Search

The glucose intolerance of diabetes aggravates atherosclerosis indirectly through its effect on lipids and endothelial function. The cardiovascular (CV) impact of this metabolic disturbance is seen in the worsening of atherosclerotic vascular disease predominantly manifest as progression of coronary and cerebrovascular disease. The microvascular changes induced by prolonged glucose intolerance lead to ultrastructural changes in the glomerular basement membrane and renal mesangium which alters intrarenal haemodynamics, which may become evident initially as proteinuria and later lead to a decline in glomerular filtration rate. As the kidney plays a central role in blood pressure control, these changes have far-reaching CV consequences in patients with diabetes.Despite this, glucose lowering has been shown to have only a modest impact on CV outcomes in diabetes. The new antidiabetic medications have been studied in clinical trials designed to assure safety as grounded in the FDA guidance of 2008. Whilst a direct comparison of results from these trials is not possible in view of heterogeneity in trial design, the individual CV outcome measures have broadly re-defined their role in terms of equivalence (non-inferiority) and/or benefit (superiority). The composite endpoint of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events, MACE) may be perceived as surrogate markers for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This has been universally accepted as the primary endpoint in these cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and has been helpful in understanding the possible CV impact these drugs may have on patients with diabetes.The dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-IV) inhibitors (sitagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin), two sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin) and two glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs (lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide) have demonstrated non-inferiority on MACE outcomes with comparators – that is, they have assured CV safety when used in conjunction with other glucose-lowering treatment to improve glycaemic control. Four GLP-1 agonists (liraglutide, albiglutide, semaglutide and dula- glutide) and two SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and canagliflozin) have demonstrated CV benefit on MACE outcomes; such demonstration of superiority may be seen as evidence for benefit. The SGLT2 inhibitors canagliflozin, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin have all demonstrated a significant benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalisation due to heart failure (HHF) as a secondary/ exploratory outcome measure in their CVOTs. Further confirmation of benefit in heart failure independent of the presence of glucose intolerance has been demonstrated with dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in heart failure patients with or without diabetes. However, a comparable benefit in heart failure has not so far been seen in studies with the DPP-IV inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. Albiglutide is not available in the UK and may have little relevance to the practising clinician other than through the information it contributes about the possible mechanisms of action of GLP-1 RA medications.

The relative efficacy of different sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in reducing cardiorenal events in type 2 diabetic adults is unclear. We searched PubMed and Embase. Three primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and kidney function progression (KFP). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank drug treatments. Subcutaneous semaglutide (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.96) and albiglutide (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.93) significantly reduced MACE versus lixisenatide. Canagliflozin (HRs: 0.69, 0.68, 0.67 and 0.58) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.70, 0.69, 0.68 and 0.59) significantly reduced HHF versus dulaglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide and subcutaneous semaglutide. Dapagliflozin (HRs: 0.62, 0.60, 0.68 and 0.63) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.64, 0.61, 0.69 and 0.64) significantly reduced KFP versus dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide and lixisenatide. Different drug treatments had the maximum SUCRA values as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints. Different GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors have different efficacy in preventing cardiorenal endpoints in type 2 diabetes, and the most efficacious drugs are different as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints.

A systematic review regarding the efficacy of newer antihyperglycemic agents (including PPAR agonists, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors) for the treatment of NAFLD/NASH

GLP-1 (Glucagon like Peptide-1) receptor agonists have been shown to be effective in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Although the first GLP-1 receptor agonist, Exenatide, was approved in the year 2000, other agents with a longer duration of action that do not require twice-daily dosing are now being developed. Indeed, Liraglutide, a once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist, was approved in 2010, a once-weekly extended-release formulation of Exenatide (Exenatide ER) was approved in 2011 and now more recently Semaglutide, an oral GLP 1 receptor agonist was approved for medical use in the United States in September 2019 and in the European Union in April 2020. The importance of GLP-1 itself and the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in T2DM are discussed. An overview of the clinical development of the GLP-1 receptor agonists (Exenatide ER, Liraglutide, Lixisenatide, Albiglutide, Taspoglutide and Semaglutide) is provided and their mechanism of action, efficacy in terms of glycaemic control, weight loss and tolerability are reviewed. Keywords: GLP1 receptor agonist; Liraglutide; Exenatide ER; Lixisenatide; Semaglutide

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have consistently shown glycemic and extra-glycemic benefits of long-acting injectable glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs, liraglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once-weekly, dulaglutide, and semaglutide) in terms of reduction in the rates of cardiovascular events and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. Recently, the analyses of large datasets collecting routinely-accumulated data from clinical practice (ie, real-world studies, RWS) have provided new opportunities to complement the information obtained from RCTs. In this narrative review, we addressed clinically relevant questions that might be answered by well-conducted RWS: are subjects treated with GLP-1RAs in the "real-world" similar to those included in RCTs? Is the performance of GLP-1RA observed in the RWS (effectiveness) similar to that described in RCTs (efficacy)? Is the effectiveness similar in population of patients generally under-represented in RCTs? Are the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RAs confirmed in RWS? We also describe a few comparisons currently un-explored by specific RCTs, such as direct comparison between different administration strategies (eg, fixed- versus flexible-combination with basal-insulin) or between GLP-1RAs versus dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor (DDP4i) or versus sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) on hard cardio-renal outcomes. Altogether, RWS provide highly informative information on treatment with GLP-1RAs. On the one side, RWS showed different clinical characteristics between subjects enrolled in RCTs versus those attending real-world clinics and receiving a GLP-1RA. On the other hand, RWS showed that GLP-1RA effectiveness is overall consistent in subgroups of patients less represented in RCTs. In addition, RWS allowed the identification of modifiable factors (eg, titration or adherence) that might guide physicians towards better GLP-1RAs use. Finally, multiple RWS reported better cardio-renal outcomes with GLP-1RAs than with DPP-4i, while initial findings from RWS described a weaker cardiovascular protection compared to SGLT-2i. Therefore, there is the need for further RWS and RCTs comparing these different classes of glucose lowering medications.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a class of incretin-based therapies for the management of hyperglycemia and, in some cases, cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes. These agents act on multiple physiological pathways involved in type 2 diabetes with the effect of increasing insulin secretion and decreasing glucagon to control glucose levels (1,2). They also transiently slow gastric emptying, reduce appetite, and facilitate weight loss and other metabolic improvements (3). Consensus recommendations from the American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology advocate that GLP-1 receptor agonists, among other therapies, should be considered as a second-line treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes when glucose levels are not well controlled on metformin (4–6). Additionally, in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, a GLP-1 receptor agonist or sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended as a first-line therapy for the reduction of cardiovascular risk (4–6). GLP-1 receptor agonists may also be used as a first-line treatment in those who cannot use metformin or when reduced renal function precludes metformin use (human-based GLP-1 receptor agonists only) (4–6). In particular, the recommendations favor GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors because they have a low risk of hypoglycemia and promote weight loss (5). Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are available in the United States and worldwide, some of which are analogs of human GLP-1 (dulaglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide), whereas others are exendin-based (exenatide and lixisenatide) (7–13). The GLP-1 receptor agonist albiglutide was also approved, but has been withdrawn for commercial reasons. Until recently, all GLP-1 receptor agonists were administered by subcutaneous injection, although a once-daily oral formulation …

