Search

Vaccinations are an important preventive measure against viral diseases and have saved many lives since their introduction. Nowadays, any doctor can administer a vaccination. Patients with chronic diseases should be vaccinated according to indications. In general, it is advisable to carry out co-administration, which is usually possible without any problems with many vaccines, especially inactivated vaccines. Appropriate quality management can avoid complications. It is also important to inform patients about vaccinations and, if necessary, to remind them of their second appointment after the first vaccination in order to ensure maximum effectiveness., Competing Interests: Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien. Interessenkonflikt: J. Floege: Honorare für Beratungen und Vorträge von AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Vifor, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, und Stadapharm T. Schwarz: Honorare für Beratungen, Vorträge und klinische Studien von Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, DDG, Daiichi-Sankyo, diateam, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Grünenthal, GSK, IQVIA, med-info GmbH, NewAmsterdam, Novo Nordisk, Parexel, Sanofi-Aventis, Santis, Vertanical; TS ist Vorsitzender des BVND (Bundesverband der Niedergelassenen Diabetologen), Vorstandsmitglied des BVNDS (Berufsverband niedergelassener Diabetologen in Sachsen) und des Hartmannbundes, LV Sachsen.. C. Wanner: Honorare für Steuerungskomitees, Beratungen und Vorträge von AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL-Vifor, Eli-Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Novo Nordisk und Sanofi. U. Heemann: Honorare für Beratungen und Vorträge von GSK. B. Gallwitz: Honorare für Beratungen und Vorträge von AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fractyl, GSK, Lilly und Novo Nordisk. O. Witzke: Honorare für Beratungen, Vorträge und klinische Studien von Amgen, Alexion, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Basilea, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Correvio, Chiesi, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Janssen, Dr. F. Köhler Chemie, Moderna, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Shionogi, Takeda, TEVA, Tillotts und UCB. Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Metformin has been recommended as first-line pharmacological therapy in type‑2 diabetes (T2D) since 1998. It was the first medication that demonstrated cardiovascular benefits in obese subjects with T2D. Efficacy and safety of metformin have since been demonstrated in further studies and in real-world data on its use in practice. The recommendation of metformin as baseline therapy has reached wide acceptance internationally. During the period 2015-2021, large cardiovascular safety trials showed superiority for cardiovascular morbidity and partly also mortality outcomes for most substances of the novel antidiabetic substance classes of GLP‑1 receptor agonists and SGLT‑2 inhibitors in people with T2D and very high cardiovascular risk or preexisting cardiovascular disease. The evidence for these two substance classes is now broader than for metformin. Therefore, the question arises as to whether it is still justified to recommend metformin generally as first-line therapy in T2D. This article provides an overview of the study data as well as an overview of the evidence-based guidelines. The status and position of metformin in the treatment of T2D are discussed., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: R. Landgraf, as first author, declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Advisory boards: Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk Pharma; lecture fees: Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk. Other activities: Trustee of the German Diabetes Foundation, member of the steering group for the development and updating of the National Healthcare Guidelines on Diabetes.J. Aberle declares that he has received fees as a member of advisory committees and as a speaker from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Institutional research funding: Boehringer Ingelheim.As co-author, B. Gallwitz declares the following potential conflicts of interest in the last 3 years: Advisory boards/consultant activities: AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk; lecture fees: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk.Company shares: none.As co-author, M. Kellerer declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Research Support (RCT): AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk. Membership in advisory bodies: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Lecture fees: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk.As co-author, H. H. Klein declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Advisory body: Janssen Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis; Lecture fee: Berlin-Chemie.As co-author, D. Müller-Wieland declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Member of the advisory board and lecture fees over the last 3 years of the following companies: Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi.M. A. Nauck, as co-author, declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Membership of advisory committees or consultant fees: Berlin Chemie, Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Regor, ShouTi (Gasherbrum); lecture fees: Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, research support: Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk.T. Wiesner is a member of the respective advisory boards and has received lecture fees from the following companies: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Berlin Chemie; Novo Nordisk. E. Siegel, as a co-author, declares that he has had no economic or personal connections with the manuscript during the last 3 years.

Gastrointestinal hormones play an important role in the endocrine communication between the intestine, the pancreas, the liver and the brain. Glucagon-like peptide‑1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are established therapeutic agents in the treatment of type‑2 diabetes. Multiple agonists acting as ligands on various gastrointestinal hormone receptors are a novel pharmacological development. In addition to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), these multiple agonists also have glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and/or glucagon receptors as target structures for their pharmacological action. The multiple agonist action is designed to increase glycaemic effects as well as the effects on body weight. This article provides an overview of GLP-1RA and the multiple agonists. Among the dual agonists, the GIP/GLP-1-agonist tirzeptide has been approved for the treatment of type‑2 diabetes, and clinical studies with tirzepatide as a treatment for obesity are ongoing. The currently available data on studies with GLP-1/glucagon agonists and triple agonists are also summarized., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Incretin-based therapies with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are already established in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The development of novel dual- or triple-receptor agonists that bind to the receptors not only for GLP-1 but also to the receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and/or glucagon is intended to address different metabolic pathways for carbohydrate, lipid, and protein metabolism simultaneously. Dual- and triple-receptor agonists acting via different receptors and postreceptor pathways seem attractive in view of potentially additive or synergistic effects in the treatment of T2D and obesity. Recently, the first approval for a dual-receptor agonist marks an important step in this development. The GIP/GLP-1-receptor agonist tirzepatide was approved for the treatment of T2D by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA for once-weekly subcutaneous injections in May 2022 and has just received a positive opinion from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Tirzepatide dose-dependently leads to clinically significant reductions in glycemic parameters and body weight and has been shown to have stronger effects in reducing these parameters than standard antidiabetic therapy. This article summarizes the current clinical study program and the respective outcomes and highlights further potential indications for tirzepatide in the treatment of obesity and potentially other comorbidities of T2D., Competing Interests: The author has provided advisory services to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novo Nordisk, and has received lecture honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and the above-mentioned companies., (Copyright © 2022 Gallwitz.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Advanced age, followed by male sex, by far poses the greatest risk for severe COVID-19. An unresolved question is the extent to which modifiable comorbidities increase the risk of COVID-19-related mortality among younger patients, in whom COVID-19-related hospitalization strongly increased in 2021. A total of 3,163 patients with SARS-COV-2 diagnosis in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) cohort were studied. LEOSS is a European non-interventional multi-center cohort study established in March 2020 to investigate the epidemiology and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data from hospitalized patients and those who received ambulatory care, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, were included in the study. An additive effect of obesity, diabetes and hypertension on the risk of mortality was observed, which was particularly strong in young and middle-aged patients. Compared to young and middle-aged (18-55 years) patients without obesity, diabetes and hypertension (non-obese and metabolically healthy; n = 593), young and middle-aged adult patients with all three risk parameters (obese and metabolically unhealthy; n = 31) had a similar adjusted increased risk of mortality [OR 7.42 (95% CI 1.55-27.3)] as older (56-75 years) non-obese and metabolically healthy patients [ n = 339; OR 8.21 (95% CI 4.10-18.3)]. Furthermore, increased CRP levels explained part of the elevated risk of COVID-19-related mortality with age, specifically in the absence of obesity and impaired metabolic health. In conclusion, the modifiable risk factors obesity, diabetes and hypertension increase the risk of COVID-19-related mortality in young and middle-aged patients to the level of risk observed in advanced age., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Stefan, Sippel, Heni, Fritsche, Wagner, Jakob, Preißl, von Werder, Khodamoradi, Borgmann, Rüthrich, Hanses, Haselberger, Piepel, Hower, vom Dahl, Wille, Römmele, Vehreschild, Stecher, Solimena, Roden, Schürmann, Gallwitz, Hrabe de Angelis, Ludwig, Schulze, Jensen and Birkenfeld.)

