No abstract

OBJECTIVETo investigate the dose-response relationship of semaglutide versus placebo and open-label liraglutide in terms of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial. Patients (n = 415) were randomized to receive a subcutaneous injection of semaglutide once weekly without dose escalation (0.1-0.8 mg) or with dose escalation (E) (0.4 mg steps to 0.8 or 1.6 mg E over 1-2 weeks), open-label liraglutide once daily (1.2 or 1.8 mg), or placebo. The primary end point was change in HbA 1c level from baseline. Secondary end points included change in body weight, safety, and tolerability. RESULTSSemaglutide dose-dependently reduced the level of HbA 1c from baseline (8.1 6 0.8%) to week 12 by up to 21.7%, and body weight by up to 24.8 kg (1.6 mg E, P < 0.001 vs. placebo). Up to 81% of patients achieved an HbA 1c level of <7%. HbA 1c level and weight reductions with semaglutide 1.6 mg E were greater than those with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg (based on unadjusted CIs), but adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals occurred more frequently. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and withdrawal due to gastrointestinal AEs increased with the semaglutide dose; most events were mild to moderate, transient, and ameliorated by dose escalation. There were no major episodes of hypoglycemia and few cases of injection site reactions. CONCLUSIONSAfter 12 weeks, semaglutide dose-dependently reduced HbA 1c level and weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. No unexpected safety or tolerability concerns were identified; gastrointestinal AEs typical of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were mitigated by dose escalation. On this basis, weekly semaglutide doses of 0.5 and 1.0 mg with a 4-week dose escalation were selected for phase 3.

IntroductionThe progressive nature of type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification. This often involves intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initially, followed by other agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), with the majority of patients eventually requiring insulin therapy. Therefore, this trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of IDegLira (combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) in controlling glycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on a GLP-1RA and OADs.MethodsIn this 26-week open-label phase 3b trial, patients on maximum-dose GLP-1RA therapy (liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) with metformin alone or with pioglitazone and/or sulfonylurea were randomized 2:1 to IDegLira once daily (n = 292) or to unchanged GLP-1RA therapy (n = 146), continuing OADs at the pre-trial dose.ResultsAfter 26 weeks, HbA1c reductions were superior with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA; estimated treatment difference −0.94% (−10.3 mmol/mol), p < 0.001. Mean HbA1c reduced from 7.8% to 6.4% (61.5 to 46.9 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and from 7.7 to 7.4% (60.8 to 57.1 mmol/mol) with unchanged GLP-1RA. With IDegLira, 75% and 63% of patients achieved HbA1c <7% and ≤6.5%, compared with 36% and 23% on unchanged GLP-1RA, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose and 9-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles improved significantly more with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The mean change in weight was +2.0 kg with IDegLira, versus −0.8 kg with unchanged GLP-1RA. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were low, but higher with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The safety profile of IDegLira was consistent with previous findings; both treatments were well tolerated and the rate of nausea was low in both groups. IDegLira improved patient-reported outcomes versus unchanged GLP-1RA.ConclusionsIDegLira provided superior glycemic control versus unchanged GLP-1RA and represents an efficacious intensification approach in patients inadequately controlled on GLP-1RAs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01676116.FundingNovo Nordisk.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0218-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

OBJECTIVETo evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a co-formulation of insulin degludec and insulin aspart (IDegAsp) with insulin aspart (IAsp) at other meals compared with basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir (IDet) and IAsp.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSAdults (n = 548) with type 1 diabetes (A1C 7.0–10.0%; BMI ≤35.0 kg/m2) were randomized 2:1 in a 26-week, multinational, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial to IDegAsp or IDet. IDegAsp was given with a meal, and IDet was given in the evening, with a second (breakfast) dose added if needed.RESULTSNon-inferiority for IDegAsp versus IDet was confirmed; A1C improved by 0.75% with IDegAsp and 0.70% with IDet to 7.6% in both groups (estimated treatment difference IDegAsp − IDet: –0.05% [95% CI –0.18 to 0.08]). There was no statistically significant difference between IDegAsp and IDet in the rates of severe hypoglycemia (0.33 and 0.42 episodes/patient-year, respectively) or overall confirmed (plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L) hypoglycemia (39.17 and 44.34 episodes/patient-year, respectively). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was 37% lower with IDegAsp than IDet (3.71 vs. 5.72 episodes/patient-year, P < 0.05). Weight gain was 2.3 and 1.3 kg with IDegAsp and IDet, respectively (P < 0.05). Total insulin dose was 13% lower in the IDegAsp group (P < 0.0001). No treatment differences were detected in Health-Related Quality of Life, laboratory measurements, physical examination, vital signs, electrocardiograms, fundoscopy, or adverse events.CONCLUSIONSIDegAsp in basal-bolus therapy with IAsp at additional mealtimes improves overall glycemic control and was non-inferior to IDet, with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia and fewer injections in comparison with IDet + IAsp basal-bolus therapy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract