Real-World Use of Oral Semaglutide in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER REAL Switzerland Multicentre, Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Real-world data provide insight into how medications perform in clinical practice. The PIONEER REAL Switzerland study aimed to understand clinical outcomes with oral semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

PIONEER REAL Switzerland was a 34-44-week, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study of adults with T2D naïve to injectable glucose-lowering medication who were initiated on oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (BL) to end of study (EOS); secondary endpoints included change in body weight (BW) from BL to EOS and the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% and the composite endpoints HbA1c reduction ≥ 1%-points with BW reduction ≥ 3% or ≥ 5% at EOS. Safety was assessed in participants who received ≥ 1 dose of oral semaglutide.

RESULTS

Of the 185 participants (female/male, n = 67/118) initiating oral semaglutide, 168 (90.8%) completed the study and 143 (77.3%) remained on treatment with oral semaglutide at EOS. At BL, participants had a mean age of 62 years, diabetes duration of 6.4 years, HbA1c of 7.7%, BW of 95.6 kg and body mass index of 33.2 kg/m2; 56.2% of participants were receiving glucose-lowering medications. Significant reductions were observed for HbA1c (estimated change - 0.91%; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.10, - 0.71; p < 0.0001) and BW (estimated change - 4.85%; 95% CI - 5.70, - 4.00; p < 0.0001). In total, 139 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 65 (35.1%) participants; most were mild or moderate. The most frequent AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (27.0%); 31 AEs in 20 (10.8%) participants led to discontinuation of oral semaglutide. Six serious AEs were reported; all were considered unlikely to be related to oral semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

People living with T2D treated with oral semaglutide in Switzerland achieved clinically significant reductions in HbA1c and BW, with no new safety signals.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04537624. A graphical abstract is available for this article.

Indicators of Kidney Fibrosis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease Treated with Dulaglutide

INTRODUCTION

In the AWARD-7 study in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, once-weekly dulaglutide slowed the decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and decreased the urine albumin/creatinine ratio compared to insulin glargine at the end of 52 weeks of treatment. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, changes in two fibrosis biomarkers, serum PRO-C6 (type VI collagen formation) and urine C3M (type III collagen degradation), were evaluated.

METHODS

In the groups treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg or insulin glargine (N = 330), serum PRO-C6 and urine C3M were measured using competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Biomarker changes were assessed by a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to determine associations between changes in kidney fibrosis biomarkers and eGFR measures at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

At weeks 26 and 52 of treatment in the overall population, serum PRO-C6 levels were significantly lower in the dulaglutide group versus insulin glargine group with percent change from baseline of (least squares mean ± standard error) -4.6% ± 1.9 and -0.2% ± 2.2 versus 5.7% ± 2.0 and 8.0% ± 2.3 (p < 0.01), respectively, and urine C3M levels were significantly higher in the dulaglutide group versus insulin glargine group with percent change from baseline of 10.9% ± 8.2 and 20.7% ± 8.8 versus -10.0% ± 6.5 and -16.9% ± 6.4 (p < 0.05), respectively. These findings appeared greater in the subgroup with macroalbuminuria. Serum PRO-C6 negatively correlated with eGFR, while urine C3M positively correlated with eGFR.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide treatment was associated with biomarker changes that indicated lower type VI collagen formation and higher type III collagen degradation compared to treatment with insulin glargine, suggesting a potential drug effect to reduce kidney fibrosis.

Efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis of randomized, active comparator-controlled trials

AIM

Aim of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) is the comparison across glucose-lowering drugs (GLA) concerning their effects on glucose control, body weight, hypoglycemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and quality of life.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This NMA includes randomized clinical trials comparing different head-to-head comparison trials with EMA-approved GLA in type 2 diabetes, with a duration of ≥52 weeks. All drugs have to be administered at the maximal approved dose. Primary endpoints were HbA1c at 12, 52, and 104+ weeks. Secondary endpoints were body weight, quality of life, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal disorders. Indirect comparisons of different GLA were performed by NMA choosing metformin as reference. The standardized difference in means (SDM) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio [MH-OR] (using random-effect models) with 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. We included 68 trials fulfilling all inclusion criteria. At 12 weeks, when considering indirect comparisons, insulin secretagogues (IS) were associated with a significantly greater reduction in comparison with metformin (SDM, -0.3 [-0.4;-0.2]%); a significantly lower efficacy was observed for pioglitazone. At 52 weeks, IS were no longer associated with a greater reduction of HbA1c; whereas a significant decrease in HbA1c was observed for GLP-1 RA (SDM, -0.2 [-0.1;-0.3]%). At 104+ weeks, only SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater HbA1c reduction (SDM, -0.2 [-0.1;-0.3]%), whereas sulfonylureas and insulin showed a significantly lower efficacy (SDM, 0.1 [0.0; 0.2]%), and 0.4 [0.3; 0.5]%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis should be considered together with evidence on long-term outcomes for selecting the most appropriate drugs for individual patients.

