Weight reduction and the impact on apnea-hypopnea index: A systematic meta-analysis.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is strongly associated with obesity. While the relationship between weight reduction and apnea-hypopnea index improvement has been documented, to our knowledge, it has not been quantified adequately. Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the relationship between weight reduction and AHI change. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies reporting AHI and weight loss in people with obesity/overweight and OSA between 2000 and 2023. A linear and quadratic model (weighted by treatment arm sample size) predicted percent change from baseline AHI against mean percent change from baseline weight. The quadratic term was statistically significant (P < 0.05), so the quadratic model (with 95 % prediction interval) was used. RESULTS: The literature search identified 27 studies/32 treatment arms: 15 using bariatric surgery and lifestyle intervention each and 2 using pharmacological interventions. Included studies were ≥3 months with weight intervention and participants had AHI ≥15/h. Weight reduction in people with OSA and obesity was associated with improvements in the severity of OSA. BMI reduction of 20 % was associated with AHI reduction of 57 %, while further weight reduction beyond 20 % in BMI was associated with a smaller effect on AHI. As the prediction intervals are relatively wide, a precise relationship could not be conclusively established. CONCLUSION: The degree of AHI index improvement was associated with the magnitude of weight reduction. The model suggests that with progress in weight reduction beyond 20 %, the incremental decrease in BMI appeared to translate to a smaller additional effect on AHI.

Transitioning to active-controlled trials to evaluate cardiovascular safety and efficacy of medications for type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials (CVOTs) of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapies have mostly used randomized comparison with placebo to demonstrate non-inferiority to establish that the investigational drug does not increase CV risk. Recently, several glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) demonstrated reduced CV risk. Consequently, future T2DM therapy trials could face new ethical and clinical challenges if CVOTs continue with the traditional, placebo-controlled design. To address this challenge, here we review the methodologic considerations in transitioning to active-controlled CVOTs and describe the statistical design of a CVOT to assess non-inferiority versus an active comparator and if non-inferiority is proven, using novel methods to assess for superiority versus an imputed placebo. Specifically, as an example of such methodology, we introduce the statistical considerations used for the design of the "Effect of Tirzepatide versus Dulaglutide on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes" trial (SURPASS CVOT). It is the first active-controlled CVOT assessing antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with T2DM designed to demonstrate CV efficacy of the investigational drug, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 RA, by establishing non-inferiority to an active comparator with proven CV efficacy, dulaglutide. To determine the efficacy margin for the hazard ratio, tirzepatide versus dulaglutide, for the composite CV outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (MACE-3), which is required to claim superiority versus an imputed placebo, the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide compared with placebo was estimated using a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of placebo-controlled CVOTs of GLP-1 RAs. SURPASS CVOT was designed so that when the observed upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio is less than the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide, it demonstrates non-inferiority to dulaglutide by preserving at least 50% of the CV benefit of dulaglutide as well as statistical superiority of tirzepatide to a theoretical placebo (imputed placebo analysis). The presented methods adding imputed placebo comparison for efficacy assessment may serve as a model for the statistical design of future active-controlled CVOTs.

Guidance on the implementation and reporting of a drug safety Bayesian network meta-analysis.

The Drug Information Association Bayesian Scientific Working Group (BSWG) was formed in 2011 with a vision to ensure that Bayesian methods are well understood and broadly utilized for design and analysis and throughout the medical product development process, and to improve industrial, regulatory, and economic decision making. The group, composed of individuals from academia, industry, and regulatory, has as its mission to facilitate the appropriate use and contribute to the progress of Bayesian methodology. In this paper, the safety sub-team of the BSWG explores the use of Bayesian methods when applied to drug safety meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Guidance is presented on the conduct and reporting of such analyses. We also discuss different structural model assumptions and provide discussion on prior specification. The work is illustrated through a case study involving a network meta-analysis related to the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

The current state of Bayesian methods in medical product development: survey results and recommendations from the DIA Bayesian Scientific Working Group.