Over recent decades, an improved understanding of the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glucose regulation has led to innovative research and new treatment paradigms. The discovery of the gut peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and its role in glucose regulation paved the way for the class of GLP-1 receptor agonist compounds, or GLP-1RAs. The long-acting GLP-1RAs (dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release, liraglutide, semaglutide [injectable and oral]) are classified as such based on a minimum 24-hour duration of clinically relevant effects after administration. In phase 3 clinical trial programs of long-acting GLP-1RAs, A1C typically was reduced in the range of 1% to 1.5%, with reductions close to 2% in some studies. GLP-1RAs when used alone (without sulfonylureas or insulin) have a low risk of hypoglycemia because, like endogenous GLP-1, their insulinotropic effects are glucose-dependent. In addition to local actions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, GLP-1RAs stimulate receptors in the central nervous system to increase satiety, resulting in weight loss. All long-acting GLP-1RAs have, at minimum, been shown to be safe and not increase cardiovascular (CV) risk and most (liraglutide, semaglutide injectable, dulaglutide, albiglutide) have been shown in CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) to significantly reduce the risk of major cardiac adverse events. The class has good tolerability overall, with generally transient GI adverse events being most common. The weekly injectable agents offer scheduling convenience and may promote treatment adherence. One long-acting GLP-1RA is available as an oral daily tablet, which may be preferable for some patients and providers.

OBJECTIVE The principle of replacing prandial insulin lispro with a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) for type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a multiple daily insulin injections regimen was tested with albiglutide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this treat-to-target study, basal plus prandial insulin was optimized over 4 weeks before participants were randomized (1:1) to albiglutide plus optimized basal insulin glargine and lispro (dose reduced by 50% at randomization; subsequently, lispro injections were fully discontinued 4 weeks later) (n = 402) or to continued optimized lispro plus optimized glargine (n = 412). RESULTS Mean ± SD HbA1c at baseline, 7.8 ± 0.6% (61 ± 7 mmol/mol) in the albiglutide + glargine group and 7.7 ± 0.6% (60 ± 7 mmol/mol) in the lispro + glargine group, was reduced at week 26 to 6.7 ± 0.8% (49 ± 8 mmol/mol) and 6.6 ± 0.8% (48 ± 8 mmol/mol), respectively (least squares [LS] difference 0.06% [95% CI −0.05 to 0.17]; noninferiority P < 0.0001). In the albiglutide + glargine group, 218 participants (54%) replaced all prandial insulin without reintroducing lispro up to week 26. Total daily prandial insulin dose was similar at baseline but was lower by 62 units/day (95% CI −65.9 to −57.8; P < 0.0001) at week 26 in the albiglutide + glargine group, and the total number of weekly injections was also reduced from 29 to 13 per week. Less severe/documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (57.2% vs. 75.0%) occurred in the albiglutide + glargine group with meaningful weight differences (LS mean ± SE −2.0 ± 0.2 vs. +2.4 ± 0.2 kg; P < 0.0001) vs. lispro + glargine. Gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with albiglutide + glargine (26% vs. 13%). CONCLUSIONS A once-weekly GLP-1RA was able to substitute for prandial insulin in 54% of people, substantially reducing the number of prandial insulin injections; glycemic control improved, with the added benefits of weight loss and less hypoglycemia in the GLP-1RA arm. Replacing prandial insulin with a weekly GLP-1RA can simplify basal plus prandial insulin treatments and achieve better outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

We read with interest the study by Rosenstock et al. (1), which demonstrates that in patients with type 2 diabetes managed on a basal-bolus insulin regimen, switching three prandial insulin injections for a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), albiglutide, while maintaining the basal insulin, represents an effective strategy for optimizing glycemic control with reduced risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain along with increased convenience. In the cohort studied, baseline glycated hemoglobin levels were 7.8 ± 0.6% (albiglutide group) and 7.7 ± 0.6% (placebo group), indicating that in many participants, postprandial glycemic excursions were the dominant contributor of hyperglycemia. Achieving good glycemic control in those patients would, …

I thank Dr. Marathe and coauthors, who are part of the superb team of Michael Horowitz and Karen Jones, world-renowned top experts in gastric emptying (1), for recognizing the clinical value of our albiglutide switch study (HARMONY 8), which provided proof of concept for the benefits of using a weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to simplify an intensive multiple-insulin regimen in patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes previously on basal-bolus insulin (2). We clearly demonstrated that 54% of participants randomized to the albiglutide + basal insulin glargine group were able to replace all prandial insulin without reintroducing insulin lispro, and, for those who still needed prandial insulin, their insulin doses were substantially …

PurposeAvailable data on the effects of anti-diabetic drugs on fracture risk are contradictory. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze all available data on the effects of anti-diabetic drugs on fracture risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.MethodsEmbase, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for relevant trials. All data analyses were performed with STATA (12.0) and R language (3.6.0). Risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by combining data for the fracture effects of anti-diabetic drugs, including sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, meglitinides, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, biguanides, insulin, and sulfonylureas.ResultsOne hundred seventeen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 221,364 participants were included in this study. Compared with placebo, trelagliptin (RR 3.51; 1.58–13.70) increased the risk of fracture, whereas albiglutide (RR 0.29; 0.04–0.93) and voglibose (RR 0.03; 0–0.11) decreased the risk of fracture. Other medications were comparable in terms of their effects on fracture risk, and no statistical significance was observed. In terms of fractures, voglibose (0.01%) may be the safest option, and trelagliptin (13.64%) may be the worst. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with those of the main analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed in the regression coefficients of age (1.03; 0.32–2.1), follow-up duration (0.79; 0.27–1.64), and sex distribution (0.63; 0.15–1.56).ConclusionsWe found varied results on the association between the use of anti-diabetic drugs and fracture risk. Specifically, trelagliptin raised the risk of fracture, whereas voglibose and albiglutide showed benefit with statistical difference. Other drugs were comparable in terms of their effects on fracture risk. Some drugs (omarigliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, empagliflozin, ertugliflozin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, and nateglinide) may increase the risk of fracture, while others (such as dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide, lixisenatide, linagliptin, alogliptin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, glipizide, gliclazide, glibenclamide, glimepiride, metformin, and insulin) may show benefits. The risk of fracture was independent of age, sex distribution, and the duration of exposure to anti-diabetic drugs. When developing individualized treatment strategies, the clinical efficacy of anti-diabetic drugs must be weighed against their benefits and risks brought about by individual differences of patients.Systematic Review RegistrationThis Systematic Review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, registration number CRD42020189464).

