and prefrontal cortex that regulate hunger and satiety. MC4R also regulates neuropathic pain pathways via JNK signaling after nerve injury. We show evidence of corneal small fiber degeneration in 2 siblings carrying a heterozygous missense variant c.508A>G, p.Ille170Val in the MC4R gene. Both children were treated with once weekly semaglutide for 6 months with no change in weight, and only a minor improvement in HbA1c and lipid profile. However, there was evidence of nerve regeneration with an increase in corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) [child A (13.9%), child B (14.7%)], corneal nerve branch density (CNBD) [child A (110.2%), child B (58.7%)] and corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) [child A (21.5%), child B (44.0%)].

Safety of SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists in US veterans with and without chronic kidney disease: a population-based study.

Background: We examined the real-world comparative safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. other newer anti-glycemic medications (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP4i], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP1a]) in patients with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Among US Veterans with diabetes receiving care from the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system over 2004-19, we identified incident users of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i vs. GLP1a monotherapy. In analyses stratified by CKD status, defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria, we examined associations of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i vs. GLP1a use with risk of infection-related (primary outcome) and genitourinary infection hospitalizations (secondary outcome) using multivariable Cox models. Findings: Among 92,269 patients who met eligibility criteria, 52% did not have CKD, whereas 48% had CKD. In the overall and non-CKD cohorts, compared to DPP4i use, SGLT2i use was associated with lower infection-related hospitalization risk (HRs [95% CIs] 0.74 [0.67-0.81] and 0.77 [0.67, 0.88], respectively), whereas GLP1a use demonstrated comparable risk. However, in the CKD cohort SGLT2i and GLP1a use were each associated with lower risk (HRs [95% CIs] 0.70 [0.61, 0.81] and 0.91 [0.84, 0.99], respectively). Propensity score-matched analyses showed similar findings in the non-CKD and CKD cohorts. In the overall, non-CKD, and CKD cohorts, SGLT2i use was associated with lower genitourinary infection hospitalization risk whereas GLP1a use showed comparable risk vs. DPP4i use. Interpretation: In a national cohort of Veterans with diabetes, compared with DPP4i use, SGLT2i use was associated with lower infection-related and genitourinary infection hospitalization risk. Funding: VA Health Services Research and Development, USA.

Bridging the gap between GLP1-receptor agonists and cardiovascular outcomes: evidence for the role of tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide is a new drug targeting glucagon-like peptide 1(GLP1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptors. This drug has demonstrated great potential in improving the clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes. It can lead to weight loss, better glycemic control, and reduced cardiometabolic risk factors. GLP1 receptor agonists have been proven effective antidiabetic medications with possible cardiovascular benefits. Even though they have been proven to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, their effectiveness in treating heart failure is unknown. Unlike traditional GLP1 receptor agonists, tirzepatide is more selective for the GIP receptor, resulting in a more balanced activation of these receptors. This review article discusses the possible mechanisms tirzepatide may use to improve cardiovascular health. That includes the anti-inflammatory effect, the ability to reduce cell death and promote autophagy, and also its indirect effects through blood pressure, obesity, and glucose/lipid metabolism. Additionally, tirzepatide may benefit atherosclerosis and lower the risk of major adverse cardiac events. Currently, clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirzepatide in patients with heart failure. Overall, tirzepatide's dual agonism of GLP1 and GIP receptors appears to provide encouraging cardiovascular benefits beyond glycemic control, offering a potential new therapeutic option for treating cardiovascular diseases and heart failure.

