No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVEInsulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) is a novel combination of insulin degludec (IDeg) and liraglutide. This trial investigated the contribution of the liraglutide component of IDegLira versus IDeg alone on efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn a 26-week, double-blind trial, patients with type 2 diabetes (A1C 7.5-10.0% [58-86 mmol/mol]) on basal insulin (20-40 units) and metformin with or without sulfonylurea/glinides were randomized (1:1) to once-daily IDegLira + metformin or IDeg + metformin with titration aiming for fasting plasma glucose between 4 and 5 mmol/L. Maximum allowed doses were 50 dose steps (equal to 50 units IDeg plus 1.8 mg liraglutide) and 50 units for IDeg. The primary end point was change in A1C from baseline. RESULTSA total of 413 patients were randomized (mean A1C 8.8% [73 mmol/mol]; BMI 33.7 kg/m 2 ). IDeg dose, alone or as part of IDegLira, was equivalent (45 units). A1C decreased by 1.9% (21 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol) with IDeg (estimated treatment difference 21.1% [95% CI 21.3, 20.8], 212 mmol/mol [95% CI 214, 29; P < 0.0001). Mean weight reduction with IDegLira was 2.7 kg vs. no weight change with IDeg, P < 0.0001. Hypoglycemia incidence was comparable (24% for IDegLira vs. 25% for IDeg). Overall adverse events were similar, and incidence of nausea was low in both groups (IDegLira 6.5% vs. IDeg 3.5%). CONCLUSIONSIDegLira achieved glycemic control superior to that of IDeg at equivalent insulin doses without higher risk of hypoglycemia and with the benefit of weight loss. These findings establish the efficacy and safety of IDegLira and the distinct contribution of the liraglutide component.Basal insulin therapy, often in combination with oral agents, including metformin, is well established for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Once initiated, basal insulin is usually continued even when control is not achieved (1,2). Indeed, more than half of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin do not achieve glycemic control (A1C #7.0% [53 mmol/mol]) (1,3,4) and are therefore at increased risk of developing diabetes complications. Delayed or suboptimal

When caloric intake exceeds caloric expenditure, the positive caloric balance and storage of energy in adipose tissue often causes adipocyte hypertrophy and visceral adipose tissue accumulation. These pathogenic anatomic abnormalities may incite metabolic and immune responses that promote Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia. These are the most common metabolic diseases managed by clinicians and are all major cardiovascular disease risk factors. 'Disease' is traditionally characterized as anatomic and physiologic abnormalities of an organ or organ system that contributes to adverse health consequences. Using this definition, pathogenic adipose tissue is no less a disease than diseases of other body organs. This review describes the consequences of pathogenic fat cell hypertrophy and visceral adiposity, emphasizing the mechanistic contributions of genetic and environmental predispositions, adipogenesis, fat storage, free fatty acid metabolism, adipocyte factors and inflammation. Appreciating the full pathogenic potential of adipose tissue requires an integrated perspective, recognizing the importance of 'cross-talk' and interactions between adipose tissue and other body systems. Thus, the adverse metabolic consequences that accompany fat cell hypertrophy and visceral adiposity are best viewed as a pathologic partnership between the pathogenic potential adipose tissue and the inherited or acquired limitations and/or impairments of other body organs. A better understanding of the physiological and pathological interplay of pathogenic adipose tissue with other organs and organ systems may assist in developing better strategies in treating metabolic disease and reducing cardiovascular disease risk.

ContextCombination therapy with insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) is important for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D). This trial assesses the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a GLP-1RA, as an add-on to basal insulin.ObjectiveTo demonstrate the superiority of semaglutide vs placebo on glycemic control as an add-on to basal insulin in patients with T2D.DesignPhase 3a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 30-week trial.SettingThis study included 90 sites in five countries.PatientsWe studied 397 patients with uncontrolled T2D receiving stable therapy with basal insulin with or without metformin.InterventionsSubcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 or 1.0 mg once weekly or volume-matched placebo.Main Outcome MeasuresPrimary endpoint was change in glycated Hb (HbA1c) from baseline to week 30. Confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight from baseline to week 30.ResultsAt week 30, mean HbA1c reductions [mean baseline value, 8.4% (67.9 mmol/mol)] with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg were 1.4% (15.8 mmol/mol) and 1.8% (20.2 mmol/mol) vs 0.1% (1.0 mmol/mol) with placebo [estimated treatment difference (ETD) vs placebo, –1.35 (14.8 mmol/mol); 95% CI, –1.61 to –1.10 and ETD, –1.75% (19.2 mmol/mol); 95% CI, –2.01 to –1.50; both P < 0.0001]. Severe or blood glucose–confirmed hypoglycemic episodes were reported in 11 patients (17 events) and 14 patients (25 events) with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs seven patients (13 events) with placebo (estimated rate ratio vs placebo, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.67 to 6.51 and estimated rate ratio vs placebo, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.84 to 6.96 for 0.5 and 1.0 mg; both P = nonsignificant). Mean body weight decreased with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs placebo from baseline to end of treatment: 3.7, 6.4, and 1.4 kg (ETD, –2.31; 95% CI, –3.33 to –1.29 and ETD, –5.06; 95% CI, –6.08 to –4.04 kg; both P < 0.0001). Premature treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was higher for semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg vs placebo (4.5%, 6.1%, and 0.8%), mainly due to gastrointestinal disorders.ConclusionsSemaglutide, added to basal insulin, significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight in patients with uncontrolled T2D vs placebo.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVETo compare ultra-long-acting insulin degludec with glargine for efficacy and safety in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn this 1-year, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, adults with type 2 diabetes with A1C of 7−10% taking OADs were randomized 3:1 to receive once daily degludec or glargine, both with metformin. Insulin was titrated to achieve prebreakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 3.9−4.9 mmol/L. The primary end point was confirmation of noninferiority of degludec to glargine in A1C reduction after 52 weeks in an intent-to-treat analysis.RESULTSIn all, 1,030 participants (mean age 59 years; baseline A1C 8.2%) were randomized (degludec 773, glargine 257). Reduction in A1C with degludec was similar (noninferior) to that with glargine (1.06 vs. 1.19%), with an estimated treatment difference of degludec to glargine of 0.09% (95% CI −0.04 to 0.22). Overall rates of confirmed hypoglycemia (PG <3.1 mmol/L or severe episodes requiring assistance) were similar, with degludec and glargine at 1.52 versus 1.85 episodes/patient-year of exposure (PYE). There were few episodes of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia in the overall population, and these occurred at a lower rate with degludec versus glargine (0.25 vs. 0.39 episodes/PYE; P = 0.038). Similar percentages of patients in both groups achieved A1C levels <7% without hypoglycemia. End-of-trial mean daily insulin doses were 0.59 and 0.60 units/kg for degludec and glargine, respectively. Adverse event rates were similar.CONCLUSIONSInsulins degludec and glargine administered once daily in combination with OADs provided similar long-term glycemic control in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia with degludec.