Background A meta-analysis is presented of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) versus placebo on cardiorenal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods We did an electronic search up to June 30, 2021, for eligible trials. We did a meta-analysis of available trial data using a random-effects model to calculate overall hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI (confidence intervals). We included data from 8 CVOTs and 60,080 patients (72.4% with established cardiovascular disease). Results GLP-1RA reduced major cardiovascular events (MACE) by 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.79–0.94, P = 0.006) with a non-significant heterogeneity between subgroups of patients with and without cardiovascular disease (P = 0.127). GLP-1RA also reduced the risk of cardiovascular death by 13% (P = 0.016), nonfatal stroke by 16% (P = 0.007), hospitalization for heart failure by 10% (P = 0.023), all-cause mortality by 12% (P = 0.012), and the broad composite kidney outcome by 17% (P = 0.012), which was driven by a reduction in macroalbuminuria only (HR = 0.74, 0.67–0.82, P Conclusions GLP-1RA have moderate benefits on MACE, and also reduce hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality; they also have robust benefits on reducing the incidence of macroalbuminuria.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration provided guidance for the evaluation of the cardiovascular safety of antidiabetes drugs. The newer antidiabetes drugs, approved after 2008, were therefore evaluated in long-term cardiovascular outcome trials, designed and powered for the assessment of cardiovascular safety. Accordingly, the primary endpoint of these trials was a cardiac composite endpoint. Since 2008, the data from various cardiovascular outcome trials have been reported, including SAVOR-TIMI 53 (saxagliptin), EXAMINE (alogliptin), TECOS (sitagliptin), CARMELINA (linagliptin), CAROLINA (linagliptin), ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide once-weekly), SUSTAIN-6 (injectable semaglutide), HARMONY Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), PIONEER-6 (oral semaglutide), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (empagliflozin), the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE-TIMI 53 (dapagliflozin). Some of these trials subsequently also published data on renal outcomes, although these were secondary or exploratory analyses. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists had beneficial effects on albuminuria, while sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors additionally showed a positive effect on 'hard' renal outcomes. In contrast to the cardiovascular outcome trials, the renal outcome trial of canagliflozin, CREDENCE, assessed a hard renal endpoint as its primary endpoint and showed positive effects on these hard renal outcomes. In this review, we aim to highlight the renal outcome data from the cardiovascular outcome trials and the CREDENCE trial and understand the differences between their results. The post CREDENCE era would appear to reinforce the position of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors as drugs providing cardiorenal protection, in addition to their anti-glycaemic effects.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are emerging as an important therapy to consider for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) given this class of treatment’s ability to reduce glycated haemoglobin and their associated weight loss and low risk for hypoglycaemia. Additionally, seven cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) have been performed in the past 4 years using lixisenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide and oral semaglutide. All have found non-inferiority for cardiovascular outcomes, with many finding superiority of these drugs. These findings have transformed our guidelines on pharmacological treatment of T2D. This review article will discuss GLP-1 RA therapy, review the seven CVOTs reported to date and discuss the implications on current guidelines and therapies going forward.

GLP-1, a peptide hormone secreted from the gut, stimulating insulin and suppressing glucagon secretion was identified as a parent compound for novel treatments of diabetes, but was degraded (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) and eliminated (mainly by kidneys) too fast (half-life 1–2 min) to be useful as a therapeutic agent. GLP-1 receptor agonist has been used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes since 2007, when exenatide (twice daily) was approved in 2007. Compounds with longer duration of action (once daily, once weekly) and with increasingly better efficacy with respect to glycaemic control and body weight reduction have been developed, and in a recent ADA/EASD consensus statement, were recommended as the first injectable diabetes therapy after failure of oral glucose-lowering medications. Most GLP-1 receptor agonists (lixisenatide q.d., liraglutide q.d., exenatide q.w., dulaglutide q.w., albiglutide q.w., semaglutide q.w., all for s.c. injection, and the first oral preparation, oral semaglutide) have been examined in cardiovascular outcomes studies. Beyond proving their safety in vulnerable patients, most of whom had pre-existing heart disease, liraglutide, semaglutide, albiglutide, and dulaglutide reduced the time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, cardiovascular death). Liraglutide, in addition, reduced cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. It is the purpose of the present review to describe clinically important differences, regarding pharmacokinetic behaviour, glucose-lowering potency, effectiveness of reducing body weight and controlling other cardiovascular risk factors, and of the influence of GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in patients either presenting with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease (atherosclerotic, ischemic or congestive heart failure).

Major cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are currently available. These agonists have proven their CV safety, in harmony with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendation for antidiabetic drugs. The potential cardioprotective effect of incretin-based therapies is attributed to their multiple non-glycaemic actions in the CV system, including changes in insulin resistance, weight loss, reduction in blood pressure, improved lipid profile and direct effects on the heart and vascular endothelium. Liraglutide, semaglutide and albiglutide have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), whereas lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide had a neutral effect. Thus, it is conceivable that there are different drug-specific properties across the class of GLP-1 RAs. In this review, we discuss the results of the five recently published randomised CV outcome trials with GLP-1 RAs, along with the potential differences and the pleiotropic actions of these agents on the CV system. Keywords: Cardiovascular disease, Diabetes mellitus, Randomised controlled trials, Treatment

OBJECTIVE Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) allow concomitant administration of two proven complementary injectable therapies for type 2 diabetes. This study investigated switching to a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving daily or weekly GLP-1 RA therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS LixiLan-G, a randomized, open-label, 26-week trial, compared switching to iGlarLixi versus continuing prior GLP-1 RA in patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c 7–9% (53–75 mmol/mol) taking maximum tolerated doses of a GLP-1 RA daily (60% on liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) or weekly (40% on dulaglutide, exenatide extended release, or albiglutide) with metformin with or without pioglitazone and with or without sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Adherence to randomized treatment was closely monitored throughout the study. RESULTS iGlarLixi (n = 257) reduced HbA1c more than continued GLP-1 RA therapy (n = 257) from a baseline 7.8% (62 mmol/mol) in both to 6.7% (50 mmol/mol) and 7.4% (57 mmol/mol), respectively, at 26 weeks (least squares mean difference −0.6%; P < 0.0001). More iGlarLixi patients achieved HbA1c CONCLUSIONS Switching to iGlarLixi improves glucose control for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on a maximum tolerated dose of a GLP-1 RA plus oral antihyperglycemic agents.

A meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and placebo concerning cardiorenal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is presented. An electronic search without language restrictions up to June 15, 2019 was conducted to determine eligible trials. A meta-analysis of available trial data was undertaken, using a random-effects model to calculate overall hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data from seven CVOTs, comprising 56 004 patients (68.9% with established cardiovascular disease) were included. GLP-1RA reduced major cardiovascular events (MACE) by 13% (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P = 0.011) with a non-significant heterogeneity between subgroups of patients with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD) (P = 0.220). GLP-1RA also reduced the risk of cardiovascular death by 12%, of non-fatal stroke by 16%, of hospitalization for heart failure by 9%, of all-cause mortality by 11%, and the broad composite kidney outcome by 17%; the latter appeared to be driven only by a reduction in macroalbuminuria (HR, 0.76 [0.68-0.86]; P = 0.003). GLP-1RAs have moderate benefits concerning MACE, and also reduce hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality; they also robustly reduce the incidence of macroalbuminuria, without affecting the progression of diabetic renal disease.

Some preliminary studies reported a link between GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and thyroid/pancreatic neoplasms, while its human relevance remained undetermined. The present meta-analysis was performed to collect information on cancers associated with GLP-1RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were extensively searched to identify randomized controlled trials that reported cancer events in T2DM patients treated with GLP-1RAs for at least 52 weeks, up to March 18, 2019. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated for overall cancer (primary outcome), thyroid and pancreatic cancer. A total of 37 eligible trials were identified. The OR for overall cancer associated with GLP-1RAs was 1.03 (95% CI 0.95–1.12; p = 0.41) compared with comparators. Subgroup analyses showed that treatment with albiglutide was associated with a lower risk of overall cancer (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.60–0.97]; p = 0.03), and no elevated risk of overall cancer was identified for other GLP-1RAs. No significant differences in the risks of thyroid nor pancreatic cancer were disclosed between GLP-1RAs and comparators. This meta-analysis did not suggest any increased risk of cancers associated with GLP-1RAs use in T2DM. The reduction in the risk of overall cancer associated with albiglutide needs to be examined further.

