Effect of adjunctive pramlintide treatment on treatment satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes

ADO09, a co-formulation of pramlintide and insulin A21G, lowers body weight versus insulin lispro in type 1 diabetes

AIM

To study safety, efficacy and weight loss with ADO09, a co-formulation of insulin A21G and pramlintide, in type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized, two-arm ambulatory 16-week study compared ADO09 with insulin lispro in 80 participants with type 1 diabetes. We compared changes of weight, glycated haemoglobin, glycaemic patterns during continuous glucose monitoring, and insulin doses at baseline and at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

A significant and continuing weight loss, the primary endpoint, was observed with ADO09 compared with lispro as prandial insulin. In the whole group, the weight loss with ADO09 relative to lispro was 2.1 kg. Glycaemic control was relatively good (7.7% mean glycated haemoglobin) in both groups and did not change during treatment. Prandial insulin doses were reduced by 21% in the ADO09 group, whereas basal insulin dosage was not modified. Gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent with ADO09, but no clear difference in hypoglycaemia was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

These results extend previous observations on the efficacy and safety of this insulin/pramlintide co-formulation. They show a beneficial effect on weight, using less mealtime insulin and without increased hypoglycaemia.

A co-formulation of pramlintide and insulin A21G (ADO09) improves postprandial glucose and short-term control of mean glucose, time in range, and body weight versus insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes

AIM

Pramlintide improves postprandial glucose but requires additional injections. We investigated the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of ADO09, pramlintide/insulin A21G co-formulation, in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This double-blinded, randomized, two-period cross-over study compared prandial administration of ADO09 or insulin aspart over 24 days in T1D using either ≤40 U bolus insulin per day [low-dose group (LD), n = 28] or 40-75 U [high-dose group (HD), n = 16]. Glycaemic responses through continuous glucose monitoring, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics profiles following mixed-meal-tolerance tests were evaluated at baseline and at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Glucose increments from 0 to 4 h after mixed-meal-tolerance test (primary endpoint) were 39% (not statistically significantly) lower with ADO09 in the low-dose group and 69% lower in the high-dose group. Mean continuous glucose monitoring glucose during ambulatory treatment was lower with ADO09 than with aspart (LD: -8.2 ± 7.9 mg/dl, p = .0001; HD: -7.0 ± 10 mg/ml, p = .0127), and time-in-range (70-180 mg/dl) improved (LD: +4%, p = .0134; HD: +4%, p = .0432). Body weight declined significantly with ADO09 (LD: -0.8 kg; HD: -1.6 kg). Hypoglycaemic events were slightly more frequent with ADO09 versus aspart (LD: 142 vs. 115; HD: 96 vs. 79). Gastrointestinal events occurred more frequently with ADO09 but were generally transient, and no other safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with aspart, ADO09 was well tolerated and effective in T1D across a wide range of dosage, significantly improving the average blood glucose level and body weight during 24 days of ambulatory treatment. Meal test profiles confirmed improvement of glycaemic patterns and other responses with ADO09.

Alleviating carbohydrate counting with a FiASP-plus-pramlintide closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas): Feasibility and pilot studies

AIM

To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 μg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience.

RESULTS

Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Pharmacological therapies to address obesity in type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Obesity is increasing in prevalence among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and is associated with insulin resistance and increased cardiovascular risk. The management of obesity in this population is complicated by defects in pancreatic islet hormone secretion and the effects of exogenous insulin treatment. Here, we review the effects of antiobesity medications and adjunct-to-insulin medications on body weight in T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a profound evidence gap around the use of drugs for the treatment of obesity in T1D since systematic studies have not been performed in this population. Adjunctive-to-insulin therapy with certain antihyperglycemic agents leads to modest weight loss and reductions in insulin dose in T1D. However, only pramlintide has been approved in the United States for clinical use as adjunctive therapy in T1D.

SUMMARY

The growing prevalence of obesity in T1D has created an unmet need for safe and effective therapies to treat overweight and obesity in this population. Currently, antiobesity medications are used off-label for the treatment of patients with T1D. Additional studies are needed to understand the role of these medications in the management of obesity in patients with T1D.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Increases The Risk of Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease: Ultrastructural Remodeling of the Neurovascular Unit and Diabetic Gliopathy