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease. Recently introduced new subclassifications promise more efficacious, tailored treatments which could complement current guidelines. In the differentiation of the new diabetes subphenotypes, assessment of insulin secretion is one of the essential components. Based on a large number of insulin secretion measurements, we propose fasting C-peptide/glucose ratio (CGR) as an adequate and practicable estimate of insulin secretion. CGR discriminates insulin deficiency from insulin hypersecretion. We suggest using insulin secretion, determined from CGR, as an essential input for therapeutic decisions at the beginning or modification of diabetes treatment. Furthermore, we propose 3 practical steps to guide decisions in the subtype-specific therapy of diabetes mellitus. The first step consists of detecting insulin deficiency indicated by a low CGR with the need for immediate insulin therapy. The second step is related to high CGR and aims at lowering cardiovascular risk associated with diabetes. The third step is the consideration of a de-escalation of glucose-lowering therapy in individuals with mild diabetes subphenotypes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial, relapsing disease. Despite multicomponent lifestyle interventions, including pharmacotherapy, maintaining bodyweight loss is challenging for many people. The pathophysiology of obesity is complex, and currently approved pharmacotherapies only target a few of the many pathways involved; thus, single-targeting agents have limited efficacy. Proglucagon-derived peptides, glucagon, and the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), represent attractive targets for managing obesity and metabolic disorders because they may have direct roles in multiple mechanisms including satiety, energy homeostasis, and lipolytic activity. Unimolecular dual and triple agonists targeting glucagon and incretin hormone receptors have been shown to promote bodyweight loss, lower glucose levels, and reduce food intake in animal models of obesity. Multiple dual receptor agonists are in clinical development for the treatment of obesity, including GLP-1/GIP and GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonists. The extent to which glucagon contributes to treatment effects remains to be understood, but it may promote bodyweight loss by reducing food intake, while concomitant GLP-1 receptor agonism ensures normal glucose control. Further research is required to fully understand the molecular mechanisms of action and metabolic effects of both dual and triple receptor agonists., (© 2021 The Authors. Obesity Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.)

Competing Interests: JM has received lecture honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; has received reimbursement of congress participation fees and travel expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; and has initiated projects supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. FG has received research support from Eli Lilly, Lifescan, and Takeda; and has provided advisory services to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lifescan, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi. BG has received lecture honoraria and provided advisory services to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novo Nordisk; and has received lecture honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb. The author declares that this article received funding from Novo Nordisk. The funder had the following involvement in the article: medical writing support.

Early and effective glycemic control can prevent or delay the complications associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are becoming increasingly recognized and they now feature prominently in international T2D treatment recommendations and guidelines across the disease continuum. However, despite providing effective glycemic control, weight loss, and a low risk of hypoglycemia, GLP-1RAs are currently underutilized in clinical practice. The long-acting GLP-1RA, semaglutide, is available for once-weekly injection and in a new once-daily oral formulation. Semaglutide is an advantageous choice for the treatment of T2D since it has greater efficacy in reducing glycated hemoglobin and body weight compared with other GLP-1RAs, has demonstrated benefits in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, and has a favorable profile in special populations (e.g., patients with hepatic impairment or renal impairment). The oral formulation represents a useful option to help improve acceptance and adherence compared with injectable formulations for patients with a preference for oral therapy, and may lead to earlier and broader use of GLP-1RAs in the T2D treatment trajectory. Oral semaglutide should be taken on an empty stomach, which may influence the choice of formulation. As with most GLP-1RAs, initial dose escalation of semaglutide is required for both formulations to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse events. There are also specific dose instructions to follow with oral semaglutide to ensure sufficient gastric absorption. The evidence base surrounding the clinical use of semaglutide is being further expanded with trials investigating effects on diabetic retinopathy, cardiovascular outcomes, and on the common T2D comorbidities of obesity, chronic kidney disease, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. These will provide further information about whether the benefits of semaglutide extend to these other indications., Competing Interests: FG has received research support from Eli Lilly, Lifescan, and Takeda, and has provided advisory services to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lifescan, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi. BG has provided advisory services to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novo Nordisk, and has received lecture honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and the above-mentioned companies. The authors declare that this article received funding from Novo Nordisk. The funder had the following involvement in the article: medical writing support., (Copyright © 2021 Gallwitz and Giorgino.)