Objective: Albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), reduces glycated hemoglobin with a low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The relationship between GLP-1RAs and risk of pancreatitis is unresolved. This independent, rigorous, expert review of the albiglutide HARMONY Phase III clinical program examined suspected cases of acute pancreatitis. Methods: An independent pancreatitis adjudication committee (PAC), composed of physicians with expertise in gastroenterology and pancreatic disease, was prospectively established to review cases of suspected acute pancreatitis in the HARMONY studies. Results: Patients treated in Phase III trials with albiglutide (n = 2,365), or active or placebo comparators (n = 2,530), averaged 56 years of age with a mean 8.3-year diabetes duration. Across the 8 studies, the PAC reviewed potential cases of treatment-emergent acute pancreatitis in 43 patients. Definite or probable acute pancreatitis was adjudicated for 11 patients (8 albiglutide; 3 active comparators). Most of these were considered by the PAC to be at least possibly related to study treatment (6 of 8 albiglutide cases and 2 of 3 active comparator cases). Both cases in the active comparator group adjudicated as definite or probable pancreatitis with at least a possible relationship to study treatment were in patients treated with a GLP-1RA. The frequency of pancreatitis was higher among patients treated with albiglutide (6/2,365, 0.3%) than with placebo (0/486, 0%) or active comparators (2/2,062, 0.08%). Conclusion: In the HARMONY Phase III program, adjudicated cases of acute pancreatitis were uncommon. However, within the limitations of available data, the incidence of acute pancreatitis with albiglutide appears to be within the range described for other studies of GLP-1RAs. Abbreviations: AE = adverse event; CI = confidence interval; DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1; GLP-1RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; MH-OR = Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio; OR = odds ratio; PAC = pancreatitis adjudication committee; SAE = serious adverse event; ULN = upper limit of normal.

Background Recent evidence has emerged concerning hypoglycemia following the application of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). Nevertheless, few real-world investigations have been performed to determine the clinical characteristics, onset, and outcomes of hypoglycemia associated with different GLP-1RAs. This study aimed to compare and assess the relationship between various GLP-1RAs and hypoglycemia in a large population based on updated data from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods Bayesian and disproportionality analyses were applied to data mining in order to investigate suspected cases of hypoglycemia following various GLP-1RAs using the FAERS data between January 2004 and September 2020. We also evaluated the onset time, fatality risks, and hospitalization proportions of GLP-1RA-related hypoglycemia. Results We identified 1,164 GLP-1RA-associated hypoglycemia cases, which seemed to affect more middle-aged patients than elderly ones. Also, females were more affected than males. Lixisenatide demonstrated a stronger association with hypoglycemia compared to other GLP-1RAs, according to the highest reporting odds ratio (ROR) (28.03, 95% confidence interval =15.92, 49.32), empirical Bayes geometric mean [26.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 16.20], and proportional reporting ratio (PRR) (26.01, χ2=313.37). The median time to hypoglycemia onset was 5 days (interquartile range, 0-67.75 days) following GLP-1RA treatment. In general, GLP-1RA-associated hypoglycemia resulted in fatality and hospitalization proportions of 3.53% and 56.08%, respectively. Conclusions By analyzing the FAERS data, we outlined the association between hypoglycemia and different GLP-1RAs in greater detail in terms of clinical features, onset, and outcomes. Among all six GLP-1RAs, lixisenatide demonstrated the strongest association with hypoglycemia while no relationship between albiglutide and hypoglycemia was observed. Attention should be given to GLP-1RAs when used in patients with high risks of hypoglycemia.

This review summarizes recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with glucose-lowering drugs. The majority of recent CVOTs with glucose-lowering drugs have tested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), but studies have also been performed with other agents including thiazolidinediones and insulin. All CVOTs with DPP4-I, GLP1-RA, and SGLT2-i have demonstrated the cardiovascular (CV) safety of these agents compared to usual care. However, certain GLP1-RAs (liraglutide, subcutaneous semaglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) and SGLT2-i (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) have demonstrated a CV benefit, showing significant reductions in composite cardiovascular outcomes. Furthermore, all SGLT2-i also significantly decreased the risk for hospitalization for heart failure. Results from these studies have altered clinical guidelines worldwide and have resulted in new indications for some glucose-lowering drugs. In patients with T2D and high risk for CVD, GLP-1RA or SGLT2-i with proven cardiovascular benefit are recommended, irrespective of glycemic control.

ImportanceGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists regulate blood glucose and are commonly used to treat Type II Diabetes Mellitus. Recent work has shown that treatment with the novel GLP-1R agonist, NLY01, decreased retinal neuroinflammation and glial activation to rescue retinal ganglion cells in an animal model of glaucoma.ObjectiveIn this study, we used an insurance claims database to examine whether GLP-1R agonist exposure impacts glaucoma risk.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective cohort of adult patients who initiated a new GLP-1R agonist (i.e., exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or lixisenatide) was 1:3 age, gender, race, active diabetes medication classes, and year of index date matched to a cohort of patients who initiated a different class of oral diabetic medication during their time in the database. Exclusion occurred for ExposureGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNew diagnosis of primary open angle glaucoma, glaucoma suspect, or low tension glaucoma.ResultsCohorts were comprised of 1,961 new users of GLP-1R agonists matched to 4,371 unexposed controls. After IPTW, age was the only covariate imbalanced (SMD >0.1) between cohorts. Ten new diagnoses of glaucoma (0.51%) were present in the GLP-1R agonist cohort compared to 58 (1.33%) in the unexposed controls. After adjustment, GLP-1R exposure conferred a reduced hazard of 0.54 (95%CI: 0.35-0.85, P =0.007), suggesting that GLP-1R agonists reduce the risk for glaucoma.Conclusions and RelevanceGLP-1R agonist use was associated with a statistically significant hazard reduction for a new glaucoma diagnosis. Our findings support further investigations into the use of GLP-1R agonists in glaucoma prevention.

Altres ajuts: IM has received consultancy fess or lecture honoraria from Boerhinger Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis and Astra-Zeneca and has participated in clinical trials funded by Sanofi-Aventis. AP has received consultancy fess or lecture honoraria from GSK, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merk, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Almirall and Esteve and has participated in clinical trials funded by GSK, Sanofi-Aventis, Almirall, Esteve. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are currently available for treatment of type 2 diabetic patients. Based on their pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, these drugs are classified as short-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide and lixisenatide) or long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide-LAR, liraglutide, albiglutide, and dulaglutide). In clinical practice, they are also classified as basal or prandial GLP-1 receptor agonists to differentiate between patients who would benefit more from one or another based on characteristics such as previous treatment and the predominance of fasting or postprandial hyperglycemia. In the present article we examine available data on the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the various GLP-1 agonists and compare their effects with respect to the main parameters used to evaluate glycemic control. The article also analyzes whether the differences between the different GLP-1 agonists justify their classification as basal or prandial.