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and late-onset Alzheimer’s disease–dementia (LOAD) are increasing in global prevalence and current predictions indicate they will only increase over the coming decades. These increases may be a result of the concurrent increases of obesity and aging. T2DM is associated with cognitive impairments and metabolic factors, which increase the cellular vulnerability to develop an increased risk of age-related LOAD. This review addresses possible mechanisms due to obesity, aging, multiple intersections between T2DM and LOAD and mechanisms for the continuum of progression. Multiple ultrastructural images in female diabetic db/db models are utilized to demonstrate marked cellular remodeling changes of mural and glia cells and provide for the discussion of functional changes in T2DM. Throughout this review multiple endeavors to demonstrate how T2DM increases the vulnerability of the brain’s neurovascular unit (NVU), neuroglia and neurons are presented. Five major intersecting links are considered: i. Aging (chronic age-related diseases); ii. metabolic (hyperglycemia advanced glycation end products and its receptor (AGE/RAGE) interactions and hyperinsulinemia-insulin resistance (a linking linchpin); iii. oxidative stress (reactive oxygen–nitrogen species); iv. inflammation (peripheral macrophage and central brain microglia); v. vascular (macrovascular accelerated atherosclerosis—vascular stiffening and microvascular NVU/neuroglial remodeling) with resulting impaired cerebral blood flow.

Adjunct Antihyperglycemic Agents in Overweight and Obese Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

People with type 1 diabetes often have suboptimal glycemic control. The gold standard of treatment is basal-bolus insulin or subcutaneous insulin infusion via insulin pump. Although insulin therapy improves glycemic control, weight gain and hypoglycemia often limit achievement of hemoglobin A_1C (A1C) goals. The number of people with type 1 diabetes who are overweight or obese is increasing, and there are many similarities between what was historically called type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Therefore, there is rationale for using antihyperglycemic agents that target other pathophysiological abnormalities to facilitate weight loss and improve glycemic control.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a MEDLINE search from 1975 through October 2018 to identify articles that studied noninsulin agents in adults with type 1 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m².

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Identified articles were included if the study duration was ≥4 weeks, included ≥20 patients, and set mean baseline BMI ⩾25kg/m².

DATA SYNTHESIS

This review summarizes 32 clinical trials. Amylin mimetics, sodium-glucose-like transporter-2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists demonstrate the greatest improvements in body weight and A1C. The most common adverse effects are hypoglycemia and ketosis. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Patients with type 1 diabetes may have interest in starting noninsulin agents. Clinicians need to be knowledgeable in the efficacy and adverse effect profile of these agents, specifically in people with type 1 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents may benefit select overweight or obese adults with type 1 diabetes. These agents are off-label, and if used, close monitoring is essential.

Sotagliflozin in Combination With Optimized Insulin Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The North American inTandem1 Study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dual sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 (SGLT1) and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin in combination with optimized insulin in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The inTandem1 trial, a double-blind, 52-week phase 3 trial, randomized North American adults with T1D to placebo (n = 268), sotagliflozin 200 mg (n = 263), or sotagliflozin 400 mg (n = 262) after 6 weeks of insulin optimization. The primary end point was HbA1c change from baseline at 24 weeks. HbA1c, weight, and safety were also assessed through 52 weeks.

RESULTS

From a mean baseline of 7.57%, placebo-adjusted HbA1c reductions were 0.36% and 0.41% with sotagliflozin 200 and 400 mg, respectively, at 24 weeks and 0.25% and 0.31% at 52 weeks (all P < 0.001). Among patients with a baseline HbA1c ≥7.0%, an HbA1c <7% was achieved by 15.7%, 27.2%, and 40.3% of patients receiving placebo, sotagliflozin 200 mg, and sotagliflozin 400 mg, respectively (P ≤ 0.003 vs. placebo) at 24 weeks. At 52 weeks, mean treatment differences between sotagliflozin 400 mg and placebo were -1.08 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose, -4.32 kg for weight, and -15.63% for bolus insulin dose and -11.87% for basal insulin dose (all P < 0.001). Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores increased significantly by 2.5 points with sotagliflozin versus placebo (P < 0.001) at 24 weeks. Genital mycotic infections and diarrhea occurred more frequently with sotagliflozin. Adjudicated diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) occurred in 9 (3.4%) and 11 (4.2%) patients receiving sotagliflozin 200 and 400 mg, respectively, and in 1 (0.4%) receiving placebo. Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 17 (6.5%) patients from each sotagliflozin group and 26 (9.7%) patients receiving placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In a 1-year T1D study, sotagliflozin combined with optimized insulin therapy was associated with sustained HbA1c reduction, weight loss, lower insulin dose, fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia, improved patient-reported outcomes, and more DKA relative to placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02384941).