Incretin-based medications (GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors) as a means to avoid hypoglycaemic episodes

Hypoglycaemia is common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes and has both acute and long-term consequences. Therefore, a key to proper glucose-lowering therapy in diabetes is to avoid or prevent hypoglycaemia. Incretin therapy (DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists) offers an advantage in this respect, because it reduces glucose with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, both in monotherapy and in combination with other therapies. The reason for this low risk of hypoglycaemia is the glucose dependency of action of incretin therapy and the sustainment of glucose counter-regulatory hormone responses to hypoglycaemia, in particular the glucagon response. Incretin therapy is also associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia in patient groups which are especially vulnerable and susceptible for hypoglycaemia, e.g., subjects with renal impairment, elderly subjects and subjects with on-going insulin therapy. This review summarizes how incretin therapy may meet the challenges of hypoglycaemia and suggests that incretin therapy is a therapy of choice to avoid hypoglycaemia, both in the general diabetes population and in subjects with increased risk or vulnerability for hypoglycaemia.

Liraglutide and Glycaemic Outcomes in the LEADER Trial

INTRODUCTION

The LEADER trial was a cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk that compared liraglutide (n = 4668) with placebo (n = 4672) using a primary composite endpoint of 3-point major adverse CV events. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to investigate glycaemic outcomes across both treatment groups.

METHODS

Glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) was measured at randomisation, month 3, month 6 and every 6 months thereafter. Cox regression was used to analyse time to a composite endpoint of glycaemic deterioration, defined as a specified change in HbA_1c or a substantial intensification of insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drug (OAD). The individual components of the composite were also analysed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics, including insulin and OAD use, were balanced between treatment groups. HbA_1c decreased from baseline in both groups, but the reduction was greater with liraglutide [estimated treatment difference at month 36: - 0.40%; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.45, - 0.34] despite the addition of more OADs and higher insulin use in the placebo group. Fewer of the patients treated with liraglutide (n = 3202, 68.6%) experienced glycaemic deterioration compared with those administered the placebo (n = 3988, 85.4%; average hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% CI 0.48, 0.53; p < 0.001). Analysis of the individual components showed similar results (both p  < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Type 2 diabetes patients at high risk of CV events who were treated with liraglutide achieved greater reductions in HbA_1c, had a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and presented less glycaemic deterioration than similar patients who received the placebo. Nonetheless, progressive loss of glycaemic control occurred in both groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01179048.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk. Plain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy and Safety of Sitagliptin in Hispanic/Latino Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis from Ten Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

To assess the efficacy and safety profile of the dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in a population of self-identified Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data were pooled from ten randomized, double-blind studies in which subjects were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg/day (as mono- or combination therapy) or placebo, and used to evaluate the glycemic efficacy, safety, and tolerability of sitagliptin compared with placebo after 24 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 804 Hispanic/Latino patients were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the treatment groups were similar (mean baseline HbA1c of approximately 8.5%). The LS mean HbA1c changes from baseline were - 0.94% with sitagliptin and - 0.32% with placebo, and the between-group difference was - 0.62%, p < 0.001. After 24 weeks of treatment, 35% and 18% of subjects were at the HbA1c goal of < 7% in the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively. Body weight increased slightly in both treatment groups. Incidences of adverse events of hypoglycemia were similar and low (1.9% and 1.4% for sitagliptin and placebo, respectively) in both groups in studies in which insulin or sulfonylurea were not used and were similar (9% and 11% for sitagliptin and placebo, respectively) when all studies were included. Overall safety and tolerability of treatment with sitagliptin and placebo were similar. No clinically meaningful differences between the safety profile of sitagliptin in the Hispanic/Latino population analyzed here and broader populations previously evaluated were observed.

CONCLUSION

In this pooled analysis of sitagliptin therapy vs placebo in Hispanic/Latino patients, sitagliptin provided significant improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated.

FUNDING

Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

A randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly omarigliptin as monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

People with T2DM not on glucose-lowering medications, or who were washed off monotherapy or low-dose dual therapy, were randomized double-blind to omarigliptin 25 mg (n=165) or matching omarigliptin placebo (n=164) for 24 weeks, followed by a 30-week period to assess continuing efficacy and safety longer-term of omarigliptin during which metformin was added to the placebo group and metformin placebo to the omarigliptin group.