Competing Interests: R. Landgraf is the lead author and declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Advisory Boards: Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk Pharma; has received lecture fees from: AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk Pharma. Other activities: Representative of the Executive Board of the German Diabetes Foundation, Steering committee for the development and updating of the National Treatment Guidelines/Nationalen Versorgungsleitlinien Diabetes. J. Aberle is a member of advisory boards and has received lecture fees from: Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care. Institutional research funding: Astra Zeneca. A. L. Birkenfeld is member of Advisory Boards and has received lecture fees from: Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Institutional research funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. B. Gallwitz declares the following potential conflicts of interest over the last 3 years: Advisory Boards/Consultancy: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Novo Nordisk; Lecturing activities: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi; Company shares: none. M. Kellerer is a co-author and declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Research support: GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca; Consultancy: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk; Lecturing activities: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi. H. Klein declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Janssen Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim; Lecture fees: Berlin-Chemie. D. Müller-Wieland declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Member of the Advisory Board and lecture fees in the last 3 years from the following companies: Amgen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi. M. A. Nauck declares the following potential conflicts of interest: Member of the Advisory Board: Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Eli Lilly & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Intarcia Therapeutics; Consultancy fees: AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, MSD, Novo Nordisk; Fees: AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Medscape, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Research Support: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly & Co., GSK, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Novartis. H.-M. Reuter declares that he has served on Advisory Boards for Lilly Germany, Berlin-Chemie, MSD, Novo Nordisk, BMS and AstraZeneca over the past 3 years and has received lecture fees from Lilly, MSD, Berlin-Chemie, BMS, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi and AstraZeneca. E. Siegel declares that he had no economic or personal conflicts of interest concerning this manuscript.

DPP-4 inhibitors were introduced for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2006. They stimulate insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion by elevating endogenous GLP-1 concentrations without an intrinsic hypoglycaemia risk. Their efficacy potential to lower HbA1c is in the range between 0.5 and 1.0% and their safety profile is favorable. DPP-4 inhibitors are body weight neutral and they have demonstrated cardiovascular safety. Most compounds can be used in impaired renal function. Guidelines suggest the additional use of DPP-4 inhibitors after metformin failure in patients that do not require antidiabetic therapy with proven cardiovascular benefit. Recently, DPP-4 inhibitors have increasingly replaced sulfonylureas as second line therapy after metformin failure and many metformin/DPP-4 inhibitor fixed dose combinations are available. In later stages of type 2 diabetes, DPP-4 inhibitors are also recommended in the guidelines in triple therapies with metformin and SGLT-2 inhibitors or with metformin and insulin. A treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors should be stopped when GLP-1 receptor agonists are used. DPP-4 inhibitors can be used as monotherapy when metformin is contraindicated or not tolerated. Some studies have shown value of initial metformin-DPP-4 inhibitor combination therapy in special populations. This article gives an overview on the clinical use of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla; 100 U/mL) with originator insulin glargine, Lantus (Sa-Gla), in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)., Materials and Methods: This phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 52-week study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02059161) enrolled 508 people with T1DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%; 97 mmol/mol) taking basal and prandial insulin. Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 245) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Dose titration of basal insulin was by a pre-breakfast plasma glucose dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was assessment of the non-inferiority of HbA1c change from baseline (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) for Mk-Gla compared with Sa-Gla over 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was assessment of anti-insulin antibody development over 24 weeks., Results: The least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 24 was -0.62 (95% CI -0.79, -0.45)% (-6.8 [-8.7, -4.9] mmol/mol) and -0.66 (-0.82, -0.50)% (-7.2 [-9.0, -5.4] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla. The LS mean HbA1c difference was 0.04 (-0.11, 0.19)% (0.4 [-1.2, 2.0] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla, meeting the primary and secondary objective criteria for non-inferiority and equivalence. Week 24 mean insulin glargine dose for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla was 0.46 and 0.48 U/kg, respectively. Similarity of HbA1c response and basal insulin dose trajectory persisted over the 52 weeks. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins over the 52-week study duration., Conclusions: Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla exhibited similar efficacy and safety over 52 weeks in people with T1DM. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059161., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla) and Lantus (Sa-Gla) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Materials and Methods: This Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 24-week clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02059187) enrolled 531 participants with T2DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%) either eligible for or currently taking basal insulin (≥10 U/day). Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 263) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Titration of insulin was guided by a fasting plasma glucose (FPG)-based dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of change from baseline in HbA1c (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) with Mk-Gla versus Sa-Gla after 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was anti-insulin antibody development after 24 weeks., Results: For Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla, the least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline (95% CI) was -1.28 (-1.41, -1.15)% (-14.0 [-15.4, -12.6] mmol/mol) and -1.30 (-1.43, -1.18)% (-14.2 [-15.6, -12.8] mmol/mol). The LS mean HbA1c difference (Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla) was 0.03 (-0.12, 0.18)% (0.3 [-1.4, 1.9] mmol/mol), meeting non-inferiority and equivalence (secondary objective) criteria. Insulin doses, FPG, and seven-point plasma glucose profiles were similar between groups. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins. The efficacy and safety of Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla were similar both in participants who were insulin-treated or insulin-naïve at baseline., Conclusions: Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla demonstrated similar efficacy and safety over 24 weeks of treatment in people with T2DM., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with numerous comorbidities that significantly reduce quality of life, increase mortality and complicate treatment decisions. In a recent cardiovascular outcomes trial, Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin was shown to reduce cardiovascular (CV) mortality and heart failure in high-risk patients with T2D with a previous CV event or with established CV disease (CVD). Recently published data from the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS-PROGRAM) study suggested that the cardiovascular benefits of empagliflozin are also seen with the SGLT2-inhibitor canagliflozin, indicating a class effect of SGLT2 inhibitors. Evidence for a class effect has also been shown by meta-analyses and real-world studies, including the Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors (CVD-REAL) and The Health Improvement Network (THIN) databases. These findings also suggest the results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME can be applied to patients with T2D with a broader CV risk profile, including people at low risk of CVD., Competing Interests: Disclosure: Baptist Gallwitz discloses the following: Board Member/Advisory Panel for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Novartis, Novo Nordisk. Speaker honoraria: Amgen, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi.