Non-insulin pharmacological therapies for treating type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Despite intensified insulin treatment, many persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D) do not achieve glycemic and metabolic targets. Consequently, non-insulin chemical therapies that improve glycemic control and metabolic parameters without increasing the risk of adverse events (including hypoglycemia) are of interest as adjunct therapies to insulin.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the efficacy and safety of non-insulin therapies, including pramlintide, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4), sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT1 and SGLT2) inhibitors, metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones as add-on therapies to insulin in T1D.

EXPERT OPINION

The current evidence shows that the efficacy of non-insulin therapies as add-on therapies to insulin is minimal or modest with an average HbA1c reduction of 0.2-0.5% (2-6 mmol/mol). Indeed, the current focus is on the development of SGLT inhibitors as adjuncts to insulin in type 1 diabetes. Studies of subgroups with obesity, residual beta-cell function (including newly diagnosed patients) and patients prone to hypoglycemia could be areas of future research.

Adjunctive therapy for glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is characterized by relative or absolute insulin deficiency. Despite treatment with insulin therapy, glycemic goals are not always met, and insulin therapy is sometimes limited by adverse effects, including hypoglycemia and weight gain. Several adjunctive therapies have been evaluated in combination with insulin in patients with T1DM to improve glycemic control while minimizing adverse effects. Pramlintide, an amylin analog, can improve glycemic control, primarily through lowering postprandial blood glucose levels. Patients may experience weight loss and an increased risk of hypoglycemia and require additional mealtime injections. Metformin provides an inexpensive, oral treatment option and may reduce blood glucose, especially in overweight or obese patients with minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Metformin may be more effective in patients with impaired insulin sensitivity. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists reduce primarily postprandial blood glucose and insulin dose and promote weight loss. They are expensive, cause transient nausea, may increase risk of hypoglycemia and require additional injections. Sodium-glucose transport-2 inhibitors improve glycemic control, promote weight loss and have low risk of hypoglycemia with appropriate insulin adjustment; however, these agents may increase the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis in patients with T1DM. Patient-specific characteristics should be considered when selecting adjunctive therapy for patients with T1DM. Close monitoring, insulin dose adjustments and patient education are all important to ensure safe and effective use of these agents.

Efficacy and safety of pramlintide injection adjunct to insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of pramlintide plus insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

We included clinical studies comparing pramlintide plus insulin to placebo plus insulin. Efficacy was reflected by glycemic control and reduction in body weight and insulin use. Safety concerns were hypoglycemia and other adverse events. Subgroup analysis was performed for different doses (30, 60, 90 µg/meal) and durations (≤4, 26, 29, >29 weeks) of the treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized placebo-controlled studies were included for this meta-analysis (pramlintide, n=1978; placebo, n=1319). Compared with controls, patients given pramlintide had significantly lower HbA1c (p < 0.001), total daily insulin dose (p = 0.024), mean mealtime insulin dose (p < 0.001), body weight (p < 0.001) and postprandial glucose level (p = 0.002). The addition of pramlintide increased the incidence of nausea (p < 0.001), vomiting (p < 0.001), anorexia (p < 0.001) and hypoglycemia (p < 0.05) at the initiation of the treatment. The efficacy and adverse reactions of pramlintide were largely significant for the different doses and durations of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of pramlintide to insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes improves glycemic control and reduces insulin requirement and body weight while bringing transient hypoglycemia and digestive disorders.

Non-insulin drugs to treat hyperglycaemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus

Insulin treatment of individuals with type 1 diabetes has shortcomings and many patients do not achieve glycaemic and metabolic targets. Consequently, the focus is on novel non-insulin therapeutic approaches that reduce hyperglycaemia and improve metabolic variables without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or other adverse events. Several therapies given in conjunction with insulin have been investigated in clinical trials, including pramlintide, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors, metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. These drugs have pleiotropic effects on glucose metabolism and different actions complementary to those of insulin-this Review reports the effects of these drugs on glycaemic control, glucose variability, hypoglycaemia, insulin requirements, and bodyweight. Existing studies are of short duration with few participants; evidence for the efficacy of concomitant treatments is scarce and largely clinically insignificant. A subgroup of patients with type 1 diabetes for whom non-insulin antidiabetic drugs could significantly benefit glycaemic control cannot yet be defined, but we suggest that obese patients prone to hypoglycaemia and patients with residual β-cell function are populations of interest for future trials.