Efficacy and safety of visepegenatide, a long-acting weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist as monotherapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains a challenge to treat despite the expansion of various therapeutic classes. Visepegenatide (PB-119) is a once a week, subcutaneous, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) injection without the requirement of dose titration that has shown glycaemic control and safety profile in two phase 2 studies conducted in China and the United States, respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of visepegenatide as a monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with T2DM. Methods: This was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial conducted in 30 centres in China. Adult participants (aged 18-75 years) with T2DM, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.5%-11.0% [58.47-96.73 mmol/mol], body mass index (BMI) of 18-40 kg/m2, and who had been treated with diet and exercise alone for at least 8 weeks before the screening visit were eligible for enrolment. After a 4-week placebo injection run-in period, participants with HbA1c of 7.0%-10.5% [53.0-91.3 mmol/mol] and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < 15 mmol/L were randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to receive visepegenatide (150 µg) or placebo subcutaneous injections once a week for 24 weeks. The treatment was extended to another 28 weeks during which all participants received visepegenatide. The primary outcome was a change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, as NCT04504370. Findings: Between November 2, 2020, and November 2, 2022, we randomly assigned 273 adult participants to the visepegenatide (n = 137) and placebo (n = 136) groups. In total, 257 (94.12%) participants, 131 (95.6%) on visepegenatide, and 126 (92.6%) on placebo, completed the double-blinded treatment period. At baseline, the mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.47% (0.81) [69.07 [8.81] mmol/mol], which rapidly decreased to 7.63% (0.80) [59.94 [8.70] mmol/mol] with visepegenatide by week 4 of treatment, and the change from baseline was significantly greater than that in the placebo group (-0.82% [-0.90 to -0.74]; [-8.99 [-9.89 to -8.10] mmol/mol] vs -0.30% [-0.41 to -0.19]; [-3.30 [-4.50 to -2.09] mmol/mol]). At week 24, when evaluating the effects of treatment with treatment policy estimand, the least square mean (LSM change in HbA1c from baseline was -1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.52 to -1.20) [-14.84 [-16.60 to -13.08] mmol/mol] in the visepegenatide group vs -0.63 (-0.79 to -0.46) [-6.84 [-8.61 to -5.07] mmol/mol] in the placebo group. The reduction in HbA1c was significantly greater with visepegenatide than placebo (LSM difference -0.73, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.50; p < 0.001). When evaluating the treatment estimand with hypothetic policy, the LSM change in HbA1c from baseline in the visepegenatide group (-1.37 [-1.53 to -1.20]) [-14.95 [-16.76 to -13.14] mmol/mol] was significantly greater than the placebo group (-0.63 [-0.81 to -0.45]) [6.90 (-8.89 to -4.90) mmol/mol]. The LSM difference was (-0.74, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.49; [-8.00 [-10.50 to -5.50] mmol/mol]; p < 0.001]. A significantly greater proportion of the visepegenatide group achieved a target HbA1c level of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) than the placebo (50.4% vs 14.2%; p < 0.05) and stringent HbA1c level of ≤6.5% (≤48 mmol/mol) (26.7% vs 7.9%), respectively. There was also a significantly greater improvement in FPG, 2-h postprandial glucose, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) of beta cell function, post-prandial insulin, fasting, and post-prandial C-peptide level (p < 0.05) with visepegenatide treatment. The number (3 [2.2%]) of participants who received rescue therapy in the visepegenatide group was remarkably lower compared with those (17 [12.5%]) in the placebo group (p < 0.05). During the extended treatment period, visepegenatide consistently maintained the efficacy till week 52 confirmed by all the above endpoints. The reduction in HbA1c at week 52 was -1.39% (-1.58 to -1.19) [-15.14 [-17.28 to -13.01] mmol/mol], which was even greater than that at week 24. There was also a significant improvement in HOMA-insulin resistance (p = 0.004) at week 52 compared with the baseline value. For the placebo→visepegenatide group, which received visepegenatide in the extended treatment period, a notable decrease in HbA1c at week 52 compared to baseline was observed. The change from baseline in HbA1c was -1.49% (-1.68 to -1.30) [-16.27 [-18.37 to -14.16] mmol/mol]. The outcome was in the same direction as the visepegenatide group from the double-blind treatment period. Comprehensive benefits of visepegenatide including weight loss, improvement in lipid profile, and reduction in blood pressure have been demonstrated in this study. Visepegenatide reduced the body weight in a BMI-dependent manner that was prominent in BMI ˃32 kg/m2 with a mean (SD) reduction of -4.77 (13.94) kg at week 52 (p < 0.05). Incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were less common than other weekly GLP-1 RA in the market, and most of the adverse events were mild and moderate in nature, occurring in the first weeks of the treatment, and were transient. No serious hypoglycaemia or grade 2 hypoglycaemia (blood glucose: ≤3 mmol/L) was reported during the study. Interpretation: As a monotherapy, visepegenatide provided rapid without the risk of hypoglycaemia, significant, and sustainable glycaemic control by improving islet ß-cell function and insulin resistance. Treatment with visepegenatide induced early treatment response in reducing HbA1c and maintaining glycaemic control for 52 weeks. Meanwhile, visepegenatide provided a comprehensive benefit in body weight loss, lipids, and blood pressure reduction. Visepegenatide had a better safety profile than other weekly GLP-1 RA in participants with T2DM even without the requirement of dose titration. Visepegenatide would provide an optimal treatment approach with its high benefit and low-risk balance. Funding: PegBio Co., Ltd.