Background Suboptimal medication adherence has been associated with increased resource utilisation and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of T2D. However, medications in this class differ considerably in their dosing frequency, which may impact adherence. We sought to perform a meta-analysis to compare adherence to injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily in patients with T2D. Methods Medline and Scopus were searched from 1/2005 to 7/2020 using keywords and MeSH terms pertaining to adherence and GLP-1RAs. Studies of adults with T2D were included if they compared adherence (as measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) to injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly vs once daily. A meta-analysis of non-overlapping studies was performed to evaluate the primary outcome of non-adherence, defined as the proportion of patients with a PDC Results A total of 7 studies evaluating 75 159 patients (range: 2886-30 097) with T2D were included. The follow-up periods of included studies ranged from 6 to 12 months. Injectable GLP-1RAs dosed once weekly were either dulaglutide, albiglutide or exenatide extended release; while liraglutide was the injectable once daily agent evaluated in all included studies. Upon meta-analysis, once weekly GLP-1RA dosing was associated with an 11% lower risk of non-adherence compared to once daily dosing (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval = 0.83-0.95; I2 = 89%). Conclusion Once weekly dosing of injectable GLP-1RAs was associated with better adherence vs once daily dosing among patients with T2D. These findings coupled with the known detrimental consequences of non-adherence suggest that dosing frequency is an important factor to consider when selecting a GLP-1RA.

Results from cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials have revealed important insights into the CV safety and efficacy of glucose-lowering agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA). Among patients with T2DM, DPP-4i have no significant effect on risk of major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with mixed results regarding risk for heart failure (HF). While sitagliptin and linagliptin have neutral effects on HF risk, saxagliptin significantly increases the risk of HF. The CV safety of the GLP-1RA class of medications has been clearly demonstrated, and select agents, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, albiglutide, and dulaglutide, reduce the risk of MACE in patients with T2DM and established CV disease. CV outcome trials have demonstrated CV safety but not incremental efficacy for DPP-4i in most cases. Select GLP-1RA have proven efficacy for MACE and should be considered by cardiologists for CV risk mitigation in the care of patients with T2DM and established CV disease.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common and serious comorbidity of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment has become an important aspect of evaluating new therapies for T2DM before approval by the FDA. Since 2008, in order to establish safety, new therapies for T2DM have been required to demonstrate that they will not result in an unacceptable increase in CV risk. Studies performed for this purpose are termed CV outcome trials, or CVOTs. This article reviews CVOTs completed to date for the class of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs; liraglutide, exenatide extended-release, albiglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide injectable, semaglutide oral) and implications for clinical management of T2DM. All CVOTs have confirmed long-acting GLP-1RAs to be noninferior to (not worse than) placebo with regard to first occurrence of a primary outcome of three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke). Further, a number of the studies demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in primary outcomes of three-point MACE with GLP-1RA treatment compared with placebo. As a result, the product labeling for liraglutide, semaglutide injectable, and dulaglutide has been updated with an indication for reducing the risk of MACE in adults with T2DM and established CVD (all) or multiple CV risk factors (dulaglutide only). These findings have brought about an exciting paradigm shift from concern about not inflicting CV harm to the exciting prospect of reducing risks of CV outcomes. Major diabetes care guidelines now encourage early consideration of GLP-1RA use in patients with atherosclerotic CVD.

Aim An association between Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP1-RA) and risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer has been suggested. Since its first description, several new trials (including three cardiovascular outcome trials) have been published, substantially increasing the available data set. This suggests the need for an update of the previous meta analysis. Materials and methods A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials, with duration ≥52 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug. The endpoints were pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer reported as serious adverse events. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes defined above, on an intention-to-treat basis. Results A total of 43 trials fulfilling inclusion criteria (all reporting data on pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer) was identified. GLP-1 RA showed no association with pancreatitis (MH-OR 1.24 [0.94, 1.64]; p=0,13) and pancreatic cancer (MH-OR 1.28 [0.87, 1.89]; p=0,20). Conclusions No clear evidence of risk for pancreatitis was observed, whereas data on pancreatic cancer are too scarce to draw any conclusion.

Objective: To indirectly compare glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: We searched Medline to retrieve CVOTs that involved GLP-1RA. We conducted NMAs using binomial likelihood logit link model for the following outcomes: CV death, myocardial infarction (IM), stroke, and death from any cause. After running both fixed effects and random effects models for each outcome, we identified the best fit model that has the smallest deviance information and the average posterior residual deviance. We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA-NMA) in reporting this NMA. Results: After screening, a total of seven GLP-1RA CVOTs were included. The NMA results showed that oral semaglutide was statistically better than exenatide (HR 0.47, CI: 0.21-0.99), dulaglutide (HR 0.46, CI: 0.20-0.97), albiglutide (HR 0.45, CI: 0.19-0.97), and lixisenatide (HR 0.43, CI: 0.19-0.92) in reducing CV death events. No significant differences were detected between most of the treatments regarding reducing death from any cause, MI and stroke events. The ranking results showed that oral semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first (>90%) in reducing CV death and death from any cause. Moreover, once weekly semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first in reducing MI and stroke events. Conclusion: The indirect comparison of GLP-1RAs using CVOTs data showed that oral semaglutide is preferred over most of the GLP-1RAs in reducing CV death and death from any cause events. The ranking probability showed that once weekly semaglutide and oral semaglutide are the most likely to be ranked first in reducing the outcomes of interest. Disclosure O. Alfayez: None. O. Alkhezi: None. A.R. Almutairi: None.

Objective: To indirectly compare once weekly exenatide, semaglutide, albiglutide and dulaglutide regarding cardiovascular (CV) safety and mortality using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: PubMed was searched to identify glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) outcome trials (CVOTs) to date. The outcomes of interest were CV death, myocardial infarction (IM), nonfatal MI, stroke, nonfatal stroke, death from any cause, and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF). An NMA with binomial likelihood logit link model was used for the binary outcomes. We conducted both fixed effects and random effects models for each outcome, and selected the best model based on the deviance information and the average posterior residual deviance. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and risk of bias was assessed in the same manner. Results: The NMA results showed no significant differences among the four GLP-1RAs regarding most of the outcomes. However, albiglutide when compared to exenatide was associated with lower risk of MI (HR 0.76, 95% Cl: 0.60-0.96)] and nonfatal MI (HR 0.76, 95% Cl: 0.60-0.97). The ranking probability showed that semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first in reducing MI (55%), nonfatal MI (55%), stroke (87%), and nonfatal stroke events (87%). For CV death and death from any cause, exenatide had the highest probability to be ranked first at 30% and 45% respectively. Lastly, for hospitalizations for HF, albiglutide was ranked first with a probability of 55% followed by placebo. Conclusion: This NMA did not show significant differences among the treatments. However, based on the ranking results, semaglutide seems to be the preferred agent over the other once weekly GLP-1RAs in patients with diabetes and CV risk. Disclosure O. Alfayez: None. O.A. Almohammed: None. O. Alkhezi: None. M.S. Al Yami: None.