Amylin-mediated control of glycemia, energy balance, and cognition

Amylin, a peptide hormone produced in the pancreas and in the brain, has well-established physiological roles in glycemic regulation and energy balance control. It improves postprandial blood glucose levels by suppressing gastric emptying and glucagon secretion; these beneficial effects have led to the FDA-approved use of the amylin analog pramlintide in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Amylin also acts centrally as a satiation signal, reducing food intake and body weight. The ability of amylin to promote negative energy balance, along with its unique capacity to cooperatively facilitate or enhance the intake- and body weight-suppressive effects of other neuroendocrine signals like leptin, have made amylin a leading target for the development of novel pharmacotherapies for the treatment of obesity. In addition to these more widely studied effects, a growing body of literature suggests that amylin may play a role in processes related to cognition, including the neurodegeneration and cognitive deficits associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although the function of amylin in AD is still unclear, intriguing recent reports indicate that amylin may improve cognitive ability and reduce hallmarks of neurodegeneration in the brain. The frequent comorbidity of diabetes mellitus and obesity, as well as the increased risk for and occurrence of AD associated with these metabolic diseases, suggests that amylin-based pharmaceutical strategies may provide multiple therapeutic benefits. This review will discuss the known effects of amylin on glycemic regulation, energy balance control, and cognitive/motivational processes. Particular focus will be devoted to the current and/or potential future clinical use of amylin pharmacotherapies for the treatment of diseases in each of these realms.

Monoconjugation of Human Amylin with Methylpolyethyleneglycol

Amylin is a pancreatic hormone cosecreted with insulin that exerts unique roles in metabolism and glucose homeostasis. The therapeutic restoration of postprandial and basal amylin levels is highly desirable in diabetes mellitus. Protein conjugation with the biocompatible polymer polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been shown to extend the biological effects of biopharmaceuticals. We have designed a PEGylated human amylin by using the aminoreactive compound methoxylpolyethylene glycol succinimidyl carbonate (mPEGsc). The synthesis in organic solvent resulted in high yields of monoPEGylated human amylin, which showed large stability against aggregation, an 8 times increase in half-life in vivo compared to the non-conjugated amylin, and pharmacological activity as shown by modulation of cAMP production in MCF–7 cell line, decrease in glucagon and modulation of glycemia following subcutaneous administration in mice. Altogether these data reveal the potential use of PEGylated human amylin for the restoration of fasting amylin levels.

Pramlintide improved measures of glycemic control and body weight in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus undergoing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of the addition of pramlintide to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of 2 studies: a 29-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (referred to as RCT) (pramlintide, n = 82; placebo, n = 73) and an open-ended, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, observational study (referred to as clinical practice trial) (n = 150), which assessed the addition of pramlintide to CSII therapy in patients with T1DM. Pramlintide was initiated at 15 μg and titrated to 30 or 60 μg with major meals. The mealtime insulin dose was reduced by 30% to 50% at initiation, and then adjusted to optimize glycemic control. Endpoints at 29 weeks (RCT) and 6 months (clinical practice trial) included change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, insulin dose, body weight, pre- and postprandial blood glucose level, and tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

In both studies, mean baseline age was approximately 42 years, duration of diabetes was 20 to 24 years, and HbA1c level was approximately 8%. Pramlintide reduced blood glucose excursions and improved the percentage of recorded postprandial blood glucose levels < 180 mg/dL. Mean (± standard deviation) reduction in HbA1c level in the clinical practice trial was -0.3% ± 0.1% (P < 0.0001), and in the RCT was similar between pramlintide- and placebo-treated patients (-0.4% ± 0.1% and -0.3% ± 0.1%, respectively). Glycemic improvements were accomplished, with reductions in mealtime insulin doses (RCT: pramlintide, -23.8% ± 5.2%; placebo, -3.2% ± 4.1%; P < 0.0005; clinical practice trial: -27.5% ± 2.9%; P < 0.0001) and body weight (RCT: pramlintide, -2.2 kg ± 0.5 kg; placebo, +1.4 kg ± 0.3 kg; P < 0.0001; clinical practice trial: -3.2 kg ± 0.4 kg; P < 0.0001). Short-lived nausea, primarily mild to moderate in intensity, was the most common adverse event associated with pramlintide therapy. Severe hypoglycemic events occurred at a rate of 0.56 and 0.34 events per patient-year in pramlintide- and placebo-treated patients, respectively, in the RCT, and at a rate of 0.12 events per patient-year in the clinical practice trial.

CONCLUSION

Addition of pramlintide to CSII therapy was safe and effective in patients with T1DM. Pramlintide should be considered for patients who are not able to optimize glycemic control with CSII therapy alone, particularly those with difficulty controlling postprandial blood glucose levels and/or body weight.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00042458, NCT00108004.

