Search

Aims To compare, in a double‐blind, randomized, multi‐national study, 52‐ or 78‐week treatment with basal insulin peglispro or insulin glargine, added to pre‐study oral antihyperglycaemic medications, in insulin‐naïve adults with type 2 diabetes. Material and methods The primary outcome was non‐inferiority of peglispro to glargine with regard to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (margin = 0.4%). Six gated secondary objectives with statistical multiplicity adjustments focused on other measures of glycaemic control and safety. Liver fat content was measured using MRI, in a subset of patients. Results Peglispro was non‐inferior to glargine in HbA1c reduction [least‐squares (LS) mean difference: −0.29%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.40, −0.19], and had a lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate [relative rate 0.74 (95% CI 0.60, 0.91); p = .005), more patients achieving HbA1c

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≤9% [75 mmol/mol]) treated with basal insulin alone or with three or fewer oral antihyperglycemic medications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 52-week, open-label, treat-to-target study randomized patients (mean HbA1c 7.42% [57.6 mmol/mol]) to BIL (n = 307) or glargine (n = 159). The primary end point was change from baseline HbA1c to 26 weeks (0.4% [4.4 mmol/mol] noninferiority margin). RESULTS At 26 weeks, reduction in HbA1c was superior with BIL versus glargine (−0.82% [−8.9 mmol/mol] vs. −0.29% [−3.2 mmol/mol]; least squares mean difference −0.52%, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.38 [−5.7 mmol/mol, 95% CI −7.3 to −4.2; P < 0.001); greater reduction in HbA1c with BIL was maintained at 52 weeks. More BIL patients achieved HbA1c CONCLUSIONS BIL provided superior glycemic control versus glargine, with reduced nocturnal and total hypoglycemia, lower glucose variability, and increased triglycerides, aminotransferases, and LFC.

Background In Phase 2/3 studies of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) compared to insulin glargine, patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulin and randomized to BIL had an increase in serum triglycerides (TGs). To further understand lipoprotein changes, a lipid substudy which included liver fat content was designed to assess relationships among the measured variables for each diabetes cohort and compare the hepato-preferential insulin BIL to glargine. Methods In three cohorts of patients with diabetes (type 1, type 2 insulin naïve, and type 2 previously on insulin; n = 652), liver fat content (LFC) was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and blood lipids were analyzed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks of treatment. Apolipoproteins, adiponectin, and other lipid parameters were also measured. Descriptive statistics were done, as well as correlation analyses to look for relationships among LFC and lipoproteins or other lipid measures. Results In patients with type 1 diabetes treated with BIL, but not glargine, small LDL and medium and large VLDL subclass concentrations increased from baseline. In patients with type 2 diabetes previously on insulin and treated with BIL, large VLDL concentration increased from baseline. In insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes treated with BIL, there were very few changes, while in those treated with glargine, small LDL and large VLDL decreased from baseline. Baseline LFC correlated significantly in one or more cohorts with baseline large VLDL, small LDL, VLDL size, and Apo C3. Changes in LFC by treatment showed generally weak correlations with lipoprotein changes, except for positive correlations with large VLDL and VLDL size. Adiponectin was higher in patients with type 1 diabetes compared to patients with type 2 diabetes, but decreased with treatment with both BIL and glargine. Conclusions The lipoprotein changes were in line with the observed changes in serum TGs; i.e., the cohorts experiencing increased TGs and LFC with BIL treatment had decreased LDL size and increased VLDL size. These data and analyses add to the currently available information on the metabolic effects of insulins in a very carefully characterized cohort of patients with diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers and dates NCT01481779 (2011), NCT01435616 (2011), NCT01454284 (2011), NCT01582451 (2012)

Aim: To compare the addition of weekly dulaglutide vs the addition of placebo to titrated glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with sub‐optimum glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration. Materials and Methods: Patients (N = 300) from this phase III, double‐blind, parallel‐arm, placebo‐controlled study were randomized to weekly subcutaneous injections of dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo with titrated daily glargine (mean ± standard deviation baseline dose: 39 ± 22 U), with or without metformin (≥1500 mg/d). The primary endpoint was superiority of dulaglutide/glargine to placebo/glargine with regard to change from baseline in HbA1c level at 28 weeks. Results: Least squares (LS) mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c changes from baseline were −1.44 ± 0.09% (−15.74 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with dulaglutide/glargine and −0.67 ± 0.09% (−7.32 ± 0.98 mmol/mol) with placebo/glargine at 28 weeks (LS mean difference [95% confidence interval] −0.77% [−0.97, −0.56]; P