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes by subgroups of gender, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the dulaglutide clinical development programme (AWARD-1 to -6 and -8 clinical trials)., Methods: Change in HbA1c was analysed by gender, duration of diabetes (<5, ≥5 years and <10, ≥10 years), and baseline HbA1c (<8.5%, ≥8.5%) in pooled and individual studies. Changes from baseline in weight, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were evaluated for individual trials., Results: In the pooled analysis of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg at 6 months, the reductions in HbA1c from baseline were similar across gender (men: least squares [LS] mean -1.26% [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.36, -1.16]; women: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.24]) and among duration of diabetes subgroups (<5 years: LS mean -1.32% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥5 and <10 years: LS mean -1.33% [95% CI -1.43, -1.22]; ≥10 years: -1.24% [95% CI -1.35, -1.14]). Patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% had greater HbA1c reductions than patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5%, (≥8.5%: LS mean -1.86% [95% CI -1.97, -1.75]; <8.5%: LS mean -1.02% [95% CI -1.12, -0.93]). Reductions in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were consistent with HbA1c changes. Similar results were observed with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. In general, body weight changes were similar among duration of diabetes and in baseline HbA1c subgroups, respectively; women had a numerically greater weight loss or less weight gain than men with both dulaglutide doses. There was no clinically meaningful difference in hypoglycaemia trends by gender or duration of diabetes. Hypoglycaemia incidence and rate were generally lower in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% than in those with <8.5%, except for the AWARD-4 study (combination with mealtime insulin)., Conclusions: Across the AWARD studies, dulaglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control irrespective of gender, duration of diabetes, or baseline HbA1c, with greater HbA1c and FBG reductions in patients with a higher baseline HbA1c. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) and sodium-glucose-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycemic parameters and possess a very low intrinsic hypoglycemia risk and favorable cardiovascular data. Areas covered: An overview on the clinical studies investigating the combination therapy with the DPP-4i linagliptin and the SGLT-2i empagliflozin is given. The clinical evidence for the efficacy and safety of free combinations as well as for their fixed dose combinations is presented. Empagliflozin has recently proved to reduce cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular high risk situations. A fixed dose combination (FDC) of empagliflozin and linagliptin as add on therapy to metformin or as initial treatment lowered the HbA1c by approximately 1.1% and reduced the body weight by 2.0-3.0 kg. The hypoglycemia risk was not significantly increased. The relevant studies were identified by a search in Medline and in clinicaltrials.gov. Expert opinion/commentary: A DPP-4i/SGLT-2i FDC may be especially useful to simplify treatment, to reduce the tablet burden and to increase medication adherence. This FDC may be particularly beneficial for patients where the reduction of body weight, blood pressure and cardiovascular risk are important and in whom hypoglycemia should be avoided.

The range of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) responses and characteristics associated with above-average response to exenatide twice daily and once weekly were examined. Data were pooled from 8 exenatide-twice-daily and 5 exenatide-once-weekly studies. A baseline HbA1c-corrected measure of change in HbA1c after 24 weeks identified high, average and low responses. Multiple linear regression and multivariate generalized estimating equation models identified factors associated with high response. Among 2355 participants (exenatide twice daily, n = 1414; exenatide once weekly, n = 941), baseline HbA1c correlated with change in HbA1c (P < .0001). Across baseline HbA1c levels, the 25th to 75th percentile of HbA1c change ranged from -0.3% to -3.2% with exenatide twice daily and from -0.5% to -3.6% with exenatide once weekly. Asian ethnicity and older age were significantly associated with high response to exenatide twice daily; no factors were significantly associated with response to exenatide once weekly. These data provide clinically useful information for estimating the likelihood that, depending on baseline HbA1c, an individual can achieve HbA1c goals. The association between Asian ethnicity, age and high response to exenatide twice daily may relate to the specific effects of exenatide twice daily on postprandial glucose., (© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims/introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic in Asia, yet clinical trials of glucose-lowering therapies often enroll predominantly Western populations. We explored the initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Asia with marked hyperglycemia., Materials and Methods: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of a multinational, parallel-group clinical trial in which 316 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5-12.0% were randomized to double-blind oral treatment with linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. The primary end-point was the change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. We evaluated data for the 125 participants from Asian countries., Results: After 24 weeks, the mean ± standard error reduction from baseline in HbA1c (mean 10.0%) was -2.99 ± 0.18% with linagliptin/metformin and -1.84 ± 0.18% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -1.15% (95% confidence interval -1.65 to -0.66, P < 0.0001). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 60% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin. The mean bodyweight change after 24 weeks was -0.45 ± 0.41 kg and 1.33 ± 0.45 kg in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (treatment difference -1.78 kg [95% confidence interval -2.99 to -0.57, P = 0.0043]). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 9.7% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin and 4.8% of those receiving linagliptin. Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.5% and 4.8% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no severe episodes. Gastrointestinal disorders occurred in 12.9% and 12.7% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no associated treatment discontinuations., Conclusions: In people from Asia with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and marked hyperglycemia, the initial combination of linagliptin and metformin substantially improved glycemic control without weight gain and with infrequent hypoglycemia. Initial oral combination therapy might be a viable treatment for such individuals., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: Dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) cleaves and inactivates the insulinotropic hormones glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide, collectively termed incretins. DPP-4 inhibitors entered clinical practice as approved therapeutics for type-2 diabetes in 2006. However, inter-individual variance in the responsiveness to DPP-4 inhibitors was reported. Thus, we asked whether genetic variation in the DPP4 gene affects incretin levels, insulin secretion, and glucose tolerance in participants of the TÜbingen Family study for type-2 diabetes (TÜF)., Research Design and Methods: Fourteen common (minor allele frequencies ≥0.05) DPP4 tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in 1,976 non-diabetic TÜF participants characterized by oral glucose tolerance tests and bioimpedance measurements. In a subgroup of 168 subjects, plasma incretin levels were determined., Results: We identified a variant, i.e., SNP rs6741949, in intron 2 of the DPP4 gene that, after correction for multiple comparisons and appropriate adjustment, revealed a significant genotype-body fat interaction effect on glucose-stimulated plasma GLP-1 levels (p = 0.0021). Notably, no genotype-BMI interaction effects were detected (p = 0.8). After stratification for body fat content, the SNP negatively affected glucose-stimulated GLP-1 levels (p = 0.0229), insulin secretion (p = 0.0061), and glucose tolerance (p = 0.0208) in subjects with high body fat content only., Conclusions: A common variant, i.e., SNP rs6741949, in the DPP4 gene interacts with body adiposity and negatively affects glucose-stimulated GLP-1 levels, insulin secretion, and glucose tolerance. Whether this SNP underlies the reported inter-individual variance in responsiveness to DPP-4 inhibitors, at least in subjects with high body fat content, remains to be shown.

