Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Context Novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) tirzepatide demonstrated substantially greater glucose control and weight loss (WL) compared with selective GLP-1RA dulaglutide. Objective Explore mechanisms of glucose control by tirzepatide. Design Post hoc analyses of fasting biomarkers and multiple linear regression analysis. Setting Forty-seven sites in 4 countries. Patients or other Participants Three hundred and sixteen subjects with type 2 diabetes. Interventions Tirzepatide (1, 5, 10, 15 mg), dulaglutide (1.5 mg), placebo. Main Outcome Measures Analyze biomarkers of beta-cell function and insulin resistance (IR) and evaluate WL contributions to IR improvements at 26 weeks. Results Homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) 2-B significantly increased with dulaglutide and tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg compared with placebo (P ≤ .02). Proinsulin/insulin and proinsulin/C-peptide ratios significantly decreased with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg compared with placebo and dulaglutide (P ≤ .007). Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly decreased fasting insulin (P ≤ .033) and tirzepatide 10 mg significantly decreased HOMA2-IR (P = .004) compared with placebo and dulaglutide. Markers of improved insulin sensitivity (IS) adiponectin, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-2 significantly increased by 1 or more doses of tirzepatide (P < .05). To determine whether improvements in IR were directly attributable to WL, multiple linear regression analysis with potential confounding variables age, sex, metformin, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin A1c was conducted. WL significantly (P ≤ .028) explained only 13% and 21% of improvement in HOMA2-IR with tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg, respectively. Conclusions Tirzepatide improved markers of IS and beta-cell function to a greater extent than dulaglutide. IS effects of tirzepatide were only partly attributable to WL, suggesting dual receptor agonism confers distinct mechanisms of glycemic control.

For patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve target glycaemic control with conventional insulin treatment, advancing to a basal–bolus insulin regimen is often recommended. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes. We did this 52 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with conventional insulin treatment were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with an interactive voice-response system, to receive once-weekly dulaglutide 1·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine. Randomisation was stratified by country and metformin use. Participants and study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but were unaware of dulaglutide dose assignment. The primary outcome was a change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191268. Between Dec 9, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 884 patients to receive dulaglutide 1·5 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296). At 26 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was greater in patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg (−1·64% [95% CI −1·78 to −1·50], −17·93 mmol/mol [−19·44 to −16·42]) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (−1·59% [−1·73 to −1·45], −17·38 mmol/mol [−18·89 to −15·87]) than in those receiving glargine (−1·41% [−1·55 to −1·27], −15·41 mmol/mol [−16·92 to −13·90]). The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was −0·22% (95% CI −0·38 to −0·07, −2·40 mmol/mol [–4·15 to −0·77]; p=0·005) for dulaglutide 1·5 mg and −0·17% (–0·33 to −0·02, −1·86 mmol/mol [–3·61 to −0·22]; p=0·015) for dulaglutide 0·75 mg. Five (<1%) patients died after randomisation because of septicaemia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group); pneumonia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group). We recorded serious adverse events in 27 (9%) patients in the dulaglutide 1·5 mg group, 44 (15%) patients in the dulaglutide 0·75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group. The most frequent adverse events, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting. Dulaglutide in combination with lispro resulted in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patients unable to achieve glycaemic targets with conventional insulin treatment. Eli Lilly and Company.