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel basal insulin with hepato-preferential action resulting from reduced peripheral effects. This report provides an integrated summary of lipid changes at 26 weeks with BIL and comparator insulins (glargine, NPH) from phase III studies in type 1 diabetes (T1D), insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), patients with T2D on basal insulin only and patients with T2D on basal-bolus therapy. BIL treatment had little effect on HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in all patients. The effect of both BIL and glargine treatment on triglycerides (TG) depended on whether patients had been previously treated with insulin. When BIL replaced conventional insulin glargine or NPH treatments, increases in TG levels were observed. When BIL or comparator insulins were given for 26 weeks to insulin-naive patients with T2D, TG levels were unchanged from baseline with BIL but decreased with either glargine or NPH. The decreased peripheral action of BIL may reduce suppression of lipolysis in peripheral adipose tissue resulting in increased free fatty acid delivery to the liver and, hence, increased hepatic TG synthesis and secretion.

Prandial premixed therapy 3 times daily has been proposed recently for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who fail to achieve glycemic control with commonly used premixed insulin analogs, insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp70/30) BID.The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy and safety of 3-times daily insulin lispro mix 50/50 (TID group) with progressive titration of twice-daily LM75/25 or BIAsp70/30 (BID group) administered along with metformin in T2DM patients.This was an open-label, 16-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel trial. End point glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was the primary efficacy measure; HbA(1c) reduction from baseline to end point, percentage of patients reaching target HbA(1c) (7.0% and ≤6.5%), postprandial blood glucose (BG), and BG excursions after lunch were secondary measures. Safety was evaluated by collecting adverse events.A total of 302 patients with mean (SD) age 57.7 (9.27) years, diabetes duration 11.2 (6.47) years, HbA(1c) 8.5% (1.23), fasting BG 184.0 (53.04) mg/dL, body weight 86.8 (14.79) kg, body mass index 31.7 (4.23) kg/m(2), and daily insulin dose ∼48 IU were randomized. No significant difference was observed in end point HbA(1c) between the 2 groups. Seven-point BG profiles showed lower fasting and postbreakfast BG in the BID group but lower postlunch BG in the TID group. Daily insulin dose change was similar in both groups, with more weight gain in the TID group (P = 0.0009). Overall hypoglycemic rates were similar in both groups, but nocturnal hypoglycemia was more frequent in the BID group (P = 0.0063).In patients with T2DM who have not achieved adequate glycemic control with LM75/25 and BiAsp70/30 BID plus metformin and who are not candidates for basal bolus therapy, switching either to treatment with LM50/50 TID or to progressive titration of premix insulin analogs BID did not produce sufficient evidence of a difference of overall glycemic control between the 2 treatment groups. Short study duration and less intensive dose adjustments might have contributed to these results.

Exenatide, a synthetic peptide originally isolated from salivary secretions of Heloderma suspectum, like other subcutaneously injected peptides, can cause antibody formation. Despite that antibody formation has been observed in some patients, results from previous clinical trials have not shown safety and efficacy concerns in exenatide-naïve patients. The objective of this multicenter, open-label study was to investigate the response of anti-exenatide antibody formation and the incidence of immune-related and hypersensitivity reactions after exenatide re-exposure. Fifty-eight patients (57% male; 59+/-10 years; weight 85+/-19kg; HbA1c 8.1+/-0.9%; duration of diabetes 10+/-5 years) were enrolled. At study initiation, 98.3% of patients were taking 1 or more antidiabetes drugs, including oral medication and various types of insulin. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at any time during the study were observed in 40 and 47% of patients with positive and negative treatment-emergent antibodies, respectively. Immune-related AEs were observed in 6 patients (4 were antibody positive). These AEs had not been reported in their previous exposure to exenatide. Re-exposure to exenatide did not result in increased hypersensitivity reactions. Overall, 72% of patients had a baseline to endpoint reduction in HbA1c (range -0.1 to -2.8%), and 87% of antibody negative versus 62% of antibody positive patients had an HbA1c endpoint reduction. The study design and the patients' baseline characteristics, including diabetes treatment at study initiation, are confounding factors limiting clinical conclusions on exenatide's glycemic effect in this patient population. The study results indicate that anti-exenatide antibody formation did not increase the incidence of TEAEs in patients re-exposed to exenatide.