Glucagon levels are classically suppressed after glucose challenge. It is still not clear as to whether a lack of suppression contributes to hyperglycemia and thus to the development of diabetes. We investigated the association of postchallenge change in glucagon during oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs), hypothesizing that higher postchallenge glucagon levels are observed in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). Glucagon levels were measured during OGTT in a total of 4,194 individuals without diabetes in three large European cohorts. Longitudinal changes in glucagon suppression were investigated in 50 participants undergoing a lifestyle intervention. Only 66-79% of participants showed suppression of glucagon at 120 min (fold change glucagon 120/0 <1) during OGTT, whereas 21-34% presented with increasing glucagon levels (fold change glucagon 120/0 ≥1). Participants with nonsuppressed glucagon 120 had a lower risk of IGT in all cohorts (odds ratio 0.44-0.53, P < 0.01). They were also leaner and more insulin sensitive and had lower liver fat contents. In the longitudinal study, an increase of fold change glucagon 120/0 was associated with an improvement in insulin sensitivity ( P = 0.003). We characterize nonsuppressed glucagon 120 during the OGTT. Lower glucagon suppression after oral glucose administration is associated with a metabolically healthier phenotype, suggesting that it is not an adverse phenomenon., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin vs placebo as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: Patients with inadequate glycaemic control despite stable-dose metformin received open-label empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or 25 mg (study 2) as add-on therapy for 16 weeks. Subsequently, those with HbA1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.5% (>53 and ≤91 mmol/mol) (N = 482) were randomized to 24 weeks' double-blind, double-dummy treatment with linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 1, or to linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 2; all patients continued treatment with metformin and empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or metformin and empagliflozin 25 mg (study 2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline (defined as the last value before first intake of randomized, double-blind treatment) in HbA1c at week 24., Results: At week 24, HbA1c (mean baseline 7.82-8.04 [62-64 mmol/mol]) was significantly reduced with linagliptin vs placebo; adjusted mean (SE) differences in change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin vs placebo were -.32% (.10) (-3.59 [1.08] mmol/mol) ( P = .001) for patients on empagliflozin 10 mg and metformin, and -0.47% (0.10) (-5.15 [1.04] mmol/mol) ( P < 0.001) for patients on empagliflozin 25 mg and metformin. Adverse events were reported in more patients receiving placebo than in those receiving linagliptin: 55.5% vs 48.4% in study 1 and 58.9% vs 52.7% in study 2., Conclusions: Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin for 24 weeks improved glycaemic control vs placebo, and was well tolerated., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Few studies of oral glucose-lowering drugs exist in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with marked hyperglycemia, and insulin is often proposed as initial treatment. We evaluated the oral initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in this population., Methods: We performed a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a randomized study in which newly diagnosed T2D patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5%-12.0% received linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. Subgroups of baseline HbA1c, age, body-mass index (BMI), renal function, race, and ethnicity were evaluated, with efficacy measured by HbA1c change from baseline after 24 weeks., Results: HbA1c reductions from baseline (mean 9.7%) at week 24 in the overall population were an adjusted mean -2.81% ± 0.12% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 132) and -2.02% ± 0.13% with linagliptin (n = 113); treatment difference -0.79% (95% CI -1.13 to -0.46, P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -3.37% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 76) and -2.53% with linagliptin (n = 61); difference -0.84% (95% CI -1.32 to -0.35). In those with baseline HbA1c <9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -2.08% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 56) and -1.39% with linagliptin (n = 52); difference -0.69% (95% CI -1.23 to -0.15). Changes in HbA1c and treatment differences between the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups were of similar magnitudes to the overall population across patient subgroups based on age, BMI, renal function, and race. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.8% and 5.7% of linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin patients, respectively; no severe hypoglycemia occurred., Conclusion: Linagliptin/metformin combination in newly diagnosed T2D patients with marked hyperglycemia was well tolerated and elicited substantial improvements in glycemic control regardless of baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, renal function, or race. Thus, newly diagnosed, markedly hyperglycemic patients may be effectively treated by combinations of oral agents., Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01512979.

Setting: Hypothyroidism is an adverse effect of certain anti-tuberculosis drugs., Design: This is a prospective study of the frequency and possible pathomechanisms associated with hypothyroidism due to second-line treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Fifty human immunodeficiency virus negative patients and 20 controls were included. All participants underwent ultrasonography of the thyroid and measurement of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH). TSH levels were checked every 3 months. If hypothyroidism was present, T3, T4 and thyroid peroxidase autoantibodies were measured, and imaging extended to scintigraphy and repeated ultrasonography., Results: Before treatment, 7 patients (14%) and 1 control (5%) were hypothyreotic. During the first 6 months of treatment, TSH levels increased in 41 patients (82%), 39 (78%) had values above the normal range and 19 (38%) had overt hypothyroidism. As none of the patients had signs of autoimmune thyroiditis, interaction with anti-tuberculosis drugs was assumed to be the cause of hypothyroidism. Nine patients died during treatment, all of whom had developed hypothyroidism. In seven, the metabolic situation at their death was known, and they had become euthyreotic following levothyroxine substitution., Conclusion: TSH levels should be checked before initiating anti-tuberculosis treatment and after 3 and 6 months to start timely replacement of levothyroxine. Further studies are needed to elucidate the exact pathomechanism involved in hypothyroidism and whether hypothyroidism can be used as predictor of treatment failure.