The comparative efficacy of different glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in type 2 diabetes with or without cardiorenal disease is undefined. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant randomized trials. We conducted network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework. Effect sizes were measured using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values to rank drug interventions for different type 2 diabetic subgroups. Albiglutide (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.93) and subcutaneous semaglutide (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.95), with the maximum SUCRA values, significantly reduced MACE versus lixisenatide in people with diabetes with cardiovascular disease; albiglutide (HRs: 0.69 and 0.72), with the maximum SUCRA value, significantly reduced MACE versus dapagliflozin and exenatide in people with diabetes with heart failure; and canagliflozin (HRs: 0.72 and 0.72) and liraglutide (HRs: 0.68 and 0.68), with the maximum SUCRA values, significantly reduced MACE versus exenatide and lixisenatide in people with diabetes with chronic kidney disease. In preventing MACE in type 2 diabetes, subcutaneous semaglutide and albiglutide are most effective for diabetes with cardiovascular disease, albiglutide is most effective for diabetes with heart failure, and canagliflozin and liraglutide are most effective for diabetes with chronic kidney disease.

According to cardiovascular outcome trials, some anti-diabetic drugs can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin) have a strong preventive effect on both hospitalization for heart failure and the decline in kidney function in patients with type 2 diabetes, while glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, especially human glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (liraglutide, semaglutide, and albiglutide), suppress arteriosclerotic diseases (stroke and myocardial infarction). Using these medications in combination could possibly prevent both hospitalization for heart failure and arteriosclerotic events. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are preferentially used as add-on therapy for type 2 diabetes. Cardiovascular outcome trials conducted so far suggest that DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, alogliptin, and saxagliptin) do not promote arteriosclerotic disease, but there may be a difference between these drugs with regard to safety for heart failure. Previous cardiovascular outcome trials have mainly focused on type 2 diabetes patients with established cardiovascular disease. In contrast, the CARMELINA study investigated the cardiovascular safety of linagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney dysfunction.

Three further cardiovascular (CV) outcome studies of glucose-lowering drugs (linagliptin, albiglutide and dapagliflozin) have recently been published, adding to the twelve earlier within-class studies. The linagliptin study (CARMELINA) recruited people with renal disease as well as prior CV events and confirms the overall CV safety (and other safety) of the dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, with no heart failure risk associated with this agent. However, taken together with the findings from two previous studies of DPP4 inhibitors (sitagliptin and saxagliptin), the three DPP4 inhibitor CV outcome trials (CVOTs) have highlighted a safety signal regarding risk of pancreatitis. Like CARMELINA, the albiglutide study (Harmony Outcome) had a very high CV event rate. Despite being a short duration study, albiglutide showed strong superiority for reduction in the major adverse CV events (MACE) composite in people with extant cardiovascular disease (CVD), in line with the earlier studies on the GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) liraglutide and semaglutide. Positive effects can be detected for all these medications from before 12 months and continue for the whole study duration. No new safety issues for albiglutide are identified and the lack of a pancreatitis or a pancreatic cancer signal for this class is now clear. For the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, the DECLARE-TIMI 58 study (of dapagliflozin) clearly indicates strong protection for heart failure in those with CVD, and probably in those with no prior CVD. There is also strong protection against renal decline with dapagliflozin, with similar risk estimates in DECLARE as previously reported for empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, findings for MACE outcomes with dapagliflozin are not concordant with the empagliflozin and canagliflozin studies, and are not convincingly superior across class and for the longer term. Care is required when prescribing the SGLT2 inhibitor class of medications to people with foot vascular issues or prior amputation, and to insulin users in regard of ketoacidosis. In summary, taking into account the findings from these new studies, it is suggested that a GLP-1RA should be offered to all people with CVD and type 2 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors should be prescribed for those at high risk of heart failure or with progressive decline in eGFR. DPP4 inhibitors are a safe choice within the glucose-lowering stepped algorithm.

Background: Diabetes is a chronic disease with high complexity that demands strategic medical care with a multifactorial risk-reduction approach. Over the past decade, the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has entirely changed. One of the paradigm changes has been the arrival of new drugs that reduce cardiovascular risk beyond the reduction of A1C. Objective: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) are two groups of antidiabetics drugs, which have demonstrated superiority compared to placebo for major cardiovascular events (MACE). Methods: We update and discuss their impact on MACE expressed as relative risk (HR hazard ratio) and as the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one cardiovascular event in 5 years. We include the publications of the last 10 years. Results: Empagliflozin, Canagliflozin and Dapagliflozin present an HR for MACE of 0.86, 0.86, 0.86 and an NNT of 38, 44, and 33, respectively (Dapagliflozin in secondary prevention). Regarding HHF (Hospitalization for Heart Failure), the HR was 0.65, 0.67, 0.73 and NNT was 44, 62, and 98, respectively. Lixisenatide, Exenatide, Liragutide, Semaglutide, Albiglutide and Dulaglutide presented for MACE an HR of 1.02, 0.91, 0.87, 0.74, 0.78, 0.88, respectively. There was no increase in the risk of HHF, but there was no benefit either. Conclusion: Cardiovascular benefits of the GLP-1RA and the SGLT2i are clinically significant. A number needed to treat under 50 is required to avoid one MACE in five years. These benefits have led to important changes in the Clinical Practice Guidelines and in the care of our patients with T2DM.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are relatively new additions to the treatment options available for type 2 diabetes. These agents provide glycemic control by increasing glucose-dependent insulin secretion, decreasing inappropriate glucagon secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and increasing satiety (1). The GLP-1 receptor agonists are an attractive treatment option because they are associated with weight loss and have a low risk of hypoglycemia. However, their use is limited in some patients because of gastrointestinal adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), cost, and their subcutaneous route of administration (1). There are currently six GLP-1 receptor agonists approved for use in the United States: exenatide (Byetta), 2005; liraglutide (Victoza), 2010; exenatide XR (Bydureon), 2012; albiglutide (Tanzeum), 2014; dulaglutide (Trulicity), 2014; and lixisenatide (Adlyxin), 2016. Many differences exist within this class of medications, including efficacy and safety profiles, dosing schedules, and preparation and administration requirements, making product selection and use potentially confusing for both health care professionals (HCPs) and patients. Dosing schedule is one important consideration when comparing GLP-1 receptor agonists. Whereas three of the GLP-1 receptor agonists are available in multi-use, disposable pen devices and are given either twice daily (exenatide) or once daily (liraglutide and lixisenatide), the other three GLP-1 receptor agonists are once-weekly formulations available in single-use, disposable pen devices (albiglutide [2], dulaglutide [3], and exenatide XR [4]). Once-weekly products may offer the advantage of better adherence and ease of use compared to once- or twice-daily medications. In clinical studies, adherence to treatment and treatment satisfaction significantly increased with once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists compared to once- or twice-daily GLP-1 receptor agonists (5–7). In comparing efficacy and safety of the once-weekly agents, meta-analyses and head-to-head trials demonstrate that dulaglutide showed the greatest reduction in A1C compared with other once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists, …

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) carries risks of both cardiovascular (CV) (myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease) and microvascular (retinopathy/nephropathy/neuropathy) complications. Glucose-lowering is an effective strategy for preventing microvascular complications, but the extent to which it can reduce CV complications is less certain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists are potent glucose-lowering agents but also have potentially beneficial effects on other traditional (body weight, blood pressure (BP), and LDL cholesterol) and non-traditional risk factors (low grade inflammation and endothelial dysfunction). The results of four large CV outcome trials with GLP-1 agonists are now available. These have compared lixisenatide (ELIXA), liraglutide (LEADER), semaglutide (SUSTAIN-6), and long-acting exenatide (EXSCEL) with placebo and standard of care over 2–4 years; four others (including with dulaglutide and albiglutide) are ongoing. LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 have demonstrated reductions in rates of major adverse CV events with active GLP-1 treatment but ELIXA and EXSCEL have not. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms by which GLP-1 receptor agonists act on the CV system and the design and conduct of these trials. Contrary to the assertions that (a) all GLP-1 agonists reduce CV disease in T2D but to different extents or (b) the magnitude of CV protection is predominantly related to glucose-lowering, we argue that CV benefit is specific to agents that provide longer acting agonism at the GLP-1 receptor. The mechanisms involve reduction in body weight and BP, and lowering of LDL-cholesterol and glucose, but pleiotropic effects—including suppression of low grade inflammation, vasodilation, and natriuresis—are also likely relevant.