OBJECTIVE:--Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) is a multinational, randomized, controlled trial designed to compare the effects of prandial versus fasting glycemic control on risk for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--Patients (type 2 diabetes, aged 30-75 years) were randomly assigned within 21 days after AMI to the 1) prandial strategy (PRANDIAL) (three premeal doses of insulin lispro targeting 2-h postprandial blood glucose <7.5 mmol/l) or the 2) basal strategy (BASAL) (NPH twice daily or insulin glargine once daily targeting fasting/premeal blood glucose <6.7 mmol/l). RESULTS:--A total of 1,115 patients were randomly assigned (PRANDIAL n = 557; BASAL n = 558), and the mean patient participation after randomization was 963 days (range 1-1,687 days). The trial was stopped for lack of efficacy. Risks of first combined adjudicated primary cardiovascular events in the PRANDIAL (n = 174, 31.2%) and BASAL (n = 181, 32.4%) groups were similar (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.8-1.21]). Mean A1C did not differ between the PRANDIAL and BASAL groups (7.7 ± 0.1 vs. 7.8 ± 0.1%; P = 0.4) during the study. The PRANDIAL group showed a lower daily mean postprandial blood glucose (7.8 vs. 8.6 mmol/l; P < 0.01) and 2-h postprandial blood glucose excursion (0.1 vs. 1.3 mmol/l; P < 0.001) versus the BASAL group. The BASAL group showed lower mean fasting blood glucose (7.0 vs. 8.1 mmol/l; P < 0.001) and similar daily fasting/premeal blood glucose (7.7 vs. 7.3 mmol/l; P = 0.233) versus the PRANDIAL group. CONCLUSIONS:--Treating diabetic survivors of AMI with prandial versus basal strategies achieved differences in fasting blood glucose, less-than-expected differences in postprandial blood glucose, similar levels of A1C, and no difference in risk for future cardiovascular event rates.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome refers to a multi-systemic condition with established pathophysiological connections between obesity, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Chronic low-grade inflammation has been recognized as a common pathophysiological theme linking metabolic dysfunction to multisystem damage of the heart, kidneys, and vasculature. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the major pharmacologic strategies that target inflammatory pathways in obesity and across the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) disease spectrum, including metabolic therapies with indirect anti-inflammatory effects and targeted immunomodulatory agents. New therapies have markedly changed the obesity and the CKM treatment paradigm, with evidence that currently available metabolic medications confer cardiovascular and renal benefits in addition to glycemic control or weight improvement. Nutrient-Stimulated Hormone (NuSH) therapies, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), work synergistically to positively modulate systemic inflammation while maintaining cardiovascular health and cardiometabolic function throughout therapy. Additionally, emerging clinical data for direct anti-inflammatory treatments, such as interleukin-1β/interleukin-6 inhibition and low-dose colchicine, have established inflammation as a modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Furthermore, therapies that target the liver such as resmetirom, fibroblast growth factor-21 (FGF21) analogues, and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (pan-PPAR) agonists, have highlighted the role of the liver-adipose axis in metabolic inflammation and CKM progression. Together, both metabolic and direct anti-inflammatory therapies represent the most recent evolution of a combined approach to treating metabolic dysfunction and inflammation. This type of approach has the potential to revolutionize the prevention and treatment of CKM across the spectrum of diseases and usher in personalized medicine for obesity-related cardiometabolic diseases. However, further studies are needed to determine when these therapies should be initiated, which patients are most likely to benefit, and whether combination approaches can alter disease progression beyond the current standard of care.

Background Assessment of glucose uptake by PET imaging under hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) is an insightful tool for quantification of insulin resistance, a hallmark of diabetes and an area of interest in drug development. To enable the use of the method in metabolic trials, the repeatability of dynamic whole-body PET/MRI assessments of the tissue-specific glucose uptake and the total body glucose utilisation were investigated. The study included participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and overweight/obesity, for two repeated examinations in standardised conditions. All participants signed informed consent, and the study plan was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (#2020-04140). After an overnight fast, HEC was established and a series of [ 18 F]FDG-PET/MRI scans were performed. Total body glucose utilisation (M-value) was calculated for the duration of the scan and the tissue-specific metabolic rates of glucose uptake (MRGlu) were calculated using Patlak model. The repeatability was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results Repeatability was assessed in per protocol set of 12 participants (PPS, defined by a consistent HEC) and in full analysis set (FAS n = 16). The measured M-values and tissue MRGlu demonstrated varying levels of insulin resistance. M-value ICC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.86–0.99) for PPS, indicating excellent repeatability. Tissue-specific MRGlu repeatability was excellent for skeletal muscle (ICC 0.94), and good to at least fair for SAT, VAT, myocardium, and brain. The FAS had lower, but at least fair repeatability, emphasising the importance of standardisation in metabolic assessments. Conclusion Dynamic [ 18 F]FDG-PET/MRI provides quantitative information on tissue-specific insulin sensitivity during hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp with a reliability comparable to total body glucose utilisation assessment. The method has potential to add value in monitoring and evaluating T2DM treatment effects on glucose uptake and insulin resistance in interventional trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the Hyperglycemia and Its Effect After Acute Myocardial Infarction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (HEART2D) trial subgroups with treatment difference. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In 1,115 type 2 diabetic patients who had suffered from an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the HEART2D trial compared two insulin strategies targeting postprandial or fasting/premeal glycemia on time until first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome). The HEART2D trial ended prematurely for futility. We used the classification and regression tree (CART) to identify baseline subgroups with potential treatment differences. RESULTS: CART estimated the age of >65.7 years to best predict the difference in time to first event. In the subgroup aged >65.7 years (prandial, n = 189; basal, n = 210), prandial patients had a significantly longer time to first event and a lower proportion experienced a first event (n = 56 [29.6%] vs. n = 85 [40.5%]; hazard ratio 0.69 [95% CI 0.49-0.96]; P = 0.029), despite similar A1C levels. CONCLUSIONS: Older type 2 diabetic AMI survivors may have a lower risk for a subsequent cardiovascular event with insulin targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia.