Pramlintide: profile of an amylin analog

Amylin is a naturally occurring hormone that regulates food intake and postprandial glucose excursions. Amylin is synthesized in the β cell and cosecreted with insulin. Type 1 diabetes and insulin-requiring Type 2 diabetes are amylin-deficient as well as insulin-deficient states. Pramlintide is a synthetic amylin analog that is used for replacement therapy. Pramlintide therapy slows diabetes-mediated accelerated gastric emptying and restores meal-mediated suppression of glucagon secretion in patients with diabetes. Amylin receptors are primarily located in the CNS, which mediates all of its effects including decreases in food intake. In patients with diabetes, pramlintide treatment reduces hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) 0.3-0.7% and decreases bodyweight. Side effects include nausea and hypoglycemia. Both can be minimized by an appropriate titration program. Recent pramlintide studies address improvements in delivery systems, use in pediatric and Type 2 diabetic populations, patient treatment satisfaction and new insights into its mechanisms of action.

Noninsulin pharmacological management of type 1 diabetes mellitus

The injectable nature and other shortcomings of insulin have stimulated interest in studying the noninsulin pharmacological therapies to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic literature review of noninsulin pharmacological therapies for the management of T1DM. For this, the following PubMed search was conducted: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy"[Mesh]

LIMITS

Review Sort by: Publication Date. After applying various inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 63 studies were reviewed. Based on this review, noninsulin pharmacological therapies can be divided into following classes: (1) Insulin-sensitizing agents (biguanides and thiazolidinediones), (2) gastrointestinal nutrient absorption modulators (α-Glucosidase inhibitors and amylin), (3) immunotherapeutic agents, (4) incretin-based therapies, (5) recombinant human insulin-like growth factors, and (6) other promising therapeutics. Some of these are already used either as monotherapy or adjuvant to insulin, whereas, to manage T1DM, the benefits and risks of the others are still under evaluation. Nonetheless, insulin still remains the cornerstone to manage the T1DM.

Physiologic insulin delivery with insulin feedback: a control systems perspective

Individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus must effectively manage glycemia to avoid acute and chronic complications related to aberrations of glucose levels. Because optimal diabetes management can be difficult to achieve and burdensome, research into a closed-loop insulin delivery system has been of interest for several decades. This paper provides an overview, from a control systems perspective, of the research and development effort of a particular algorithm--the external physiologic insulin delivery system. In particular the introduction of insulin feedback, based on β-cell physiology, is covered in detail. A summary of human clinical trials is provided in the context of the evolution of this algorithm, and this paper outlines some of the research avenues that show particular promise.

Efficacy and harms of the hypoglycemic agent pramlintide in diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

We conducted a study to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and harms of pramlintide as adjunct therapy in adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched multiple bibliographic databases to January 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling inclusion criteria. Syntheses were qualitative because data were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Three published RCTs in type 1 diabetes and 4 in type 2 disease fulfilled inclusion criteria. All trials were conducted with adults, and none was longer than 52 weeks. In type 1 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy, pramlintide was as effective as placebo in lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in one trial. Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo in patients using conventional insulin therapy, with a between-group difference in HbA(1c) levels of 0.2% to 0.3% (2 studies). In patients with type 2 diabetes, pramlintide was more effective at reducing HbA(1c) levels than placebo when added to flexibly dosed glargine (without prandial insulin) and when added to fixed-dose insulin therapies, with or without oral hypoglycemic agents (between-group differences in HbA(1c) were approximately 0.4%). Weight loss was observed with pramlintide in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, whereas placebo-treated patients tended to gain weight. Pramlintide-treated patients experienced more frequent nausea and severe hypoglycemia compared with patients treated with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo as adjunct therapy for improving HbA(1c) levels and weight in adults with type 1 diabetes on conventional insulin therapy, or type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control with their current therapies, with between-group differences in HbA(1c) levels in the range of 0.2% to 0.4%. Further research is needed to determine pramlintide's durability of hypoglycemic effect, as well as effects on patient-reported outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and long-term harms.

Adjunct therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus

Insulin replacement therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is nonphysiologic. Hyperinsulinemia is generated in the periphery to achieve normal insulin concentrations in the liver. This mismatch results in increased hypoglycemia, increased food intake with weight gain, and insufficient regulation of postprandial glucose excursions. Islet amyloid polypeptide is a hormone synthesized in pancreatic beta cells and cosecreted with insulin. Circulating islet amyloid polypeptide binds to receptors located in the hindbrain and increases satiety, delays gastric emptying and suppresses glucagon secretion. Thus, islet amyloid polypeptide complements the effects of insulin. T1DM is a state of both islet amyloid polypeptide and insulin deficiency. Pramlintide, a synthetic analog of islet amyloid polypeptide, can replace this hormone in patients with T1DM. When administered as adjunctive therapy to such patients treated with insulin, pramlintide decreases food intake and causes weight loss. Pramlintide therapy is also associated with suppression of glucagon secretion and delayed gastric emptying, both of which decrease postprandial plasma glucose excursions. Pramlintide therapy improves glycemic control and lessens weight gain. Agents that decrease intestinal carbohydrate digestion (alpha-glucosidase inhibitors) or decrease insulin resistance (metformin) might be alternative adjunctive therapies in T1DM, though its benefits are marginally supported by clinical data.

