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.

The Regulation of Metabolic Homeostasis by Incretins and the Metabolic Hormones Produced by Pancreatic Islets.

In healthy humans, the complex biochemical interplay between organs maintains metabolic homeostasis and pathological alterations in this process result in impaired metabolic homeostasis, causing metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, which are major global healthcare burdens. The great advancements made during the last century in understanding both metabolic disease phenotypes and the regulation of metabolic homeostasis in healthy individuals have yielded new therapeutic options for diseases like type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, it is unlikely that highly desirable more efficacious treatments will be developed for metabolic disorders until the complex systemic regulation of metabolic homeostasis becomes more intricately understood. Hormones produced by pancreatic islet beta-cells (insulin) and alpha-cells (glucagon) are pivotal for maintaining metabolic homeostasis; the activity of insulin and glucagon are reciprocally correlated to achieve strict control of glucose levels (normoglycaemia). Metabolic hormones produced by other pancreatic islet cells and incretins produced by the gut are also crucial for maintaining metabolic homeostasis. Recent studies highlighted the incomplete understanding of metabolic hormonal synergism and, therefore, further elucidation of this will likely lead to more efficacious treatments for diseases such as T2D. The objective of this review is to summarise the systemic actions of the incretins and the metabolic hormones produced by the pancreatic islets and their interactions with their respective receptors.

Real-World Clinical Experience of Oral Semaglutide in a Secondary Diabetes Clinic in the UK: A Retrospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Oral semaglutide improves cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in clinical trials, though real-world evidence is limited. We aimed to determine the real-world impact of oral semaglutide on routinely collected clinical data in our practice. METHODS: People with T2D initiated on oral semaglutide in secondary care diabetes clinics at two hospital sites in Wales (United Kingdom) were included. Data were collected on reasons for oral semaglutide initiation and changes in bodyweight, blood pressure, glycemic control, and lipid profiles over follow-up at 3-6 months, and at 6-12 months. Data were collected to determine the safety of oral semaglutide. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included, with a median age 59.3 [51.4-67.6] years, and 38 (50.0%) patients were female. The most common reasons for oral semaglutide were need for weight loss and improved glycemia (69.8%), and improved glycemia alone (25.0%). Oral semaglutide associated with significantly reduced bodyweight (- 3.3 kg), body mass index (BMI) (- 0.9 kg/m2), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (- 11 mmol/mol), and total cholesterol (- 0.4 mmol/l) by 3-6 months follow-up. At 6-12 months, there was a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (- 7.0 mmHg), in addition to sustained reductions in other metabolic parameters. By 12 months, 18 (23.6%) patients had discontinued the drug, largely resulting from gastrointestinal disturbance, but there were no serious events in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was effective in improving cardiovascular risk factors in this real-world population living with T2D, and no serious events were identified related to oral semaglutide in this patient group.

SGLT2 Inhibitors - The New Standard of Care for Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic Protection in Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.

A substantial evidence base supports the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This class of medicines has demonstrated important benefits that extend beyond glucose-lowering efficacy to protective mechanisms capable of slowing or preventing the onset of long-term cardiovascular, renal and metabolic (CVRM) complications, making their use highly applicable for organ protection and the maintenance of long-term health outcomes. SGLT2is have shown cost-effectiveness in T2DM management and economic savings over other glucose-lowering therapies due to reduced incidence of cardiovascular and renal events. National and international guidelines advocate SGLT2i use early in the T2DM management pathway, based upon a plethora of supporting data from large-scale cardiovascular outcome trials, renal outcomes trials and real-world studies. While most people with T2DM would benefit from CVRM protection through SGLT2i use, prescribing hesitancy remains, potentially due to confusion concerning their place in the complex therapeutic paradigm, variation in licensed indications or safety perceptions/misunderstandings associated with historical data that have since been superseded by robust clinical evidence and long-term pharmacovigilance reporting. This latest narrative review developed by the Improving Diabetes Steering Committee (IDSC) outlines the place of SGLT2is within current evidence-informed guidelines, examines their potential as the standard of care for the majority of newly diagnosed people with T2DM and sets into context the perceived risks and proven advantages of SGLT2is in terms of sustained health outcomes. The authors discuss the cost-effectiveness case for SGLT2is and provide user-friendly tools to support healthcare professionals in the correct application of these medicines in T2DM management. The previously published IDSC SGLT2i Prescribing Tool for T2DM Management has undergone updates and reformatting and is now available as a Decision Tool in an interactive pdf format as well as an abbreviated printable A4 poster/wall chart.