Background Fatty acid uptake can be measured using PET and 14-( R,S )‐[ 18 F]fluoro‐6‐thia‐heptadecanoic acid ([ 18 F]FTHA). However, the relatively rapid rate of [ 18 F]FTHA metabolism significantly affects kinetic modeling of tissue uptake. Thus, there is a need for accurate chromatographic methods to analyze the unmetabolized [ 18 F]FTHA (parent fraction). Here we present a new radiometabolite analysis (RMA) method, with comparison to a previous method for parent fraction analysis, and its use in a test-retest clinical study under fasting and postprandial conditions. We developed a new thin-layer chromatography (TLC) RMA method for analysis of [ 18 F]FTHA parent fraction and its radiometabolites from plasma, by testing stationary phases and eluent combinations. Next, we analyzed [ 18 F]FTHA, its radiometabolites, and plasma radioactivity from subjects participating in a clinical study. A total of 17 obese or overweight participants were dosed with [ 18 F]FTHA twice under fasting, and twice under postprandial conditions and plasma samples were obtained between 14 min (mean of first sample) and 72 min (mean of last sample) post-injection. Aliquots of 70 plasma samples were analyzed using both methods, enabling head-to-head comparisons. We performed test-retest and group comparisons of the parent fraction and plasma radioactivity. Results The new TLC method separated seven [ 18 F]FTHA radiometabolite peaks, while the previous method separated three. The new method revealed at least one radiometabolite that was not previously separable from [ 18 F]FTHA. From the plasma samples, the mean parent fraction value was on average 7.2 percentage points lower with the new method, compared to the previous method. Repeated [ 18 F]FTHA investigations on the same subject revealed reproducible plasma SUV and parent fractions, with different kinetics between the fasted and postprandial conditions. Conclusions The newly developed improved radio-TLC method for [ 18 F]FTHA RMA enables accurate parent fraction correction, which is required to obtain quantitative data for modelling [ 18 F]FTHA PET data. Our test-retest study of fasted and postprandial conditions showed robust reproducibility, and revealed clear differences in the [ 18 F]FTHA metabolic rate under different study settings. Trial registration EudraCT No: 2020-005211-48, 04Feb2021; and Clinical Trials registry NCT05132335, 29Oct2021, URL: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05132335 .

Retatrutide (LY3437943) is an agonist of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucagon-like peptide 1, and glucagon receptors. Its dose-response relationships with respect to side effects, safety, and efficacy for the treatment of obesity are not known. We conducted a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving adults who had a body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or higher or who had a BMI of 27 to less than 30 plus at least one weight-related condition. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1:1:1:2:2 ratio to receive subcutaneous retatrutide (1 mg, 4 mg [initial dose, 2 mg], 4 mg [initial dose, 4 mg], 8 mg [initial dose, 2 mg], 8 mg [initial dose, 4 mg], or 12 mg [initial dose, 2 mg]) or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary end points included the percentage change in body weight from baseline to 48 weeks and a weight reduction of 5% or more, 10% or more, or 15% or more. Safety was also assessed. We enrolled 338 adults, 51.8% of whom were men. The least-squares mean percentage change in body weight at 24 weeks in the retatrutide groups was -7.2% in the 1-mg group, -12.9% in the combined 4-mg group, -17.3% in the combined 8-mg group, and -17.5% in the 12-mg group, as compared with -1.6% in the placebo group. At 48 weeks, the least-squares mean percentage change in the retatrutide groups was -8.7% in the 1-mg group, -17.1% in the combined 4-mg group, -22.8% in the combined 8-mg group, and -24.2% in the 12-mg group, as compared with -2.1% in the placebo group. At 48 weeks, a weight reduction of 5% or more, 10% or more, and 15% or more had occurred in 92%, 75%, and 60%, respectively, of the participants who received 4 mg of retatrutide; 100%, 91%, and 75% of those who received 8 mg; 100%, 93%, and 83% of those who received 12 mg; and 27%, 9%, and 2% of those who received placebo. The most common adverse events in the retatrutide groups were gastrointestinal; these events were dose-related, were mostly mild to moderate in severity, and were partially mitigated with a lower starting dose (2 mg vs. 4 mg). Dose-dependent increases in heart rate peaked at 24 weeks and declined thereafter. In adults with obesity, retatrutide treatment for 48 weeks resulted in substantial reductions in body weight. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04881760.).