Modern treatment of type 2 diabetes follows a patient-centered approach. Blood glucose targets depend on patients' individual situation e. g. age, disease duration and comorbidities. Today physicians can choose from several antidiabetics with different modes of action. Based on national guidelines on the step-wise treatment of type 2 diabetes these substances come into consideration after lifestyle intervention and initial pharmacotherapy with metformin proved to be insufficient. Results from clinical trials have in part shown significant differences between distinct drug classes regarding efficacy, risk of hypoglycemia and effect on body weight. Cardiovascular safety is another important aspect to consider. This balance between efficacy and safety is reflected more and more by analyzing a combined endpoint "reaching individual HbA1c-target without hypoglycemia and weight gain". A guideline- and evidence-based classification of present therapeutic options aims to support orientation in diabetes practice., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Purpose of Review: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) are gastrointestinal peptides that play an important role as incretin hormones in the regulation of plasma glucose and insulin secretion. GLP-1-based therapies have therefore been implemented as treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D). The purpose of this review is to summarize novel treatment options for T2D with GLP-1-based therapies. In addition, both peptides have relevant extrapancreatic effects that have been further characterized recently and are summarized in this review., Recent Findings: Novel findings regarding changes in GLP-1 secretion after bariatric surgery are highlighted, wherein GLP-1 plays a role in promoting body weight loss and diabetes remission. For T2D therapy, novel options with long-acting GLP-1 analogs are summarized that show a good efficacy and safety profile, also in combination with insulin as well as for obesity treatment. As GIP is not suitable for T2D therapy, extrapancreatic effects of GIP, mainly on bone metabolism that have been characterized recently, are described. These show that the activated GIP receptor is important to allow optimal bone mass and structure., Summary: This review summarizes new findings on the physiology and pathophysiology of GLP-1 and GIP and novel therapeutic aspects.

This chapter deals with novel therapeutic approaches, predominantly for type 2 diabetes. Incretin-based therapies utilize the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), which stimulates insulin and inhibits glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. Incretin-based therapies comprise injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists and orally active dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors. Both have a low hypoglycaemia risk. GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dulaglutide, albiglutide) reduce glycated haemoglobin levels more effectively than oral antidiabetic agents do and lead to weight loss as well as a slight decrease in systolic blood pressure. The most common side effects are nausea and fullness, especially during the start of therapy. Dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin) are not inferior to sulfonylureas, causing significantly less hypoglycaemia and not inducing weight gain. Specific adverse effects have not been discovered yet, and cardiovascular safety has been demonstrated in respective studies. Sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors (dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, empagliflozin) were introduced recently. They block the tubular reabsorption of glucose in the kidney and represent an insulin-independent mode of action, with low hypoglycaemia risk and allowing weight loss. The most common side effects are genital and urinary tract infections. Other novel drugs in development (G-protein-coupled receptor agonists, interleukin-1 antagonists) are also described., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

History and Admission Findings: Two female patients aged over 80 years developed central nervous symptoms after drinking large amounts of water (more than 3 l per day)., Investigations: Both had a hypoosmolar hyponatremia that was induced by concomitant treatment with hydrochlorothiazid (HCT) in the one case and in the other case relied on a distal tubular damage due to reflux nephropathy., Diagnosis, Treatment and Course: Hyponatremia was corrected after withdrawal of HCT and fluid restriction and central nervous symptoms disappeared rapidly., Conclusions: Distal tubular urinary dilution can be disturbed by HCT and parenchymal renal disease and can result in symptomatic hyponatremia after drinking large amounts of water., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is released into the bloodstream after food intake. In addition to stimulating insulin release, it causes satiety and contributes to the termination of food intake. In this study, we investigated whether endogenous GLP-1 affects food-related brain activity and hunger., Methods: Twenty-four volunteers (12 lean; 12 obese) underwent a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test that promotes GLP-1 secretion. Food cue-induced brain activity was assessed by functional magnetic resonance imaging and GLP-1 concentrations were measured before, 30, and 120 min after glucose intake., Results: The significant increase in GLP-1 levels negatively correlated with a change in the food cue-induced brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, a major reward area. This association was independent of simultaneous alterations in insulin and glucose concentrations. The association was present in lean and overweight participants. By contrast, postprandial insulin changes were associated with orbitofrontal activations in lean individuals only., Conclusions: The postprandial release of GLP-1 might alter reward processes in the orbitofrontal cortex and might thereby support the termination of food intake and reduce hunger. While obese persons showed brain insulin resistance, no GLP-1 resistance was observed. Our study provides novel insight into the central regulation of food intake by the incretin hormone GLP-1.