Incretin-based therapy and the risk of diabetic foot ulcers and related events.

AIM: To investigate the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) on diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and DFU-related outcomes (lower limb amputation [LLA], DFU-related hospitalization and mortality). METHODS: We performed a cohort study with data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database with linkage to hospital data. We included people with type 2 diabetes starting treatment with metformin. Then we propensity score matched new users of DPP4-Is and sulphonylureas (N = 98 770), and new users of GLP1-RAs and insulin (N = 25 422). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for the outcomes. RESULTS: We observed a lower risk of DFU with both DPP4-I use versus sulphonylurea use (HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.97) and GLP1-RA use versus insulin use (HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.32-0.60) for short-term exposure (≤ 400 days) and HR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60-0.92) for long-term exposure (>400 days). Furthermore, the risks of hospitalization and mortality were lower with both DPP4-I use and GLP1-RA use. The risk of LLA was lower with GLP1-RA use. The results remained consistent across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Incretin-based therapy was associated with a lower risk of DFU and DFU-related outcomes. This suggests benefits for the use of this treatment in people at risk of DFU.

Randomised comparison of intravenous and subcutaneous routes of glucagon-like peptide-1 administration for lowering plasma glucose in hyperglycaemic subjects with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To perform a direct, double-blind, randomised, crossover comparison of subcutaneous and intravenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) in hyperglycaemic subjects with type 2 diabetes naïve to GLP-1-based therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten fasted, hyperglycaemic subjects (1 female, age 63 ± 10 years [mean ± SD], glycated haemoglobin 73.5 ± 22.0 mmol/mol [8.9% ± 2.0%], both mean ± SD) received subcutaneous GLP-1 and intravenous saline, or intravenous GLP-1 and subcutaneous saline. Infusion rates were doubled every 120 min (1.2, 2.4, 4.8 and 9.6 pmol·kg-1·min-1 for subcutaneous, and 0.3, 0.6, 1.2 and 2.4 pmol·kg-1·min-1 for intravenous). Plasma glucose, total and intact GLP-1, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon and gastrointestinal symptoms were evaluated over 8 h. The results are presented as mean ± SEM. RESULTS: Plasma glucose decreased more with intravenous (by ~8.0 mmol/L [144 mg/dL]) than subcutaneous GLP-1 (by ~5.6 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]; p < 0.001). Plasma GLP-1 increased dose-dependently, but more with intravenous than subcutaneous for both total (∆max 154.2 ± 3.9 pmol/L vs. 85.1 ± 3.8 pmol/L; p < 0.001), and intact GLP-1 (∆max 44.2 ± 2.2 pmol/L vs. 12.8 ± 2.2 pmol/L; p < 0.001). Total and intact GLP-1 clearance was higher for subcutaneous than intravenous GLP-1 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). The increase in insulin secretion was greater, and glucagon was suppressed more with intravenous GLP-1 (p < 0.05 each). Gastrointestinal symptoms did not differ (p > 0.05 each). CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous GLP-1 administration is much less efficient than intravenous GLP-1 in lowering fasting plasma glucose, with less stimulation of insulin and suppression of glucagon, and much less bioavailability, even at fourfold higher infusion rates.