Safety and efficacy of liraglutide versus colesevelam for the treatment of bile acid diarrhoea: a randomised, double-blind, active-comparator, non-inferiority clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Bile acid diarrhoea is an underdiagnosed disease estimated to affect 1-2% of the general population. Case reports indicate that the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide might be an effective treatment for bile acid diarrhoea. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of liraglutide for the treatment of bile acid diarrhoea. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, active-comparator, double-dummy, non-inferiority clinical trial at the Center for Clinical Metabolic Research at Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark. Patients aged 18-75 years with 75selenium-homotaurocholic acid test (SeHCAT)-verified moderate-to-severe primary bile acid diarrhoea were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive liraglutide (one daily subcutaneous injection uptitrated from 0·6-1·8 mg per day over 3 weeks) or colesevelam (three capsules of 625 mg twice daily), the standard of care, for 6 weeks following one run-in week with no treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants experiencing a reduction in daily stool frequency of 25% or greater after 6 weeks. Data from all participants were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. The non-inferiority limit was set to 15% in favour of colesevelam. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2018-003575-34) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2021, 52 patients were enrolled; 26 were assigned to liraglutide and 26 to colesevelam. 20 (77%) of 26 participants on liraglutide and 13 (50%) of 26 on colesevelam experienced a 25% or greater reduction in stool frequency, corresponding to a significant risk difference of -27% in favour of liraglutide (one-sided 95% CI -100 to -6). Liraglutide was therefore superior to colesevelam in reducing daily stool frequency. Mild nausea with a duration of 10-21 days was reported by six participants in the liraglutide group and by one participant in the colesevelam group. No other adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The superiority of liraglutide compared with colesevelam in reducing stool frequency suggests consideration of liraglutide as a potential new treatment modality for bile acid diarrhoea, although larger confirmatory trials powered for superiority are warranted. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Foundation for the Advancement of Medical Science under The A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation.

IW-3718 Reduces Heartburn Severity in Patients With Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) reduces quality of life and creates significant financial burden on the health care system. Approximately 30% of patients with GERD who receive label-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) still have symptoms. We performed a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IW-3718, a bile acid sequestrant, as an adjunct to PPI therapy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, from March 2016 through April 2017, of 280 patients with confirmed GERD. The patients, stratified by esophagitis status, were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to groups given placebo or IW-3718 (500, 1000, or 1500 mg) twice daily, with ongoing label-dose PPI. The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline to week 8 in weekly heartburn severity score. We also analyzed percent change from baseline to week 8 in weekly regurgitation frequency score. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline to week 8 in weekly heartburn severity scores were reductions of 46.0% in the placebo group, 49.0% in the 500 mg group, 55.1% in the 1000 mg group, and 58.0% in the 1500 mg IW-3718 group (dose-response P = .02). The treatment difference was 11.9% between the 1500 mg IW-3718 and placebo groups (P = .04, analysis of covariance). The mean change in weekly regurgitation frequency score from baseline to week 8 in the 1500 mg IW-3718 vs placebo groups was a reduction of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, reductions of 31.4% to 3.6%). The most common adverse event was constipation (in 8.1% of patients receiving IW-3718 and 7.1% of patients receiving placebo). There were no drug-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with refractory GERD, adding 1500 mg IW-3718 to label-dose PPIs significantly reduced heartburn symptoms compared with adding placebo. Regurgitation symptoms also decreased. IW-3718 was well tolerated. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02637557).

Preclinical discovery and development of colesevelam for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major global health challenge associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Intervention strategies managing multiple risk factors (hyperglycemia, hypertension and dyslipidemia) in patients with T2D can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by ~50%. Areas covered: Herein, the authors provide an update on the development and clinical potential of colesevelam as a glucose-lowering drug in T2D. Furthermore, they outline the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the clinical efficacy and safety data from the studies carried out to obtain market authorization for colesevelam. Expert opinion: Four phase III clinical trials provide evidence that colesevelam, as a monotherapy and add-on to various background glucose-lowering treatments, confers placebo-corrected reductions in HbA1c of ~5 mmol/mol. In addition, colesevelam reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and total cholesterol. Some antidiabetic agents seem superior to colesevelam in terms of clinical efficiency (HbA1c lowering), tolerability/convenience, and price. Nonetheless, colesevelam offers a clinically relevant combination of HbA1c- and LDL-lowering that in selected patients could be relevant as add-on treatment to other glucose-lowering drugs and a statin. Potential patients include those with renal impairment, and patients that are close to reaching their lipid and glycemic treatment goals but need further LDL and HbA1c reductions.

Bile acid sequestrants for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate the effects of bile acid sequestrants (BASs) versus placebo, no intervention or active comparators on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data were retrieved and a systematic review with meta-analyses was performed. We evaluated bias control and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity and bias. RESULTS: We included 17 trials with a total of 2950 patients randomized to BASs (colesevelam or colestimide) versus placebo, no intervention, statins or sitagliptin. Random-effects meta-analysis showed that patients randomized to BASs had a lower hemoglobin A1c at the end of treatment compared with the control group (mean difference-0.55%; 95% confidence interval-0.64 to -0.46). Analysis of trials with low risk of bias in all domains confirmed the findings. Data on adverse events were limited. There were no differences between trials stratified by the control group and no evidence of publication bias or small study effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses found that BAS treatment improves glycemic control. The size of the effect was clinically relevant and despite limited safety data, our findings support the inclusion of BASs in current diabetes management algorithms for type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 Diabetes Medication Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes and their healthcare providers have a variety of medication options available for treating elevated blood glucose values. These medication choices have expanded drastically over the last 10 years with a large number of glucose lowering medications gaining FDA approval. METHODS: Here, we have included an extensive search of the type 2 diabetes literature focusing on articles which impact patient-oriented evidence that maters (POEMs). RESULTS: Choosing the best agent(s) can be challenging and requires weighing the risks and benefits of each particular medication. Tailoring medications to individual patients should be prioritized based on trials with cardiovascular outcome data, potential hemoglobin A1c reduction/goal, serious medication precautions and side-effects, co-morbid medical conditions, and cost. CONCLUSIONS: This paper will provide the reader with an overview of the pros and cons for each antiglycemic medication class and specific drugs where appropriate. Data relevant to most patient centered encounters will be provided, including safety, tolerability, efficacy, cost, and simplicity of use.