Weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving once-weekly dulaglutide plus insulin lispro or insulin glargine plus insulin lispro: A post-hoc analysis of the AWARD-4 study across baseline body mass index subgroups

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).

LIMITATIONS

Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.

CONCLUSION

In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Efficacy of dulaglutide on vascular health indexes in subjects with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial

Background

Recent cardiovascular outcome trials have shown significant reductions in major cardiovascular (CV) events with glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists. Additionally, adjunctive surrogates for cardiovascular risk validated by some studies include arterial stiffness and endothelial function indexes. To date, no randomized trial has addressed the possible effects of antidiabetic interventional drugs such as GLP1 agonists on endothelial and arterial stiffness indexes as surrogate markers of vascular damage.

Aims

We aimed to evaluate metabolic efficacy and surrogate vascular efficacy endpoints of once-weekly dulaglutide (1.5 mg) plus traditional antidiabetic treatment compared with traditional antidiabetic treatment alone in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Men and women (aged ≥ 50 years) with established or newly detected type 2 diabetes whose HbA1c level was 9.5% or less on stable doses of up to two oral glucose­ lowering drugs with or without basal insulin therapy were eligible for randomization. Subcutaneous dulaglutide was initiated at the full dose (1.5 mg/day weekly). Arterial stiffness (PWV: pulse wave velocity and augmentation index) and endothelial function (RHI: reactive hyperaemia index) were evaluated at baseline and at three-month and nine-month examination visits. At each visit (at 3 and 9 months), the subjects were also evaluated for glycaemic variables such as fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c and lipid variables such as total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

Results

At the three-month follow-up, the subjects treated with dulaglutide showed significantly lower serum levels of FPG and HbA1c than control subjects treated with conventional therapy. At the 9-month follow-up, subjects treated with dulaglutide showed significant lower values of the mean diastolic blood pressure, BMI, total serum cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, FPG, HbA1c and PWV and higher mean RHI values than control subjects treated with conventional therapy.

Conclusions

Our randomized trial showed that subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with conventional therapy plus 1.5 mg/day of subcutaneous dulaglutide compared with subjects treated with conventional therapy alone showed favourable metabolic effects associated with positive effects on vascular health markers such as arterial stiffness and endothelial function markers. These findings are consistent with previous study findings indicating the strict relationship between cardiovascular risk factors such as systolic blood pressure, total serum cholesterol and LDL levels and cardiovascular events and vascular health surrogate markers.

Management of post-transplant diabetes: immunosuppression, early prevention, and novel antidiabetics

Post‐transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) shows a relationship with risk factors including obesity and tacrolimus‐based immunosuppression, which decreases pancreatic insulin secretion. Several of the sodium–glucose‐linked transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon‐like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1‐RAs) dramatically improve outcomes of individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without chronic kidney disease, which is, as heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, differentially affected by both drug classes (presumably). Here, we discuss SGLT2is and GLP1‐RAs in context with other PTDM management strategies, including modification of immunosuppression, active lifestyle intervention, and early postoperative insulin administration. We also review recent studies with SGLT2is in PTDM, reporting their safety and antihyperglycemic efficacy, which is moderate to low, depending on kidney function. Finally, we reference retrospective case reports with GLP1‐RAs that have not brought forth major concerns, likely indicating that GLP1‐RAs are ideal for PTDM patients suffering from obesity. Although our article encompasses PTDM after solid organ transplantation in general, data from kidney transplant recipients constitute the largest proportion. The PTDM research community still requires data that treating and preventing PTDM will improve clinical conditions beyond hyperglycemia. We therefore suggest that it is time to collaborate, in testing novel antidiabetics among patients of all transplant disciplines.

Impact of patient characteristics on efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide: SUSTAIN 7 post hoc analyses

OBJECTIVE

In SUSTAIN 7, once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated superior glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) and body weight (BW) reductions versus once-weekly dulaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of clinically relevant subject characteristics on treatment effects of semaglutide versus dulaglutide.

