Advances in GLP-1 treatment : focus on oral semaglutide

Background: There is currently a large arsenal of antidiabetic drugs available to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, this is a serious chronic disease that affects millions of adults worldwide and is responsible for severe complications, comorbidities, and low quality of life when uncontrolled due mainly to delays in initiating treatment or inadequate therapy. This review article aims to clarify the therapeutic role of the oral formulation of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide in treating typical T2D patients. The discussion focused on metabolic, glycemic, and weight alteration effects and the safety of the therapy with this drug. Main text: Therapy with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) promotes strategic changes in the pathophysiological pathway of T2D and improves the secretion of glucagon and insulin, which results in a reduction in blood glucose levels and the promotion of weight loss. Until recently, the only route for semaglutide administration was parenteral. However, an oral formulation of GLP-1 RA was recently developed and approved by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on the Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) program results. A sequence of 10 clinical studies compared oral semaglutide with placebo or active standard-of-care medications (empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or liraglutide 1.8 mg) in different T2D populations. Conclusions: Oral semaglutide effectively reduces glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and body weight in a broad spectrum of patients with T2D and shows cardiovascular safety. Oral semaglutide broadens therapy options and facilitates the adoption of earlier GLP-1 RA treatment once T2D patients present low rates of treatment discontinuation. The main adverse events reported were related to the gastrointestinal tract, common to GLP-1 RA class drugs

Does brittle diabetes exist as a clinical entity?

A melhor compreensão das causas da instabilidade dos níveis da glicemia em pacientes com diabetes melito tipo 1 (DMT1) e a disponibilidade de novas alternativas para enfrentá-la com sucesso, como a bomba de infusão contínua de insulina e os análogos das insulinas, tornaram relevante o questionamento sobre a existência do diabetes hiperlábil como uma entidade bem como a necessidade de defini-lo. O presente artigo pretendeu descrever o conceito de diabetes hiperlábil à luz dos novos avanços na terapia do DMT1 e propor critérios objetivos para a quantificação da labilidade da glicemia.The best comprehension about the instability of the glycemia levels in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients and the availability of new alternatives to successfully control it, like insulin pump therapy and the insulin analogues, underlined the questions about the brittle diabetes existence as a clinical entity as well as the necessity of define it. The aim of this article was to describe the concept of brittle diabetes in the light of the latest advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes and propose objective criteria to evaluate the level of glucose liability

Islet transplantation as a clinical tool: present state and future perspectives

O transplante de ilhotas é um procedimento em desenvolvimento, como alternativa para o tratamento do diabetes tipo 1 que está na fronteira entre o experimental e o clínico. É uma terapia celular na qual as células são implantadas em território diferente do fisiológico em que apenas determinado número incerto conseguirá se adaptar. Aperfeiçoar este processo para obter os mesmos resultados que no transplante de pâncreas, representa um desafio para o qual convergem contribuições da biologia celular, da imunologia e das técnicas de laboratório que se entrelaçam de maneira extremamente complexa. Este trabalho revisa a literatura expondo a evolução do procedimento, a sua metodologia atual e os resultados clínicos obtidos. As perspectivas futuras do transplante diante dos recentes avanços também são discutidas.Islet transplant is an innovative treatment for type 1 diabetic patients, which still lies between experimental and approved transplant therapy. Islet cells are seeded in a non-physiological territory where an uncertain fraction will be able to adapt and survive. Thus, the challenge lies in improving the whole procedure, employing the tools of cell biology, immunology and laboratory techniques, in order to reach the results obtained with whole organ transplant. This review describes the procedure, its progress to the present methodology and clinical results obtained. Future perspectives of islet transplantation in the light of recent biotechnological advances are also focused

Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BackgroundEstablishing cardiovascular safety of new therapies for type 2 diabetes is important. Safety data are available for the subcutaneous form of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide but are needed for oral semaglutide.MethodsWe assessed cardiovascular outcomes of once-daily oral semaglutide in an event-driven, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients at high cardiovascular risk (age of >= 50 years with established cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, or age of >= 60 years with cardiovascular risk factors only). The primary outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). The trial was designed to rule out 80% excess cardiovascular risk as compared with placebo (noninferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary outcome).ResultsA total of 3183 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral semaglutide or placebo. The mean age of the patients was 66 years; 2695 patients (84.7%) were 50 years of age or older and had cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. The median time in the trial was 15.9 months. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 61 of 1591 patients (3.8%) in the oral semaglutide group and 76 of 1592 (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Results for components of the primary outcome were as follows: death from cardiovascular causes, 15 of 1591 patients (0.9%) in the oral semaglutide group and 30 of 1592 (1.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.92); nonfatal myocardial infarction, 37 of 1591 patients (2.3%) and 31 of 1592 (1.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.90); and nonfatal stroke, 12 of 1591 patients (0.8%) and 16 of 1592 (1.0%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.57). Death from any cause occurred in 23 of 1591 patients (1.4%) in the oral semaglutide group and 45 of 1592 (2.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.84). Gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation of oral semaglutide or placebo were more common with oral semaglutide.ConclusionsIn this trial involving patients with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular risk profile of oral semaglutide was not inferior to that of placebo