Albiglutide, developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, is provided in a dual-chamber cartridge (DCC) single-dose pen-injector containing lyophilized drug that must be reconstituted with diluent prior to use. A liquid formulation of albiglutide has been developed that does not require mixing. In this 2-period, randomized, crossover, double-blind, phase I study (NCT02660736) in 59 healthy volunteers, pharmacokinetic parameters were determined and the bioequivalence of the 2 formulations was assessed. Participants received injections from each type of pen-injector, one containing albiglutide 50 mg and one containing placebo, followed by an 8-week washout period between regimens: albiglutide 50-mg liquid formulation from an auto-injector and lyophilized placebo from a DCC pen-injector (Regimen A), or placebo liquid from an auto-injector and lyophilized albiglutide 50 mg from a DCC pen-injector (Regimen B). Geometric mean total exposures (area under the drug concentration-time curve [AUC](0-t) [1345.4 vs 1426.9 (μg · h/mL)], AUC(0-∞) [1376.2 vs 1454.6 (μg · h/mL)], and maximum concentration of drug in blood plasma [4968.5 vs 5314.7 ng/mL]) were comparable between Regimens A and B. Ratios of geometric least square means (90% confidence interval) were 95.3% (89.49-101.52) for AUC(0-∞) , 95.1% (89.12-101.49) for AUC(0-t) , and 93.2% (86.76-100.17) for maximum concentration of drug in blood plasma, falling within the 90% confidence interval of 0.80 to 1.25 for bioequivalence. No new safety concerns were observed.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) represent an integral part of the arsenal used in clinical practice to improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials have shown that liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide all reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes and either established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or high-risk characteristics (1–4). In contrast, exenatide and lixisenatide improved glycemic control but did not have a sizable impact on cardiovascular events in clinical trials (5,6), suggesting that glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes are at least partly uncoupled. A meta-analysis including 42,920 participants from five randomized trials demonstrated that GLP-1 RA as a drug class are associated with a significant 13% reduction in the risk of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes and established ASCVD (7). GLP-1 RA are recommended in patients with diabetes and established ASCVD or at high risk of ASCVD (8). They are also indicated as second-line therapy in patients without ASCVD (or without indicators of high risk) who do not meet treatment goals with lifestyle modifications and metformin alone, and they are preferred to insulin if injectable therapy is needed (8). Although the …

Albiglutide is a long acting GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) administered by weekly injection and approved for use in type 2 diabetes. It has less gastrointestinal side effects than other GLP-1 RAs in current use but does not improve HbA1c or promote weight loss to the same extent as some competitor agents. Area covered: The current use of albiglutide is discussed. The review encompassed a search of PubMed and a thorough analysis of the European Union and US Food and Drug Administration approval documents. Expert opinion: Unlike competitor agents, the gastrointestinal side effects of albiglutide are not much greater than placebo. It has been studied and appears safe at all stages of renal failure. There exists concern about an imbalance of pancreatitis cases in the approval program as well as injection site reactions which led to discontinuance of therapy in up to 2% of participants. A large long-term study is now underway to determine if albiglutide, with its relatively favorable GI tolerance, has a place in the treatment of patients with increased risk of cardiovascular events. At present, albiglutide is a safe agent to introduce GLP-1 RA treatment into the regimen for type 2 diabetes patients and may be the GLP-1 agent of choice in patients with renal insufficiency.

Background The risk of pancreatitis and potential risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists prompted the US Food and Drug Administration to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for albiglutide, including education for prescribers and subsequent assessment of their knowledge of the risks and safe use of albiglutide via a quantitative survey. Objective The objective of this study was to assess prescribers’ knowledge of the risks related to medullary thyroid carcinoma, pancreatitis, and the appropriate patient population for albiglutide. Methods Two Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy surveys were conducted 18 months and 3 years after albiglutide was launched. Primary analyses evaluated correct response rates for each question. Secondary analyses evaluated the number of correct responses and the percentage of respondents scoring at/above the target comprehension thresholds (75% at 18 months; 80% at 3 years), which were selected based on discussion with the Food and Drug Administration and current standards for Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy assessments, for each key risk message. Results The correct response rate for individual questions ranged from 68.2 to 97.9% (18-month survey) and from 69.4 to 98.1% (3-year survey). For the secondary analysis, 79.5, 86.7, and 86.7% of respondents in the 18-month survey answered ≥ 75% of the questions correctly and 70.8, 90.9, and 54.1% of respondents in the 3-year survey answered ≥ 80% of the questions correctly for key risk messages related to medullary thyroid carcinoma, pancreatitis, and appropriate patient population, respectively. Conclusions Survey results indicated most, but not all, prescribers are knowledgeable regarding the risks and safe use of albiglutide. Additional education to address gaps in knowledge could further improve risk mitigation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-017-0128-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims/Introduction The present phase 3, randomized, double-blind 24-week study with extension to 1 year assessed the efficacy and safety of albiglutide compared with placebo in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by diet and exercise with or without a single oral antidiabetic drug. Materials and Methods Patients received weekly albiglutide 30 mg (n = 160), albiglutide 50 mg (n = 150) or a placebo switched to albiglutide 30 mg after 24 weeks (n = 77). Open-label daily liraglutide 0.9 mg (n = 103) was included as a reference. Oral antidiabetic drug use was discontinued before baseline. The primary end-point was 24-week change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary end-points included fasting plasma glucose, bodyweight and adverse events. Results At 24 weeks, mean HbA1c changes from baseline were −1.10, −1.30, and 0.25% for albiglutide 30, 50 mg and placebo, respectively (P vs placebo

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes in an electronic medical record database to compare real-world, 6-month glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight outcomes for exenatide once weekly with those for dulaglutide and albiglutide. The study included 2465 patients: exenatide once weekly, n = 2133; dulaglutide, n = 201; and albiglutide, n = 131. The overall mean (standard deviation [s.d.]) age was 60 (11) years and 54% were men; neither differed among the comparison groups. The mean (s.d.) baseline HbA1c was similar in the exenatide once-weekly (8.3 [1.7]%) and dulaglutide groups (8.5 [1.5]%; P = .165), but higher in the albiglutide group (8.7 [1.7]%; P < .001). The overall mean (s.d.) HbA1c change was -0.5 (1.5)% (P < .001) and this did not differ among the comparison groups in either adjusted or unadjusted analyses. The mean (s.d.) weight change was -1.4 (4.7) kg for exenatide once weekly and -1.6 (3.7) kg for albiglutide (P = .579), but was greater for dulaglutide, at -2.7 (5.7) kg (P = .001). Outcomes were similar in subsets of insulin-naive patients with baseline HbA1c ≥7.0% or ≥9.0%. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c at 6 months, with no significant differences among agents or according to baseline HbA1c in insulin-naive subgroups.