Real-World Use of Oral and Subcutaneous Semaglutide in Routine Clinical Practice in the UK: A Single-Centre, Retrospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Semaglutide, the only glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) available in subcutaneous and oral formulation for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), has demonstrated clinically significant improvements in glycaemic control and weight in clinical trials. This study aimed to gain insights into the use of both formulations and evaluate their clinical effectiveness in a secondary care clinic in Wales. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational analysis of adults with T2D initiated on oral or subcutaneous semaglutide. Changes from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight and other metabolic parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n = 103) had a mean age of 57.3 years, mean HbA1c of 79.1 mmol/mol (9.38%), mean weight of 111.8 kg and body mass index (BMI) of 39.6 kg/m2 (no statistically significant differences between oral and subcutaneous groups). At 6-month follow-up, statistically significant improvements in HbA1c (- 19.3 mmol/mol [- 1.77%] and - 20.8 mmol/mol [- 1.90%]), body weight (- 9.0 kg and - 7.2 kg), and BMI (- 3.3 kg/m2 and - 2.5 kg/m2) were observed for oral and subcutaneous semaglutide, respectively. No statistically significant differences between the formulations were observed, and safety profiles were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Both formulations of semaglutide provided clinically and statistically significant reductions in HbA1c and weight in real-world practice. Oral GLP-1 RA may offer a practical and effective option for the management of T2D.

Effect of semaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events by baseline kidney parameters in participants with type 2 diabetes and at high risk of cardiovascular disease: SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 post hoc pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide is a glucose-lowering treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D) with demonstrated cardiovascular benefits; semaglutide may also have kidney-protective effects. This post hoc analysis investigated the association between major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and baseline kidney parameters and whether the effect of semaglutide on MACE risk was impacted by baseline kidney parameters in people with T2D at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Participants from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 trials, receiving semaglutide or placebo, were categorised according to baseline kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45 and ≥ 45-<60 versus ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or damage (urine albumin:creatinine ratio [UACR] ≥ 30-≤300 and > 300 versus < 30 mg/g). Relative risk of first MACE by baseline kidney parameters was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. The same model, adjusted with inverse probability weighting, and a quadratic spline regression were applied to evaluate the effect of semaglutide on risk and event rate of first MACE across subgroups. The semaglutide effects on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight (BW) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across subgroups were also evaluated. RESULTS: Independently of treatment, participants with reduced kidney function (eGFR ≥ 45-<60 and < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2: hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]; 1.36 [1.04;1.76] and 1.52 [1.15;1.99]) and increased albuminuria (UACR ≥ 30-≤300 and > 300 mg/g: 1.53 [1.14;2.04] and 2.52 [1.84;3.42]) had an increased MACE risk versus those without. Semaglutide consistently reduced MACE risk versus placebo across all eGFR and UACR subgroups (interaction p value [pINT] > 0.05). Semaglutide reduced HbA1c regardless of baseline eGFR and UACR (pINT>0.05); reductions in BW were affected by baseline eGFR (pINT<0.001) but not UACR (pINT>0.05). More participants in the lower eGFR or higher UACR subgroups experienced SAEs versus participants in reference groups; the number of SAEs was similar between semaglutide and placebo arms in each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: MACE risk was greater for participants with kidney impairment or damage than for those without. Semaglutide consistently reduced MACE risk across eGFR and UACR subgroups, indicating that semaglutide provides cardiovascular benefits in people with T2D and at high cardiovascular risk across a broad spectrum of kidney function and damage. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT01720446; NCT02692716.

Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Impact of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization on mortality in people with type 1 diabetes: A national retrospective observational cohort study.

AIMS: To assess if the risk of all-cause mortality increases in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with increasing number of severe hypoglycaemia episodes requiring hospitalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective observational cohort study in people with T1D (diagnosed between 2000 and 2018). Clinical, comorbidity and demographic variables were assessed for impact on mortality for people with no, one, two and three or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization. The time to death (all-cause mortality) from the timepoint of the last episode of severe hypoglycaemia was modelled using a parametric survival model. RESULTS: A total of 8224 people had a T1D diagnosis in Wales during the study period. The mortality rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.9 (6.1-7.8) deaths/ 1000 person-years (crude) and 15.31 (13.3-17.63) deaths/ 1000 person-years (age-adjusted) for those with no occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization. For those with one episode of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization the mortality rate (95% CI) was 24.9 (21.0-29.6; crude) and 53.8 (44.6-64.7) deaths/ 1000 person-years (age-adjusted), for those with two episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization it was 28.0 (23.1-34.0; crude) and 72.8 (59.2-89.5) deaths/ 1000 person-years (age-adjusted), and for those with three or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization it was 33.5 (30.0-37.3; crude) and 86.3 (71.7-103.9) deaths/ 1000 person years (age-adjusted; P < 0.001). A parametric survival model showed that having two episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization was the strongest predictor for time to death (accelerated failure time coefficient 0.073 [95% CI 0.009-0.565]), followed by having one episode of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization (0.126 [0.036-0.438]) and age at most recent episode of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization (0.917 [0.885-0.951]). CONCLUSIONS: The strongest predictor for time to death was having two or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization.

Automated Insulin Delivery Around Exercise in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study.

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system around exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This was a three-period, randomized, crossover trial involving 10 adults with T1D (hemoglobin A1C; HbA1c: 8.3% ± 0.6% [67 ± 6 mmol/mol]) using an AID system (MiniMed 780G; Medtronic USA). Participants performed 45 min of moderate intensity continuous exercise 90 min after consuming a carbohydrate-based meal using three strategies: (1) a 100% dose of bolus insulin with exercise announcement immediately at exercise onset "spontaneous exercise" (SE) or a 25% reduced dose of bolus insulin with exercise announcement either (2) 90 min (AE90) or (3) 45 min (AE45) before exercise. Venous-derived plasma glucose (PG) taken in 5 and 15 min intervals over a 3 h collection period was stratified into the percentage of time spent below (TBR [<3.9 mmol/L]), time in range (TIR [3.9-10 mmol/L]), and time above range (TAR [ > 10 mmol/L]). In instances of hypoglycemia, PG data were carried forward for the remainder of the visit. Results: Overall, TBR was greatest during SE (SE: 22.9 ± 22.2, AE90: 1.1 ± 1.9, AE45: 7.8% ± 10.3%, P = 0.029). Hypoglycemia during exercise occurred in four participants in SE but one in both AE90 and AE45 (ꭓ2 [2] = 3.600, P = 0.165). In the 1 h postexercise period, AE90 was associated with higher TIR (SE: 43.8 ± 49.6, AE90: 97.9 ± 5.9, AE45: 66.7% ± 34.5%, P = 0.033), lower TBR (SE: 56.3 ± 49.6, AE90: 2.1 ± 5.9, AE45: 29.2% ± 36.5%, P = 0.041) with the greatest source of discrepancy observed relative to SE. Conclusion: In adults using an AID system and undertaking postprandial exercise, a strategy involving both bolus insulin dose reduction and exercise announcement 90 min before commencing the activity may be most effective in minimizing dysglycemia. The study was registered as a clinical trial (Clinical Trials Register; NCT05134025).