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Background: Regulatory guidance specifies the need to establish cardiovascular safety of new diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in order to rule out excess cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular effects of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue with an extended half-life of approximately 1 week, in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned 3297 patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a standard-care regimen to receive once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 104 weeks. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We hypothesized that semaglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome. The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. Results: At baseline, 2735 of the patients (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. The primary outcome occurred in 108 of 1648 patients (6.6%) in the semaglutide group and in 146 of 1649 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 2.9% of the patients receiving semaglutide and in 3.9% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P=0.12); nonfatal stroke occurred in 1.6% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.99; P=0.04). Rates of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. Rates of new or worsening nephropathy were lower in the semaglutide group, but rates of retinopathy complications (vitreous hemorrhage, blindness, or conditions requiring treatment with an intravitreal agent or photocoagulation) were significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02). Fewer serious adverse events occurred in the semaglutide group, although more patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was significantly lower among patients receiving semaglutide than among those receiving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semaglutide. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SUSTAIN-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720446.)Sin financiación72.406 JCR (2016) Q1, 1/155 Medicine, General & InternalUE

Contact frequency determines outcome of basal insulin initiation trials in type 2 diabetes

Aims/hypothesis The aim of the present study was to investigate whether predetermined contact frequency with the study teamand endpoint insulin dose are associated with study outcomes in basal insulin initiation trials in type 2 diabetes. Methods A systematic Medline search was performed. Using data from the selected studies, contact frequency was plotted against HbA(1c) reduction and endpoint insulin dose. The importance of face-to-face vs telephone contact was also analysed. Insulin dose was plotted against HbA(1c) reduction, hypoglycaemia rate and weight gain. To investigate non-specific study effects, the relationship between contact frequency and HbA(1c) was also assessed in dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor trials. Results The reduction in HbA(1c) was highly correlated with contact frequency and endpoint insulin dose (r(2)=0.751, p<0.001 and r(2)=0.433, p=0.008, respectively). However, after adjusting for contact frequency, the relationship between insulin dose and HbA(1c) reduction was no longer significant (p=0.270). The frequency of both clinical and telephone contacts were independent predictors of HbA(1c) improvement (p=0.010 and p<0.001, respectively). We found no dose response relationship between end-of-study insulin dose and hypoglycaemia or weight gain. In DPP-4 inhibitor studies, contact frequency was not positively associated with HbA(1c). Conclusions/interpretation The frequency of contact with the study team is highly correlated with the improvement in HbA(1c) achieved in basal insulin initiation trials in type 2 diabetic patients. This has important implications for trial design and interpretation, as well as for clinical car

Pancreas and islet transplantation in patients with diabetes mellitus

Pancreas and kidney transplants have specific indications, benefits and risks. The procedure has become more common and more often as long-term success has improved and risks have decreased. Compared with a patient being on dialysis, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant offers a distinct advantage when it comes to mortality, quality of life and diabetic complications. Since there can be a living-donor kidney transplant,, a possibly similar patient and graft survival by 10 years follow-up, this procedure should be considered. Pancreas after kidney transplants, when successful, can improve microvascular complications compared with kidney transplant alone, but immediate mortality may be higher. Solitary pancreas transplantation can improve the quality of life in selected patients, but it may also increase the immediate risk of mortality due to the complexity of the surgery and the risks of immunosupression. The results of Islet transplantation differ from the higher metabolic performance achieved by whole pancreas allotransplantation and its applicability is limited to selected adult diabetic patients.O transplante simultâneo de pâncreas/rim tem indicações específicas, riscos e benefícios. O procedimento, cada vez mais realizado, traz vantagens se comparado ao paciente em diálise, em relação à qualidade de vida, anos de vida ganhos e evolução das complicações crônicas. Se o paciente tiver a opção de realizar o transplante de rim com doador vivo, que apresenta sobrevida semelhante do enxerto e do paciente aos dez anos, o procedimento deverá ser considerado. O transplante de pâncreas após rim, quando efetivo, pode melhorar a evolução das complicações cardiovasculares, mas em contrapartida provoca maior mortalidade nos primeiros meses após a cirurgia. O transplante isolado de pâncreas também ocasiona a maior mortalidade pós-operatória, resultado da complexidade do procedimento e da imunossupressão. O transplante de ilhotas tem sua indicação para um seleto grupo de diabéticos com instabilidade glicêmica.Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Departamento de Medicina Departamento de CirurgiaPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul Hospital São Lucas Serviço de NefrologiaUniversidade de São Paulo Núcleo de Terapia Celular e MolecularSistema de Saúde Centro de Pesquisa Médica Notre-Dame IntermédicaUSP Faculdade de Medicina Departamento de Clínica MédicaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Departamento de Medicina InternaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein Serviço de Transplante de PâncreasUNIFESP, Depto. de Medicina Depto. de CirurgiaSciEL

THERAPY OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: treatment guidelines, clinical evidence and patterns of use of basal vs premixed insulin analogues

This review addresses the apparent disconnect between international guideline recommendations, real-life clinical practice and the results of clinical trials, with regard to the initiation of insulin using basal (long-acting) or premixed insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). English language guidelines vary considerably with respect to recommended glycaemic targets, the selection of human vs analogue insulin, and choice of insulin regimen. Randomised trials directly comparing insulin initiation between basal and premixed analogues are scarce, and hard endpoint outcome data are inadequate. The evidence presented suggests that a major component of the HbA1c not being attained in every day clinical practice may be a result of factors that are not adequately addressed in forced titration trials of highly motivated patients, including failure to comply with complex treatment and monitoring regimens. Enforced intensification of unrealistic complex treatment regimens and glycaemic targets may theoretically worsen the psychological well-being in some patients. More simple and sustainable treatment regimens and guidelines are urgently needed. As for the use of insulin in T2D, there is limited evidence to convincingly support that initiation of insulin using basal insulin analogues is superior to initiation using premixed insulin analogues. While awaiting improved clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness data, practical guidance from national and international diabetes organisations should consider more carefully the importance of: i) being clear and consistent; and ii) the early implementation of sustainable and cost-effective insulin treatment regimens with an emphasis on optimising treatment ease of use and patient compliance