Aims Diabetes therapies that provide durable glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are needed. We present efficacy results of albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in people with T2DM over a 3-year period. Methods Five of the 8 HARMONY phase 3 trials, comparing albiglutide with other therapies or placebo across a spectrum of clinical care, lasted for a preplanned 3 years. Participants with uncontrolled hyperglycaemia who met predetermined criteria could receive rescue medication. The ability to remain on study medication without needing additional rescue was an efficacy measure. Glycaemic measures and body weight were analysed in 2 populations: those who remained rescue-free and all participants. Results Participants ( n = 3132) were randomised to albiglutide or comparator. A greater proportion of participants who received albiglutide remained rescue-free (55–71%) compared with placebo (35–51%; p p = 0.002). The proportion of rescue-free participants with albiglutide did not differ from glimepiride or insulin glargine, was higher than with sitagliptin ( p = 0.013), and lower than with pioglitazone ( p = 0.045). At 3 years, albiglutide was associated with clinically significant reductions in hyperglycaemia (eg, rescue-free participants: HbA1c −0.52% [SE0.11] to −0.98% [0.12]; −5.7 mmol/mol [1.2] to −10.7 mmol/mol [1.3] and all participants: HbA1c −0.29% [0.11] to − 0.92% [0.13]; −3.2 mmol/mol [1.2] to −10.1 mmol/mol [1.4]). Albiglutide was also associated with modest reductions in body weight vs pioglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine, which were associated with weight gain. Conclusion These 3-year efficacy data support long-term use of albiglutide in the management of people with T2DM. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00849056 , NCT00849017 , NCT00838903 , NCT00838916 , NCT00839527 .

Aim Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) have been associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Prior meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials failed to show any significant increase of risk; however, those meta-analyses did not include the recently published cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) with GLP1-RA, which provide a substantial additional body of data. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the effect of GLP1-RA on pancreatitis, pancreatic cancers and cholelithiasis. Materials and methods A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials with a duration >11 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug. Results Of the 113 trials fulfilling inclusion criteria, 13 did not report information on pancreatitis, whereas 72 reported no events in all treatment groups. The incidence of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer with GLP1-RA was not significantly different from that observed in comparator arms (MH-OR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.65-1.34], P = .71, and 0.94 [0.52-1.70], P = .84, respectively), whereas, a significantly increased risk of cholelithiasis (MH-OR [95% CI] 1.30 [1.01-1.68], P = .041) was detected. Conclusions Presently available data confirm the safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for pancreatitis. Conversely, therapy with those drugs is associated with an increased risk of cholelithiasis, which deserves further investigation.

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) exenatide and lixisenatide reduce cholecystokinin (CCK)-induced gallbladder emptying in healthy subjects. It is unknown if all GLP-1 RAs share this effect; therefore, the effect of the GLP-1 RA albiglutide on gallbladder function was assessed. In this randomized, double-blind, 2-way crossover study, a single dose of subcutaneous albiglutide 50 mg or placebo was administered to 17 healthy subjects, and CCK-induced gallbladder contractility was measured by ultrasonography. CCK (0.003 μg/kg) was infused intravenously over 50 minutes on study day 4 (3 days after dosing, to coincide with albiglutide's expected time to maximum concentration). Gallbladder volume, ejection fraction, and the main pancreatic and common bile-duct diameters were measured before, during, and following CCK infusion. Gallbladder volume was significantly greater in the albiglutide vs placebo groups before, during, and after CCK infusion, and the mean difference from placebo increased numerically during CCK infusion. The area under the volume-effect curve was significantly greater with albiglutide (P = .029). Starting at the 30-minute CCK infusion time point, the gallbladder ejection fraction was significantly lower with albiglutide than placebo. Changes in pancreatic duct diameter and common bile-duct diameter were not significantly different between albiglutide and placebo. Similar incidences of adverse events were observed between the albiglutide and placebo treatment periods. No new albiglutide safety signals were detected, and no serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, similar to other GLP-1 RAs, albiglutide decreased CCK-induced gallbladder emptying compared with placebo in healthy individuals. Clinical implications of the gallbladder effects are unclear at this time.

GLP-1-based strategies have many advantages in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but native GLP-1 has a short half-life in the circulation, which limits its clinical application. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of GW002, a novel recombinant GLP-1 analog fusion protein produced by linking the human GLP-1 analog C-terminus to the N-terminus of human serum albumin via a linker, in vitro and in BKS-db mice. To determine whether GW002 can activate the GLP-1 receptor in cells, the level of luciferase expression was evaluated in vitro. In vivo, body weight, food intake, non-fasting and fasting blood glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, blood glucose and insulin levels, liver histology, liver function parameters and antibody levels in BKS-db mice were investigated to evaluate the effects of GW002. Albiglutide was chosen as a positive comparator. Cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels were increased in a dose-dependent manner in cells. In vivo studies demonstrated that GW002 lowers non-fasting and fasting blood glucose levels and improves glucose tolerance and insulin secretion in BKS-db mice. The degree of hepatic steatosis and hepatic biochemical indexes was also decreased. In this study, the mice body weight was not reduced significantly. The above results showed that the efficacy of GW002 in BKS-db mice displayed a significant hypoglycemic effect, which indicated that GW002 might be a potential candidate for the treatment of T2DM.

Aims Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) stimulate the incretin system and lower glycaemic parameters in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This analysis of clinical studies of up to 3 years evaluated the safety of albiglutide, a GLP-1 RA, in people with T2DM. Methods Integrated safety analysis included seven phase-3 T2DM studies of albiglutide compared with placebo and/or active comparators (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, GLP-1 RA, insulin, sulphonylurea, and thiazolidinedione). Results Studies of 32 months (HARMONY 7), 1 year (HARMONY 6), and 3 years (HARMONY 1–5), reported similar rates of adverse events (AEs) (84.8%, 82.3%), and serious AEs (13.1%, 12.9%) between albiglutide and all comparators, respectively. AEs that did not differ between the groups included symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia as well as nausea (12.0%, 11.3%) and vomiting (5.3%, 4.7%) for albiglutide and all comparators, respectively. According to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms, only diarrhoea (13.7%, 9.9%), injection-site reaction (9.0%, 2.0%), and peripheral oedema (4.5%, 6.8%) had at least 2% difference between the albiglutide and all-comparator groups. In a similar integrated analysis, pancreatitis occurred more often with albiglutide (0.3%, 0.1%). Renal and cardiac function did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions In an integrated analysis of seven phase 3 clinical trials, albiglutide-treated patients experienced frequencies of AEs (including cardiovascular and renal) similar to the all-comparators group treated with other T2DM medications or placebo. Albiglutide treatment was associated with higher rates of diarrhoea and injection-site reactions, but not increased nausea and vomiting, versus all comparators.

Aims To compare adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, and treatment patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). More specifically, the main objectives were to compare dulaglutide vs exenatide once weekly and dulaglutide vs liraglutide. Methods Patients with T2DM newly initiating dulaglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once weekly, exenatide twice daily and liraglutide between November 2014 and April 2015 were hierarchically selected from Truven Health's MarketScan Research Databases. Propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias. Adherence to and persistence with the index GLP-1RA, and switching and augmentation patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period. Results Mean adherence for the matched cohorts was significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly (0.72 vs 0.61; P