Emerging drugs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a review of phase 2 clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances in the field of diabetes management since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, there are still unmet clinical needs for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). AREAS COVERED: Genetic testing and islet autoantibodies testing allow researchers to design prevention studies. This review discusses the emerging therapy for prevention of T1DM, disease modification therapy in early course of T1DM, and therapies and technologies for established T1DM. We focus on phase 2 clinical trials with promising results, thus avoiding the exhausted list of every new therapy for T1DM. EXPERT OPINION: Teplizumab has demonstrated potential as a preventative agent for individuals at risk prior to the onset of overt dysglycemia. However, these agents are not without side effects, and there are uncertainties on long-term safety. Technological advances have led a substantial influence on quality of life of people suffering from T1DM. There remains variation in uptake of new technologies across the globe. Novel insulins (ultra-long acting), oral insulin, and inhaled insulin attempt to narrow the gap of unmet needs. Islet cell transplant is another exciting field, and stem cell therapy might have potential to provide unlimited supply of islet cells.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Therapy: From Discovery to Type 2 Diabetes and Beyond.

The therapeutic benefits of the incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1), for people with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity, are now firmly established. The evidence-base arising from head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies in people with type 2 diabetes, as well as the recommendations by professional guidelines suggest that GLP1 receptor agonists should replace more traditional treatment options such as sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors. Furthermore, their benefits in reducing cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes beyond improvements in glycaemic control has led to numerous clinical trials seeking to translate this benefit beyond type 2 diabetes. Following early trial results their therapeutic benefit is currently being tested in other conditions including fatty liver disease, kidney disease, and Alzheimer's disease.

Post hoc analysis of SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 trials suggests that people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk treated with semaglutide experience more stable kidney function compared with placebo.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists reduce albuminuria and may stabilize the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In this post hoc analysis of the SUSTAIN 6/PIONEER 6 trials encompassing 6480 participants at high cardiovascular risk (semaglutide, 3239 participants; placebo, 3241 participants), we investigated the effects of semaglutide versus placebo on eGFR decline. Pooled data by treatment were evaluated for annual eGFR change (total annual eGFR slope in ml/min per 1.73 m2) from baseline to end of treatment and time to persistent eGFR reductions of 30%, 40%, 50% and 57% or more, including subgroup analyses by baseline eGFR (30 to under 60 or 60 and over ml/min per 1.73 m2). In the overall population, the estimated treatment difference (ETD; semaglutide versus placebo) in annual eGFR slope was significant at 0.59 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval 0.29; 0.89). The ETD was numerically largest in the 30 to under 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 eGFR subgroup, 1.06 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (0.45; 1.67), but no significant interaction was observed for treatment effect by subgroup. Hazard ratios (semaglutide versus placebo) for time to persistent eGFR decline were under 1.0 for all eGFR thresholds in the overall population; and were numerically lower in the baseline eGFR 30 to under 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 subgroup versus the overall population, although no significant interaction was observed for treatment effect by subgroup. Thus, pooled analyses of clinical trial data in patients with T2D suggest that semaglutide may reduce the rate of eGFR decline.

Glycemia Around Exercise in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Automated and Nonautomated Insulin Delivery Pumps: A Switch Pilot Trial.

In an in-patient switch study, 10 adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) performed 45 min of moderate-intensity exercise on 2 occasions: (1) when using their usual insulin pump (UP) and (2) after transitioning to automated insulin delivery (AID) treatment (MiniMed™ 780G). Consensus glucose management guidelines for performing exercise were applied. Plasma glucose concentrations measured over a 3-h monitoring period were stratified into time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L), time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), and time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L). Overall, TBR (UP: 11 ± 21 vs. AID: 3% ± 10%, P = 0.413), TIR (UP: 53 ± 27 vs. AID: 66% ± 39%, P = 0.320), and TAR (UP: 37 ± 34 vs. AID: 31% ± 41%, P = 0.604) were similar between arms. A proportionately low number of people experienced exercise-induced hypoglycemia (UP: n = 2 vs. AID: n = 1, P = 1.00). In conclusion, switching to AID therapy did not alter patterns of glycemia around sustained moderate-intensity exercise in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05133765.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.

AIMS: Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.