DESIGN

Analyses by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years), sex (male, female), diabetes duration (≤5, >5-10, >10 years), HbA_1c (≤7.5, >7.5-8.5, >8.5% (≤58, >58-69, >69 mmol/mol)) and body mass index (BMI) (<30, 30-<35, ≥35 kg/m²).

SETTING

194 sites; 16 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Subjects with T2D (n=1199) exposed to treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Semaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (low-dose comparison); semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg (high-dose comparison), all subcutaneously once weekly.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in HbA_1c (primary endpoint) and BW (confirmatory secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 40; proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c targets (<7%, ≤6.5% (<53, ≤48 mmol/mol)) and weight-loss responses (≥5%, ≥10%) at week 40; and safety.

RESULTS

HbA_1c and BW reductions (estimated treatment difference ranges: -0.22 to -0.70%-point; -1.76 to -3.84 kg) and proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c targets and weight-loss responses were statistically significantly greater for the majority of comparisons of semaglutide versus dulaglutide within each subgroup category and, excepting glycaemic control within the low-dose comparison in HbA_1c subgroups, this was irrespective of subgroup or dose comparison. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common with both treatments, were reported by more women than men and, with semaglutide, decreased with increasing BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistently greater improvements in HbA_1c and BW with semaglutide versus dulaglutide, regardless of age, sex, diabetes duration, glycaemic control and BMI, support the efficacy of semaglutide across the continuum of care in a heterogeneous population with T2D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02648204.

The Implication of Gut Hormones in the Regulation of Energy Homeostasis and Their Role in the Pathophysiology of Obesity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the role of gut hormones and their interactions in the regulation of energy homeostasis, describes gut hormone adaptations in obesity and in response to weight loss, and summarizes the current evidence on the role of gut hormone-based therapies for obesity treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gut hormones play a key role in regulating eating behaviour, energy and glucose homeostasis. Dysregulated gut hormone responses have been proposed to be pathogenetically involved in the development and perpetuation of obesity. Summarizing the major gut hormone changes in obesity, obese individuals are characterized by blunted postprandial ghrelin suppression, loss of premeal ghrelin peaks, impaired diurnal ghrelin variability and reduced fasting and postprandial levels of anorexigenic peptides. Adaptive alterations of gut hormone levels are implicated in weight regain, thus complicating hypocaloric dietary interventions, and can further explain the profound weight loss and metabolic improvement following bariatric surgery. A plethora of compounds mimicking gut hormone changes after bariatric surgery are currently under investigation, introducing a new era in the pharmacotherapy of obesity. The current trend is to combine different gut hormone receptor agonists and target multiple systems simultaneously, in order to replicate as closely as possible the gut hormone milieu after bariatric surgery and circumvent the counter-regulatory adaptive changes associated with dietary energy restriction. An increasing number of preclinical and early-phase clinical trials reveal the additive benefits obtained with dual or triple gut peptide receptor agonists in reducing body weight and improving glycaemia. Gut hormones act as potent regulators of energy and glucose homeostasis. Therapeutic strategies targeting their levels or receptors emerge as a promising approach to treat patients with obesity and hyperglycaemia.

Will medications that mimic gut hormones or target their receptors eventually replace bariatric surgery?

Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective therapeutic modality through which sustained beneficial effects on weight loss and metabolic improvement are achieved. During recent years, indications for bariatric surgery have been expanded to include cases of poorly controlled type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus in lesser extremes of body weight. A spectrum of the beneficial effects of surgery is attributed to robust changes of postprandial gut peptide responses that are observed post operatively. Consolidated knowledge regarding gut peptide physiology as well as emerging new evidence shedding light on the mode of action of previously overlooked gut hormones provide appealing potential obesity and T2DM therapeutic perspectives. The accumulation of evidence from the effect of exogenous administration of native gut peptides alone or in combinations to humans as well as the development of mimetic agents exerting agonistic effects on combinations of gut hormone receptors pave the way for future integrated gut peptide-based treatments, which may mimic the effects of bariatric surgery.