According to current consensus guidelines for type 2 diabetes management, bodyweight management is as important as attaining glycaemic targets. Retatrutide, a single peptide with agonist activity at the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed clinically meaningful glucose-lowering and bodyweight-lowering efficacy in a phase 1 study. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of retatrutide in people with type 2 diabetes across a range of doses. In this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 trial, participants were recruited from 42 research and health-care centres in the USA. Adults aged 18–75 years with type 2 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0–10·5% (53·0–91·3 mmol/mol), and BMI of 25–50 kg/m2 were eligible for enrolment. Eligible participants were treated with diet and exercise alone or with a stable dose of metformin (≥1000 mg once daily) for at least 3 months before the screening visit. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1:1:1:1:2) using an interactive web-response system, with stratification for baseline HbA1c and BMI, to receive once-weekly injections of placebo, 1·5 mg dulaglutide, or retatrutide maintenance doses of 0·5 mg, 4 mg (starting dose 2 mg), 4 mg (no escalation), 8 mg (starting dose 2 mg), 8 mg (starting dose 4 mg), or 12 mg (starting dose 2 mg). Participants, study site personnel, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until after study end. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks, and secondary endpoints included change in HbA1c and bodyweight at 36 weeks. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned, except inadvertently enrolled, participants, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04867785. Between May 13, 2021, and June 13, 2022, 281 participants (mean age 56·2 years [SD 9·7], mean duration of diabetes 8·1 years [7·0], 156 [56%] female, and 235 [84%] White) were randomly assigned and included in the safety analysis (45 in the placebo group, 46 in the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group, and 47 in the retatrutide 0·5 mg group, 23 in the 4 mg escalation group, 24 in the 4 mg group, 26 in the 8 mg slow escalation group, 24 in the 8 mg fast escalation group, and 46 in the 12 mg escalation group). 275 participants were included in the efficacy analyses (one each in the retatrutide 0·5 mg group, 4 mg escalation group, and 8 mg slow escalation group, and three in the 12 mg escalation group were inadvertently enrolled). 237 (84%) participants completed the study and 222 (79%) completed study treatment. At 24 weeks, least-squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c with retatrutide were –0·43% (SE 0·20; –4·68 mmol/mol [2·15]) for the 0·5 mg group, –1·39% (0·14; –15·24 mmol/mol [1·56]) for the 4 mg escalation group, –1·30% (0·22; –14·20 mmol/mol [2·44]) for the 4 mg group, –1·99% (0·15; –21·78 mmol/mol [1·60]) for the 8 mg slow escalation group, –1·88% (0·21; –20·52 mmol/mol [2·34]) for the 8 mg fast escalation group, and –2·02% (0·11; –22·07 mmol/mol [1·21]) for the 12 mg escalation group, versus –0·01% (0·21; –0·12 mmol/mol [2·27]) for the placebo group and –1·41% (0·12; –15·40 mmol/mol [1·29]) for the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group. HbA1c reductions with retatrutide were significantly greater (p<0·0001) than placebo in all but the 0·5 mg group and greater than 1·5 mg dulaglutide in the 8 mg slow escalation group (p=0·0019) and 12 mg escalation group (p=0·0002). Findings were consistent at 36 weeks. Bodyweight decreased dose dependently with retatrutide at 36 weeks by 3·19% (SE 0·61) for the 0·5 mg group, 7·92% (1·28) for the 4 mg escalation group, 10·37% (1·56) for the 4 mg group, 16·81% (1·59) for the 8 mg slow escalation group, 16·34% (1·65) for the 8 mg fast escalation group, and 16·94% (1·30) for the 12 mg escalation group, versus 3·00% (0·86) with placebo and 2·02% (0·72) with 1·5 mg dulaglutide. For retatrutide doses of 4 mg and greater, decreases in weight were significantly greater than with placebo (p=0·0017 for the 4 mg escalation group and p<0·0001 for others) and 1·5 mg dulaglutide (all p<0·0001). Mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting, and constipation, were reported in 67 (35%) of 190 participants in the retatrutide groups (from six [13%] of 47 in the 0·5 mg group to 12 [50%] of 24 in the 8 mg fast escalation group), six (13%) of 45 participants in the placebo group, and 16 (35%) of 46 participants in the 1·5 mg dulaglutide group. There were no reports of severe hypoglycaemia and no deaths during the study. In people with type 2 diabetes, retatrutide showed clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control and robust reductions in bodyweight, with a safety profile consistent with GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonists. These phase 2 data also informed dose selection for the phase 3 programme. Eli Lilly and Company.