Patient reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin randomized to addition of mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment satisfaction and quality of life were affected by adding mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) to basal insulin therapy for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 24-week open-label, multicenter study of adults with type 2 diabetes, mealtime pramlintide (PRAM) (120 microg fixed dose; n = 56) or titrated RAIAs (n = 56) was added to basal insulin therapy with or without oral antidiabetic medications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00467649.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life (Diabetes Distress Scale - DDS, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index - PSQI), and treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - DTSQ, and Pramlintide Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - PRAM-TSQ) were assessed at baseline and week 24. Mixed-effect models estimated mean group changes from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for baseline scores) in patient reported outcomes.

RESULTS

PRAM patients experienced significant improvement in total diabetes distress, while RAIA patients did not; both groups experienced significant improvement in regimen-related distress and physician-related distress. Between-group differences in DDS measures were not significant. PRAM patients experienced significant improvement in sleep latency and daytime dysfunction, while RAIA patients did not; the difference between groups was significant for daytime dysfunction. Both treatment groups experienced significant improvement in most individual DTSQ items and total diabetes treatment satisfaction, while only PRAM patients experienced significant improvement in perceived hypoglycemia. Between-group differences in DTSQ measures were not significant. Both treatment groups experienced significant improvement in most individual PRAM-TSQ items and total treatment satisfaction; RAIA patients experienced increased eating flexibility and reduced perceived weight control. PRAM patients experienced significantly better perceived weight and appetite control than RAIA patients.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was relatively small and there were few non-white subjects. The schedule for implementation of change in therapy may have affected study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding pramlintide on a background of basal insulin improved some aspects of treatment satisfaction and quality of life relative to adding rapid-acting insulin analogs.

Continuous subcutaneous pramlintide infusion therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes: observations from a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of continuous (basal-bolus) subcutaneous pramlintide infusion (CSPI) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A 16-week, open-label, single-arm pilot study enrolled 11 patients (mean +/- SD values: age, 39.9 +/- 4.0 years; hemoglobin A1c, 8.20% +/- 0.60%; weight, 92.3 +/- 18.4 kg; body mass index, 29.7 +/- 5.1 kg/m2) with longterm type 1 diabetes mellitus (20.7 +/- 1.3 years; duration of pump therapy, 9.5 +/- 6.0 years). Pramlintide basal infusion was begun with continuous subcutaneous infusion at 9 microg/h. After 3 days, premeal bolus doses of pramlintide were initiated at 15 microg and titrated to 60 microg per meal. Basal and bolus insulin doses were reduced 10% on initiation of CSPI and adjusted thereafter as needed to prevent hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks of pramlintide therapy, mean +/- SD hemoglobin A1c decreased to 7.85% +/- 0.74% (-0.35%). The fasting glucose level declined from 198.2 +/- 66.9 mg/dL to 135.8 +/- 63.9 mg/dL. The mean weight decreased to 91.8 +/- 20.1 kg (-0.5 kg) at week 12. The daily bolus insulin requirement decreased 20%; daily basal insulin was unchanged (27.7 +/- 11.7 U). All patients experienced mild postprandial hypoglycemia, but no severe hypoglycemia was reported. Three of the 11 study participants experienced mild initial nausea, but all patients successfully titrated bolus doses to 60 microg within 3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study of 11 patients with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps, CSPI seemed safe and well tolerated, did not alter pramlintide pharmacokinetic variables, and reduced fasting glucose levels. Larger studies of this method for pramlintide administration seem warranted.

The Role of Pramlintide for Weight Loss

Objective:

To evaluate the weight-loss effects of pramlintide.

Data Sources:

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (1950–October week 4, 2009), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–October 2009), and Evidence Based Medicine Database (1991–2009 week 44) to identify relevant publications. Key words searched included pramlintide, weight loss, obesity, and overweight. Additional data sources were obtained through a bibliographic review of selected articles.