Objective: The risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is significantly increased in patients with diabetes; thus, it is important to determine whether glucose-lowering therapy affects this risk over time. Changes in cardiovascular risk markers were examined in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide twice daily (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) or glimepiride (a sulfonylurea) added to metformin in the EURopean EXenAtide (EUREXA) study., Research Design and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes failing metformin were randomized to add-on exenatide twice daily (n = 515) or glimepiride (n = 514) until treatment failure defined by hemoglobin A1C. Anthropomorphic measures, blood pressure (BP), heart rate, lipids, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) over time were evaluated., Results: Over 36 months, twice-daily exenatide was associated with improved body weight (-3.9 kg), waist circumference (-3.6 cm), systolic/diastolic BP (-2.5/-2.6 mmHg), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (0.05 mmol/L), triglycerides (-0.2 mmol/L), and hsCRP (-1.7 mg/L). Heart rate did not increase (-0.3 beats/minute), and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (0.2 mmol/L) and total cholesterol (0.1 mmol/L) increased slightly. Between-group differences were significantly in favor of exenatide for body weight (P < 0.0001), waist circumference (P < 0.001), systolic BP (P < 0.001), diastolic BP (P = 0.023), HDL-cholesterol (P = 0.001), and hsCRP (P = 0.004). Fewer patients randomized to exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride required the addition of at least one antihypertensive (20.4 vs 26.4%; P = 0.026) or lipid-lowering medication (8.4 vs 12.8%; P = 0.025)., Conclusions: Add-on exenatide twice daily was associated with significant, sustained improvement in several cardiovascular risk markers in patients with type 2 diabetes versus glimepiride., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00359762, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Aims: To evaluate third-line thiazolidinedione (TZD) or glimepiride therapy in patients inadequately controlled on metformin + exenatide twice daily, and third-line exenatide twice daily in patients inadequately controlled on metformin + glimepiride., Methods: In this randomized, open-label, multicentre trial, 144 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >9% (75 mmol/mol) after 3 months' treatment or >7% (53 mmol/mol) at two consecutive visits 3 months apart, after 6 months' treatment] on metformin + exenatide twice daily were re-randomized to add-on TZD or glimepiride, and 166 patients inadequately controlled on metformin + glimepiride received add-on exenatide twice daily. Changes in HbA1c, body mass index (BMI), lipids, hypoglycaemia and vital signs were evaluated., Results: The median duration of triple therapy was ∼2 years. In patients inadequately controlled on metformin + exenatide twice daily, add-on TZD decreased HbA1c levels significantly better than add-on glimepiride: 130-week difference 0.48% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.77] or 5.2 mmol/mol (95% CI 2.1-8.4; p = 0.001), but with significantly increased BMI and systolic blood pressure. The ratio of documented symptomatic (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dl [3.9 mmol/l]) hypoglycaemia rates for add-on glimepiride to add-on TZD was 8.48 (p < 0.0001). Add-on exenatide twice daily after metformin + glimepiride significantly reduced HbA1c levels: mean [standard deviation (s.d.)] change from baseline -0.35 (0.89)% [-3.8 (9.7) mmol/mol] and BMI: mean (s.d.) change from baseline -0.82 (1.9) kg/m(2) at 130 weeks, with a slightly increased rate of documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia from metformin + glimepiride (ratio 1.49)., Conclusions: TZD, but not glimepiride, was an effective and well tolerated third-line therapy in patients without glycaemic control after long-term therapy with metformin + exenatide twice daily. Exenatide twice daily was an effective and well tolerated third-line therapy in patients inadequately controlled on metformin + glimepiride., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors are oral antidiabetic agents that can be administered as monotherapy in patients with contraindications to metformin or metformin intolerance, and in combination with other oral compounds and/or insulin. DPP-4 inhibitors act in a glucose-dependent manner and only increase insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion under hyperglycemic conditions. Renal impairment is frequent in type 2 diabetes as a result of microvascular complications and diabetes treatment, and options in these patients are limited. Linagliptin is a DPP-4 inhibitor with a hepatobiliary route of elimination. In comparative studies, it was noninferior to metformin and sulfonylureas in lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and improving glycemic parameters. It can be used throughout all stages of renal impairment without dose adjustments. This review gives an overview of linagliptin in various stages of chronic kidney disease and has a focus on efficacy and safety parameters from clinical studies in patients with impaired renal function. These data are interpreted in the context of type 2 diabetes therapy in general.

Sulphonylureas (SUs) are antidiabetic agents widely used in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Observational retrospective studies have raised concerns regarding the cardiovascular (CV) safety of this class of drugs, and data from observational and registry studies are conflicting. To address the SU controversy, this review looked at longer-term RCTs, where SUs were compared in a head-to-head fashion with active comparators. An analysis of 18 studies did not find any increase in the incidence of CV events with SU therapy. However, the available data are limited and most importantly, there is a lack of prospective, adequately powered, formal head-to-head CV outcome trials. Since SUs are still being used as second-line therapy in combination with metformin and in some cases as first-line treatment of T2DM, there is a definite need for CV safety data from a prospective RCT. The CAROLINA(®) study is currently the largest CV outcome study with a direct comparison of an SU and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4). Based on the study design and statistical power of CAROLINA(®), its results will provide a unique perspective regarding CV outcomes of these 2 commonly used agents., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were introduced for type 2 diabetes therapy nearly 10 years ago, among them short-acting compounds on the basis of the GLP-1-like peptide exendin-4 (exenatide and lixisenatide) and a long-acting GLP-1 RA based on the human GLP-1 sequence (liraglutide). Recently, two novel long-acting GLP-1 RAs on the basis of human GLP-1 sequence, for once-weekly application, have been approved for therapy of type 2 diabetes. Additionally, liraglutide has been approved for treatment of obesity at a higher dose than that used for diabetes therapy. This mini-review gives a short overview of the novel long-acting GLP-1 RAs albiglutide and dulaglutide and also reviews the studies of liraglutide in treatment of obesity leading to its approval for this use. These studies were largely presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in fall 2014.

Background: Optimal glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus requires a patient-specific approach. Although a good framework, current guidelines are insufficiently detailed to address the different phenotypes and individual needs of patients seen in daily practice. We developed a patient-specific decision support tool based on a systematic analysis of expert opinion., Materials and Methods: Based on the American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2012 position statement, a panel of 12 European experts rated the appropriateness (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method) of treatment strategies for 930 clinical scenarios, which were permutations of clinical variables considered relevant to treatment choice. These included current treatment, hemoglobin A1c difference from individualized target, risk of hypoglycemia, body mass index, life expectancy, and comorbidities. Treatment options included addition of a second or third agent, drug switches, and replacement by monotherapies if the patient was metformin-intolerant. Treatment costs were not considered. Appropriateness (appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain) was based on the median score and expert agreement. The panel recommendations were embedded in an online decision support tool (DiaScope(®); Novo Nordisk Health Care AG, Zürich, Switzerland)., Results: Treatment appropriateness was associated with (combinations of) the patient variables mentioned above. As second-line agents, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were considered appropriate in all scenarios, followed by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (50%), insulins (33%), and sulfonylureas (25%), but not pioglitazone (0%). Ratings of third-line combinations followed a similar pattern. Disagreement was highest for regimens including pioglitazone, sulfonylureas, or insulins and was partly due to differences in panelists' opinions and in drug availability and reimbursement across European countries (although costs were disregarded in the rating process)., Conclusions: A novel decision support tool based on the ADA/EASD 2012 position statement and a systematic analysis of expert opinion has been developed to help healthcare professionals to individualize glucose-lowering therapy in daily clinical situations.