Bayesian applications in medical product development have recently gained popularity. Despite many advances in Bayesian methodology and computations, increase in application across the various areas of medical product development has been modest. The DIA Bayesian Scientific Working Group (BSWG), which includes representatives from industry, regulatory agencies, and academia, has adopted the vision to ensure Bayesian methods are well understood, accepted more broadly, and appropriately utilized to improve decision making and enhance patient outcomes. As Bayesian applications in medical product development are wide ranging, several sub-teams were formed to focus on various topics such as patient safety, non-inferiority, prior specification, comparative effectiveness, joint modeling, program-wide decision making, analytical tools, and education. The focus of this paper is on the recent effort of the BSWG Education sub-team to administer a Bayesian survey to statisticians across 17 organizations involved in medical product development. We summarize results of this survey, from which we provide recommendations on how to accelerate progress in Bayesian applications throughout medical product development. The survey results support findings from the literature and provide additional insight on regulatory acceptance of Bayesian methods and information on the need for a Bayesian infrastructure within an organization. The survey findings support the claim that only modest progress in areas of education and implementation has been made recently, despite substantial progress in Bayesian statistical research and software availability.

Exenatide once weekly versus liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists exenatide and liraglutide have been shown to improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly with liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a 26 week, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study at 105 sites in 19 countries between Jan 11, 2010, and Jan 17, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle modification and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with a voice response system, to receive injections of once-daily liraglutide (1·8 mg) or once-weekly exenatide (2 mg). Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to week 26. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01029886. FINDINGS: Of 912 randomised patients, 911 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (450 liraglutide, 461 exenatide). The least-squares mean change in HbA(1c) was greater in patients in the liraglutide group (-1·48%, SE 0·05; n=386) than in those in the exenatide group (-1·28%, 0·05; 390) with the treatment difference (0·21%, 95% CI 0·08-0·33) not meeting predefined non-inferiority criteria (upper limit of CI <0·25%). The most common adverse events were nausea (93 [21%] in the liraglutide group vs 43 [9%] in the exenatide group), diarrhoea (59 [13%] vs 28 [6%]), and vomiting 48 [11%] vs 17 [4%]), which occurred less frequently in the exenatide group and with decreasing incidence over time in both groups. 24 (5%) patients allocated to liraglutide and 12 (3%) allocated to exenatide discontinued participation because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Both once daily liraglutide and once weekly exenatide led to improvements in glycaemic control, with greater reductions noted with liraglutide. These findings, plus differences in injection frequency and tolerability, could inform therapeutic decisions for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC.

Baseline factors associated with glycemic control and weight loss when exenatide twice daily is added to optimized insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine variables associated with glycemic and body weight responses when adding exenatide to basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Exploratory subgroup analyses based on baseline A1C, disease duration, and BMI of a 30-week study comparing exenatide twice daily to placebo, added to optimized insulin glargine (intent-to-treat analysis: 137 exenatide; 122 placebo). RESULTS: Exenatide participants had greater A1C reductions compared with optimized insulin glargine alone, irrespective of baseline A1C (P < 0.001). Exenatide participants with longer diabetes duration and those with lower BMI had greater A1C reductions (P < 0.01). Exenatide participants lost more weight, regardless of baseline A1C or BMI (P < 0.05). Exenatide participants with longer diabetes duration lost the most weight (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide added to optimized basal insulin was associated with improved glycemic control and weight loss, irrespective of baseline A1C, diabetes duration, and BMI. Changes were evident in modestly obese patients and in those with longer diabetes duration.

Use of twice-daily exenatide in Basal insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin replacement in diabetes often requires prandial intervention to reach hemoglobin A1(c) (HbA1(c)) targets. OBJECTIVE: To test whether twice-daily exenatide injections reduce HbA1(c) levels more than placebo in people receiving insulin glargine. DESIGN: Parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, blocked and stratified by HbA1(c) level at site, performed from October 2008 to January 2010. Participants, investigators, and personnel conducting the study were masked to treatment assignments. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00765817) SETTING: 59 centers in 5 countries. PATIENTS: Adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1(c) level of 7.1% to 10.5% who were receiving insulin glargine alone or in combination with metformin or pioglitazone (or both agents). INTERVENTION: Assignment by a centralized, computer-generated, random-sequence interactive voice-response system to exenatide, 10 µg twice daily, or placebo for 30 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in HbA1(c) level. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of participants with HbA1(c) values of 7.0% or less and 6.5% or less, 7-point self-monitored glucose profiles, body weight, waist circumference, insulin dose, hypoglycemia, and adverse events. RESULTS: 112 of 138 exenatide recipients and 101 of 123 placebo recipients completed the study. The HbA1(c) level decreased by 1.74% with exenatide and 1.04% with placebo (between-group difference, -0.69% [95% CI, -0.93% to -0.46%]; P < 0.001). Weight decreased by 1.8 kg with exenatide and increased by 1.0 kg with placebo (between-group difference, -2.7 kg [CI, -3.7 to -1.7]). Average increases in insulin dosage with exenatide and placebo were 13 U/d and 20 U/d. The estimated rate of minor hypoglycemia was similar between groups. Thirteen exenatide recipients and 1 placebo recipient discontinued the study because of adverse events (P < 0.010); rates of nausea (41% vs. 8%), diarrhea (18% vs. 8%), vomiting (18% vs. 4%), headache (14% vs. 4%), and constipation (10% vs. 2%) were higher with exenatide than with placebo. LIMITATIONS: The study was of short duration. There were slight imbalances between groups at baseline in terms of sex, use of concomitant glucose-lowering medications, and HbA1(c) levels, and more exenatide recipients than placebo recipients withdrew because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Adding twice-daily exenatide injections improved glycemic control without increased hypoglycemia or weight gain in participants with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine treatment. Adverse events of exenatide included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, headache, and constipation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Alliance of Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

Impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens: a post hoc analysis of clinical trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID). RESULTS: Race/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level <7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A1c level <7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients. CONCLUSIONS: Latino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity.

Safety and efficacy of AIR inhaled insulin compared with subcutaneous insulin in patients having diabetes and asthma: A 12-month, randomized, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term safety and efficacy of AIR((R)) inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) in patients with diabetes and concomitant lung disease remain to be established. METHODS: This 1-year, randomized, open-label, active comparator, two-arm, parallel study compared the safety and efficacy of AIR insulin to subcutaneous (SC) insulin in patients having type 1 or type 2 diabetes and asthma. Patients with type 2 diabetes continued taking their prestudy oral antihyperglycemic medication. RESULTS: Change in hemoglobin A1C from baseline to end point was similar for the AIR insulin and SC insulin groups (-0.063 +/- 0.128% and -0.315 +/- 0.128% respectively, P = 0.105), but noninferiority failed to be achieved (the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval [-0.053, 0.555] was >0.4%). The total daily prandial dose increased more in the AIR insulin group than in the SC insulin group (0.150 U/kg and 0.044 U/kg, respectively, P = 0.002). Safety profiles were generally comparable between treatments. At end point, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) postbronchodilator (-0.016 +/- 0.005 vs. 0.002 +/- 0.005, P = 0.006) and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (-1.214 +/- 0.325 mL/min/torr vs. -0.383 +/- 0.311 mL/min/torr, P = 0.028) both decreased more in the AIR insulin group than in the SC insulin group, but the differences were not present at follow-up. FEV(1) and FVC were similar between treatment groups at end point. Incidences of hypoglycemia were comparable between groups. Insulin antibody binding increased more in the AIR insulin group. Cough was the most common adverse event; however, there was no difference in incidence between the AIR insulin (15.3%) and SC insulin (12.4%) treatment groups (P = 0.572). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have diabetes and asthma, AIR insulin demonstrated glycemic efficacy similar to SC insulin. Additionally, the safety profile of AIR insulin in patients with and without asthma is consistent.

Comparison of prandial AIR inhaled insulin alone to intensified insulin glargine alone and to AIR insulin plus intensified insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with once-daily insulin glargine.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes often initiate insulin with once-daily basal insulin. Over time, many patients intensify their insulin regimens in an attempt to attain and sustain glycemic targets. This study compares three intensification approaches: changing insulin glargine to preprandial AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.), intensifying glargine via validated titration algorithms (IG), or adding AIR insulin while intensifying glargine (AIR + IG). METHODS: Five hundred sixty patients with hemoglobin A(1c) (A1C) of 7.5-10.5%, on one or more antihyperglycemic medications, and on once-daily insulin glargine for > or =4 months were randomly allocated to one of the three treatments lasting 52 weeks. The primary objective assessed between-group differences in A1C mean change from baseline to 24 weeks using last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, A1C was reduced from a mean baseline of 8.5% to 7.7%, 7.9%, and 7.5% for the AIR, IG, and AIR + IG groups, respectively. AIR produced 0.20% greater A1C decrease than IG (least-squares mean difference = -0.20%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.39, -0.02). AIR + IG had a 0.35% greater A1C decrease versus IG (95% CI, -0.57, -0.13). The -0.15% difference between AIR + IG versus AIR was not significant (P < 0.198). More hypoglycemia categorized as severe occurred with AIR alone versus IG alone at LOCF end points. More nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred with IG alone versus AIR alone and AIR + IG. CONCLUSIONS: Preprandial inhaled insulin provides an alternative for patients not optimized on insulin glargine alone. Glycemic control, hypoglycemic risk, delivery preference, and regimen complexity must be considered when selecting insulin initiation and optimization regimens.