Study Selection/Data Extraction:

All studies conducted on humans and published in English that examined the effects of pramlintide on body weight as a primary or secondary endpoint were selected for analysis.

Data Synthesis:

Pramlintide is a human amylin analog approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in conjunction with insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. In addition to its glucoregulatory actions, pramlintide has been shown to increase satiety and, therefore, decrease calorie Intake via a central mechanism. Several studies show that this translates into statistically significant weight loss in overweight or obese patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes; patients with type 1 diabetes lost up to 1.7 kg over 1 year with pramlintide 60 μg 3 times daily, while patients with type 2 diabetes experienced a placebo-subtracted weight loss of up to 3.7 kg after 16 weeks of pramlintide 120–240 μg administered 3 times daily. Preliminary trials assessing the use of pramlintide for weight loss in obese patients without diabetes have demonstrated weight loss of up to 8 kg after 1 year. In all studies, the drug was generally well tolerated, with nausea being the most commonly reported adverse effect.

Conclusions:

Based on preliminary evidence, pramlintide facilitates modest weight loss in obese or overweight patients with and without diabetes. However, current trials were limited by inconsistent study design, dosing, and patient population.

How does treatment satisfaction work?: Modeling determinants of treatment satisfaction and preference

OBJECTIVE This study tested a model hypothesizing that treatment affects objective clinical outcomes, which in turn affect perceived consequences, which in turn affect satisfaction and preference judgments. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The model was tested in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial in which 266 patients with type 1 diabetes added active or placebo pramlintide to their insulin regimens. Objective clinical outcomes included changes in glucose and weight control, insulin requirements, incidence of hypoglycemia, and study drug tolerance. At the end of the trial, patients completed the validated PRAM-TSQ questionnaire measuring treatment satisfaction and preference and perceived medication benefits and side effects. RESULTS Statistical modeling demonstrated that active pramlintide was significantly associated with greater treatment satisfaction, preference, and perceived benefits (all except hypoglycemia prevention), as well as objective clinical outcomes (weight loss, lower postprandial glucose [PPG], lower medication tolerance, more hypoglycemia). Perceptions of treatment consequences were sensitive and specific to their cognate objective clinical outcomes (no halo effects). Clinical outcomes (especially PPG) accounted for almost half of the effect of the study medication on treatment satisfaction and preference. Treatment satisfaction and preference were strongly related to the perceived benefits/side effects of the study medication, and these perceptions (especially glucose control) mediated most of the association of clinical outcomes with satisfaction and preference. CONCLUSIONS This model received substantial empirical support. Improvements in objective clinical outcomes accounted for a large part of the association of pramlintide treatment with higher treatment satisfaction and preference. Perceived treatment consequences mediated the effect of objective clinical benefits on satisfaction with and preference for the study medication.

Review of pramlintide as adjunctive therapy in treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Pramlintide (Symlin^®), a synthetic analog of a neurohormone amylin, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use along with premeal insulin in patients with type 1. In patients with type 2 diabetes, pramlintide is approved for addition to premeal insulin in those patients who are either only on premeal insulin or those receiving the combination of insulin and metformin and/or a sulfonylurea. This article reviews the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, dosing, clinical trials, safety, contraindications, and drug interactions of pramlintide therapy. A search for published clinical trials and therapeutic reviews in the English language was done in the following databases: Iowa Drug Information Service (1966 to July 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to July 2008). Pramlintide and amylin were used as keywords and title words. References of key articles were also reviewed to identify additional publications. Amylin is a 37 amino acid peptide neurohormone cosecreted from the beta cells of the pancreas, along with insulin, in response to meals. Amylin lowers serum glucose by decreasing glucagon release, slowing gastric emptying and decreasing food intake. Pramlintide, a synthetic analog of amylin, reduces 2-hour postprandial blood glucose between 3.4 and 5 mmol/L, reduces A1C by 0.2% to 0.7% and has no effect on fasting glucose levels. The use of pramlintide was associated with up to a 1.6 kg weight loss. Nausea was the most commonly reported adverse event. Pramlintide is an amylin analog that was FDA approved for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Its use results in modest reduction of A1C and the most frequent side effects are hypoglycemia and nausea.

Diabetes distress and its association with clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with pramlintide as an adjunct to insulin therapy

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess diabetes-related distress and its association with clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin who were treated with pramlintide.

METHODS

In a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study 211 patients using insulin glargine with or without oral antidiabetes agents were randomized to addition of pramlintide or placebo. Clinical outcomes (change in A1C, postprandial glucose, daily basal insulin dose, and weight) and during-trial hypoglycemia were assessed, along with the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). The DDS assesses overall diabetes distress and four subdomains: regimen distress (RD), emotional burden (EB), interpersonal distress (ID), and physician-related distress (PD). Hierarchical, stepwise multiple regression was used to assess the association of clinical outcomes and during-trial hypoglycemia with DDS score changes during the study.