RESULTS

From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 (primary endpoint) was -0.49% (-0.73, -0.24) in the omarigliptin group and -0.10% (-0.34, 0.14) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.39% (-0.59, -0.19) (p<.001). Protocol deviation in use of metformin by 38 of 252 (15%) people whose samples were available for evaluation probably attenuated glycemic efficacy results, as suggested by the LS mean difference -0.53% (-0.75, -0.32) after censoring of such participants. At 24 and 54 weeks, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. During 54 weeks there were no AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia in the omarigliptin group and 5 AEs in the placebo group. Over 54 weeks, a majority of the omarigliptin treatment had a persistent reduction in HbA1c, remaining rescue-free.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with T2DM, omarigliptin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 54 weeks and was generally well tolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01717313. EudraCT Number: 2012-003626-24.

A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by glimepiride and metformin

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease that often requires a patient to use multiple antihyperglycemic agents to achieve glycemic control with disease progression. Omarigliptin is a once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to the treatment regimen of patients with T2D inadequately controlled by dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride.

METHODS

Patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and glimepiride (≥4 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (N = 154) or placebo (N = 153) for 24 weeks. The primary objective was to assess whether omarigliptin was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary objectives were to assess the effects of omarigliptin vs. placebo on FPG and the proportion of subjects attaining HbA1c goals of <7% and <6.5%.

RESULTS

From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.5% (omarigliptin) and 8.6% (placebo), the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 was -0.67% in the omarigliptin group and -0.06% in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of -0.61% (-0.85, -0.38). Treatment with omarigliptin resulted in a significantly greater reduction in FPG relative to placebo (LS mean difference [95% CI] -0.9 mmol/L [-1.4, -0.4]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving glycemic goals of <7.0% and <6.5% was higher in the omarigliptin group relative to the placebo group. The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuations were generally similar between treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 10.5% in the omarigliptin group and 8.5% in the placebo group. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin and placebo treatments were associated with LS mean changes in body weight of -0.1 kg and -0.9 kg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride, compared with placebo, once-weekly omarigliptin provided greater improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01704261 , EudraCT Number: 2012-002612-10. Trial Registration Date: October 8, 2012.

Current Therapies That Modify Glucagon Secretion: What Is the Therapeutic Effect of Such Modifications?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperglucagonemia contributes significantly to hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes and suppressed glucagon levels may increase the risk of hypoglycemia. Here, we give a brief overview of glucagon physiology and the role of glucagon in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and provide insights into how antidiabetic drugs influence glucagon secretion as well as a perspective on the future of glucagon-targeting drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several older as well as recent investigations have evaluated the effect of antidiabetic agents on glucagon secretion to understand how glucagon may be involved in the drugs' efficacy and safety profiles. Based on these findings, modulation of glucagon secretion seems to play a hitherto underestimated role in the efficacy and safety of several glucose-lowering drugs. Numerous drugs currently available to diabetologists are capable of altering glucagon secretion: metformin, sulfonylurea compounds, insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and amylin mimetics. Their diverse effects on glucagon secretion are of importance for their individual efficacy and safety profiles. Understanding how these drugs interact with glucagon secretion may help to optimize treatment.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with T2DM on a stable dose of metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.0-10.5% were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo (n = 201 in both) for 24 weeks (primary timepoint) followed by an additional 80-week treatment period.

RESULTS

At week 24, from a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c (primary end-point) was -0.54% (-0.69%, -0.40%) in the omarigliptin group and 0.00% (-0.14%, 0.15%) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.55% (-0.75%, -0.34%); p < .001. Between-group differences (LS mean 95% CI) for the secondary end-points of 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose (omarigliptin vs placebo) were -0.8 mmol/L (-1.4, -0.2) (p = .011) and -0.5 mmol/L (-0.9, -0.1) (p = .010), respectively. At week 24, the incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and subjects with one or more adverse event (AE), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to an AE were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. Over 104 weeks, omarigliptin treatment provided a clinically meaningful reduction in HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM, adding omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. to metformin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 104 weeks and was generally welltolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Predictors of efficacy of GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors: A systematic review

AIMS

To identify the determinants of efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1A) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4I).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched between 01/01/2011 and 15/08/2014 for randomized controlled trials of 12-52weeks' duration, which reported the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline as the primary end point, and reported data about predictors of efficacy of incretins.

RESULTS

Among 4172 studies found, 77 studies reported data on baseline HbA1c, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and history of diabetes in relation to change in HbA1c. For DPP-4I, 37 out of 47 studies reported a greater decrease in HbA1c among patients with higher baseline HbA1c. Most DPP-4I studies reported no variation in efficacy in regard to demographic characteristics or BMI. Among 17 studies reporting on GLP-1A, baseline higher HbA1c was reported as predictive of a greater response in 7 out of 9 studies; 13 studies reported data about other factors, without consistent findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that higher baseline HbA1c is associated with a greater efficacy of both DPP-4I and GLP-1A therapies in lowering HbA1c. The roles of other potential predictors are less consistent across studies and require further investigation.

Randomized clinical trial of the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin and metformin co-administered to Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Introduction

The results of a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control are reported here.

Materials and Methods

This was a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel group, 24‐week clinical trial carried out in China. Patients (n = 744) with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin ≥7.5 and ≤11.0%) who were either drug‐naïve or washed out of previous therapy were randomized in equal ratios to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily (q.d.; S100), metformin 500 mg twice daily (b.i.d.; M1000), metformin 850 mg b.i.d. (M1700), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. plus metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (S100/M1000), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. plus metformin 850 mg b.i.d. (S100/M1700), or placebo.

Results

The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin in randomized patients was 8.7%. Least squares mean changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin were −0.59% (placebo), −0.99% (S100), −1.29% (M1000), −1.56% (M1700), −1.67% (S100/M1000) and −1.83% (S100/M1700) (P < 0.05 for each active group vs placebo, for S100/M1700 and S100/M1000 vs S100, and for S100/M1000 vs M1000). All treatments were generally well‐tolerated. The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (symptomatic or asymptomatic) was higher in the two co‐administration groups (S100/M1700 and S100/M1000) compared with the placebo. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was low, and similar, across all treatment groups. The incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were generally higher in high‐dose metformin groups than in the placebo group.

Conclusions

In Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin was generally well‐tolerated, and provided improvement in glycemic control.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to compare the projected long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide, sitagliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve glycemic control on metformin monotherapy in France.

METHODS

Clinical input data for the modeling analysis were taken from two randomized, controlled trials (LIRA-DPP4 and LEAD-2). Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2013 Euros; €) were made using a validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes. Costs were taken from published France-specific sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an increase in mean direct healthcare costs of €2558 per patient compared with sitagliptin. In the comparison with glimepiride, liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.23 QALYs and an increase in direct costs of €4695. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10,275 per QALY gained vs sitagliptin and €20,709 per QALY gained vs glimepiride in France.

CONCLUSION

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.

What happens when patients require intensification from basal insulin? A retrospective audit of clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from four Australian centres

AIMS

Little is known about clinical practices beyond the initiation of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Australia. To determine the proportion of patients who progressed from basal insulin to each of three possible therapy groups: Group 1 addition of rapid-acting insulin, Group 2 switch to pre-mixed insulin, Group 3 addition of another therapy (incretin, glitazone, sulphonylurea, metformin, acarbose).

METHODS

Retrospective audit across four Australian hospital clinics. Patients had a diagnosis of T2DM, basal insulin had been initiated and a subsequent treatment intensification/change had occurred during the analysis period (September 2007-March 2012).

RESULTS

Patients were classified into one of three intensification groups for analysis: Group 1, 56.1% (111/198); Group 2, 22.7% (45/198) and Group 3, 21.2% (42/198). Prior to basal insulin initiation, mean T2DM duration was 11 years. Between starting basal insulin and treatment intensification, 42/183 (22.9%) patients achieved the HbA1c target of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Initiation of basal insulin provided temporary improvement in glycaemic control followed by subsequent deterioration. With further treatment intensification, only 40/180 (22.2%) patients achieved the HbA1c target of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Patients in the insulin groups gained weight (Group 1, rapid acting insulin, 1.9 ± 7.4 kg; Group 2, premixed insulin 2.3 ± 4.8 kg); those in Group 3 lost weight (-0.9 ± 13.54 kg). Hypoglycaemic episodes were uncommon irrespective of group.

CONCLUSIONS

There is continued need for improved patient management; individualised strategies should focus on when to initiate insulin, how to adjust and optimise doses over time and, when required, the introduction of intensification regimens.

Insulin plus incretin: A glucose-lowering strategy for type 2-diabetes

There are many advantages of combining incretin therapy [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors] with insulin therapy as a glucose-lowering strategy in type 2 diabetes. One important advantage is the complementary mode of the mechanistic action of incretin and insulin therapy. Another advantage is the reduction in risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain when adding incretin therapy to insulin. Several clinical trials have studied the addition of GLP-1 receptor agonists [exenatide BID (twice daily), lixisenatide, albiglutide] or DPP-4 inhibitors (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin) to ongoing insulin therapy or adding insulin to ongoing therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide). These studies show improved glycemia in the presence of limited risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain with the combination of incretin therapy with insulin. This article reviews the background and clinical studies on this combination.