Aim: To evaluate the risk of documented hypoglycaemia with glimepiride versus linagliptin., Methods: This was an exploratory analysis of data from a 2-year, randomized, double-blind study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 764) versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride 1-4 mg once daily (n = 755) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by metformin. Patients randomized to glimepiride started on 1 mg and after 4 weeks were allowed to be individually uptitrated stepwise to glimepiride 4 mg if a fasting plasma glucose concentration ≤6.1 mmol/l was not achieved. Investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was evaluated by dose, over time, and by the degree of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction., Results: The percentages of patients with at least one hypoglycaemic event at the individual maximum glimepiride dose were: 1 mg, 45.0%; 2 mg, 50.8%; 3 mg, 36.1%; and 4 mg, 27.7%. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin (36.1 vs. 7.5%; p < 0.0001); after performing sensitivity analyses by excluding events during dose escalation (weeks 0-16), this difference remained significant (weeks 16-104: 25.8 vs. 5.9%; p < 0.0001). Notably, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin in each quartile of HbA1c change from baseline (all p < 0.0001); the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes was not increased with greater reductions in HbA1c in either group. In all 4-week intervals across the 2-year study, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower with linagliptin than with glimepiride., Conclusion: Linagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride at all dose levels and time intervals, and regardless of change in HbA1c level., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To evaluate glucose-lowering treatment strategies with linagliptin and metformin in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, a prevalent population for which few dedicated studies of oral antidiabetes drugs have been conducted., Methods: A total of 316 patients, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for ≤12 months and with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration in the range 8.5-12.0%, were randomized 1:1 to double-blind, free-combination treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily and metformin twice daily (uptitrated to 2000 mg/day maximum) or to linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at week 24 (per-protocol completers' cohort: n = 245)., Results: The mean (standard deviation) age and HbA1c at baseline were 48.8 (11.0) years and 9.8 (1.1)%, respectively. At week 24, the mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c decreased from baseline by -2.8 ± 0.1% with linagliptin/metformin and -2.0 ± 0.1% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; p <0.0001). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis based on intent-to-treat principles: adjusted mean ± s.e. changes in HbA1c of -2.7 ± 0.1% and -1.8 ± 0.1%, respectively; treatment difference of -0.9% (95% CI -1.3 to -0.6; p <0.0001). A treatment response of HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 61 and 40% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively. Few patients experienced drug-related adverse events (8.8 and 5.7% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9 and 3.2% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (no severe episodes). Body weight decreased significantly with the combination therapy (-1.3 kg between-group difference; p =0.0033)., Conclusions: Linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, an understudied group, elicited significant improvements in glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain or other adverse effects. These results support early combination treatment strategies and suggest that newly diagnosed patients with marked hyperglycaemia may be effectively managed with oral, non-insulin therapy., (© 2014 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To investigate the efficacy of PET/CT with 11C-methionine for localizing parathyroid adenomas in patients with suspected primary hyperparathyroidism and inconclusive results of cervical ultrasonography and 99mTc-MIBI-SPECT/CT., Patients, Method: Retrospective analysis of imaging data of 18 patients and correlation with clinical outcome, in particular intraoperative findings and histopathology of excised tissue., Results: 12 of 18 patients received surgery. In 10 patients single parathyroid adenomas were found (diameter: 5-20 mm), 2 patients presented parathyroid hyperplasia (5 excised hyperplastic glands (diameter: 2-12 mm). PET/CT correctly localized all adenomas and 1 of 5 hyperplastic glands. The sensitivity per patient was 91.7% (11 of 12), the sensitivity per lesion 73.3% (11 of 15). All lesions missed by PET/CT had a size smaller than 9 mm and a volume of less than 0.2 ml. In 6 patients no surgery was performed. Five of them had a negative or atypical PET/CT. Further follow-up indicated familial hypocalciuric hypercalcemia in 3 of them (thus, PET/CT true negative), in the remaining 2 patients no validation is available. One patient with 2 highly suggestive lesions rejected surgery so far., Conclusion: PET/CT with 11C-methionine is a very sensitive method for the detection of parathyroid adenomas, even if they are too small to be visualized by 99mTc-MIBI-SPECT/CT.

Background and Methods: Modern antidiabetic therapies should achieve low HbA1c values and avoid hypoglycaemic complications. The registry SIRTA included 1522 patients with type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from 306 German medical practices. Patients had an HbA1c > 6.5% under the maximum tolerated metformin dose. If required, they received combination therapy with other antidiabetics according to the guideline of the German Diabetes Society [Deutsche Diabetes Gesellschaft (DDG)] or usual medical practice. Patients were followed up for 6 months. The target criteria included the achievement of HbA1c target values and the emergence of severe hypoglycaemic episodes., Results: Most patients (64.0%) were planned to achieve an HbA1c target < 6.5%, the standard target recommended by the 2009 DDG guideline valid throughout the registry. Primarily to reduce the individual risk for hypoglycaemia, 32.4% of patients had a less strict HbA1c-target of 6.5-7.0%. These targets were achieved by 31.3% and 44.3% of patients, respectively. Combination therapies increased from 45% to 56% over the 6 months registry. Four patients had severe hypoglycaemias (0.26%)., Conclusions: The registry confirms results from other epidemiologic studies on the therapy of T2DM in everyday practice. The treatment strategies applied effectively reduced blood glucose and avoided severe hypoglycaemias. An early therapy of insufficiently controlled patients with T2DM is important, as lower baseline values facilitated achieving HbA1c targets., (© 2014 The Authors. International Journal of Clinical Practice Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)