RESULTS

Pramlintide use was associated with a significant reduction in total DDS and RD, but only among those above the median of distress at baseline. Across treatment groups, reduction in basal insulin dose was linked to a drop in total DDS, RD, EB, and ID, reduction in postprandial glucose was associated with reduced total DDS and ID, and reduction in A1C was associated with reduced EB and RD. PD was not associated with hypoglycemia or any clinical outcome. Reduction in weight and incidence of hypoglycemia were not associated with any DDS measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pramlintide use reduced diabetes-related distress among those with high levels of distress at baseline, and better clinical outcomes were associated with improvements in several domains of diabetes-related distress. Efforts should be made to enhance these potential benefits of treatment.

Pramlintide, the synthetic analogue of amylin: physiology, pathophysiology, and effects on glycemic control, body weight, and selected biomarkers of vascular risk

Pramlintide is a synthetic version of the naturally occurring pancreatic peptide called amylin. Amylin and pramlintide have similar effects on lowering postprandial glucose, lowering postprandial glucagon and delaying gastric emptying. Pramlintide use in type 1 and insulin requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with modest reductions in HbA1c often accompanied by weight loss. Limited data show a neutral effect on blood pressure. Small studies suggest small reductions in LDL-cholesterol in type 2 DM and modest reductions in triglycerides in type 1 DM. Markers of oxidation are also reduced in conjunction with reductions in postprandial glucose. Nausea is the most common side effect. These data indicate that pramlintide has a role in glycemic control of both type 1 and type 2 DM. Pramlintide use is associated with favorable effects on weight, lipids and other biomarkers for atherosclerotic disease.

Pramlintide acetate injection for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Amylin is a hormone cosecreted with insulin by the beta cells of the pancreas. It suppresses postprandial glucagon secretion and slows gastric emptying. Pramlintide acetate is an amylin analogue that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2005.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the current primary literature on the clinical efficacy and tolerability of pramlintide injection in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Among other topics covered are the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and dosing and administration of pramlintide.

METHODS

Pertinent English-language articles were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1966-January 2007), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-present), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (1995-January 2007), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1995-January 2007), and EMBASE Drugs & Pharmacology (1991-1st quarter 2007). The search terms included pramlintide, amylin, gastric emptying, pharmacokinetic, pharmacoeconomic, postprandial hyperglycemia, and glucagon. Articles were selected for review if they described studies having a randomized, double-blind, controlled design and included glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) as an end point.

RESULTS

Pramlintide is administered subcutaneously in the abdominal area or thigh immediately before each main meal to achieve maximal reductions in post-prandial glucose excursions. Its C(max) is reached within 20 minutes, and its t(1/2) is 48 minutes. Metabolism is primarily via the kidneys. Pramlintide therapy was associated with inhibition of postprandial glucagon secretion in 24 patients with type 2 DM; prolonged gastric emptying in 11 patients with type 1 DM; a 23% reduction in total energy intake in 11 patients with type 2 DM; and a reduction in markers of oxidative stress in 18 patients with type 1 DM (all, P <- 0.05 vs placebo). In two 52-week studies in patients with type 1 DM, the groups that received pramlintide 30 to 60 microg QID (n = 243), 60 microg TID (n = 164), and 60 microg QID (n = 161) had respective 0.39%, 0.29%, and 0.34% reductions in HbA(1c) and 0.5-, 0.3-, and 0.6-kg reductions in body weight, respectively (all, P < 0.05 vs placebo). In two 52-week studies in patients with type 2 DM, the groups that received pramlintide 120 microg BID (n = 166) and 150 microg TID (n = 144) had respective 0.62% and 0.6% reductions in HbA(1c) and 1.4- and 1.3-kg reductions in body weight (all, P < 0.05 vs placebo). Hypoglycemia, nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were the most frequently reported (>/=10% occurrence) adverse events in patients receiving pramlintide compared with placebo. These events were mild to moderate and occurred more frequently during the first month of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Pramlintide therapy was associated with reductions in HbA(1c) and body weight in four 52-week studies in patients with type 1 DM and type 2 DM. Hypoglycemia, nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were the most frequently occurring adverse events, particularly during the first month of therapy. Pramlintide was associated with reductions in measures of oxidative stress, but studies are needed to evaluate the effects of this agent on DM-related complications.