Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity, treatment with tirzepatide led to a lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes or worsening heart-failure events than placebo.

Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1·8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 μg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA 1c). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. Mean baseline HbA 1c for the study population was 8·2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA 1c significantly more than did exenatide (−1·12% [SE 0·08] vs −0·79% [0·08]; estimated treatment difference −0·33; 95% CI −0·47 to −0·18; p<0·0001) and more patients achieved a HbA 1c value of less than 7% (54% vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2·02; 95% CI 1·31 to 3·11; p=0·0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (−1·61 mmol/L [SE 0·20] vs −0·60 mmol/L [0·20]; estimated treatment difference −1·01 mmol/L; 95% CI −1·37 to −0·65; p<0·0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide −3·24 kg vs exenatide −2·87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0·448, p<0·0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1·93 vs 2·60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0·55; 95% CI 0·34 to 0·88; p=0·0131; 25·5% vs 33·6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations. Novo Nordisk A/S.

Dulaglutide and liraglutide, both glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, improve glycaemic control and reduce weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. In a head-to-head trial, we compared the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide with that of once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. We did a phase 3, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study at 62 sites in nine countries between June 20, 2012, and Nov 25, 2013. Patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes receiving metformin (≥1500 mg/day), aged 18 years or older, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7·0% or greater (≥53 mmol/mol) and 10·0% or lower (≤86 mmol/mol), and body-mass index 45 kg/m2 or lower were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or once-daily liraglutide (1·8 mg). Randomisation was done according to a computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was non-inferiority (margin 0·4%) of dulaglutide compared with liraglutide for change in HbA1c (least-squares mean change from baseline) at 26 weeks. Safety data were collected for a further 4 weeks' follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01624259. We randomly assigned 599 patients to receive once-weekly dulaglutide (299 patients) or once-daily liraglutide (300 patients). 269 participants in each group completed treatment at week 26. Least-squares mean reduction in HbA1c was −1·42% (SE 0·05) in the dulaglutide group and −1·36% (0·05) in the liraglutide group. Mean treatment difference in HbA1c was −0·06% (95% CI −0·19 to 0·07, pnon-inferiority<0·0001) between the two groups. The most common gastrointestinal adverse events were nausea (61 [20%] in dulaglutide group vs 54 [18%] in liraglutide group), diarrhoea (36 [12%] vs 36 [12%]), dyspepsia (24 [8%] vs 18 [6%]), and vomiting (21 [7%] vs 25 [8%]), with similar rates of study or study drug discontinuation because of adverse events between the two groups (18 [6%] in each group). The hypoglycaemia rate was 0·34 (SE 1·44) and 0·52 (3·01) events per patient per year, respectively, and no severe hypoglycaemia was reported. Once-weekly dulaglutide is non-inferior to once-daily liraglutide for least-squares mean reduction in HbA1c, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. Eli Lilly and Company.

Maridebart cafraglutide (known as MariTide) is a long-acting peptide-antibody conjugate that combines glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonism and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor antagonism and that is intended for the treatment of obesity. We conducted a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial that included 11 groups as two cohorts. Participants with obesity (obesity cohort) were randomly assigned in a 3:3:3:2:2:2:3 ratio to receive maridebart cafraglutide subcutaneously at a dose of 140, 280, or 420 mg every 4 weeks without dose escalation; 420 mg every 8 weeks without dose escalation; 420 mg every 4 weeks with 4-week dose escalation; 420 mg every 4 weeks with 12-week dose escalation; or placebo. Participants with obesity with type 2 diabetes (obesity-diabetes cohort) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive maridebart cafraglutide at a dose of 140, 280, or 420 mg every 4 weeks (all without dose escalation) or placebo. The primary end point was the percent change in body weight from baseline to week 52. We enrolled 592 participants. In the obesity cohort (465 participants; female sex, 63%; mean age, 47.9 years; mean body-mass index [BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 37.9), the mean percent change in body weight from baseline to week 52 on the basis of the treatment policy estimand (intention-to-treat approach) ranged from -12.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -15.0 to -9.7) to -16.2% (95% CI, -18.9 to -13.5) with maridebart cafraglutide, as compared with -2.5% (95% CI, -4.2 to -0.7) with placebo. In the obesity-diabetes cohort (127 participants; female sex, 42%; mean age, 55.1 years; mean BMI, 36.5), the mean percent change in body weight from baseline to week 52 on the basis of the treatment policy estimand ranged from -8.4% (95% CI, -11.0 to -5.7) to -12.3% (95% CI, -15.3 to -9.2) with maridebart cafraglutide, as compared with -1.7% (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6) with placebo. The mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level on the basis of the treatment policy estimand in this cohort was -1.2 to -1.6 percentage points in the maridebart cafraglutide groups and 0.1 percentage points in the placebo group. Gastrointestinal adverse events were common with maridebart cafraglutide, although less frequent with dose escalation and a lower starting dose. No unexpected safety signals emerged. In this phase 2 trial, once-monthly maridebart cafraglutide resulted in substantial weight reduction in participants with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes. (Funded by Amgen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05669599.).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. GlaxoSmithKline.

Background Obesity is a chronic disease with serious health consequences, but weight loss is difficult to maintain through lifestyle intervention alone. Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, has been shown to have potential benefit for weight management at a once-daily dose of 3.0 mg, injected subcutaneously. Methods We conducted a 56-week, double-blind trial involving 3731 patients who did not have type 2 diabetes and who had a body-mass index (BMI; the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of at least 30 or a BMI of at least 27 if they had treated or untreated dyslipidemia or hypertension. We randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous injections of liraglutide at a dose of 3.0 mg (2487 patients) or placebo (1244 patients); both groups received counseling on lifestyle modification. The coprimary end points were the change in body weight and the proportions of patients losing at least 5% and more than 10% of their initial body weight. Results At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 45.1±12.0 years, the mean weight was 106.2±21.4 kg, and the mean BMI was 38.3±6.4; a total of 78.5% of the patients were women and 61.2% had prediabetes. At week 56, patients in the liraglutide group had lost a mean of 8.4±7.3 kg of body weight, and those in the placebo group had lost a mean of 2.8±6.5 kg (a difference of −5.6 kg; 95% confidence interval, −6.0 to −5.1; P<0.001, with last-observation-carried-forward imputation). A total of 63.2% of the patients in the liraglutide group as compared with 27.1% in the placebo group lost at least 5% of their body weight (P<0.001), and 33.1% and 10.6%, respectively, lost more than 10% of their body weight (P<0.001). The most frequently reported adverse events with liraglutide were mild or moderate nausea and diarrhea. Serious events occurred in 6.2% of the patients in the liraglutide group and in 5.0% of the patients in the placebo group. Conclusions In this study, 3.0 mg of liraglutide, as an adjunct to diet and exercise, was associated with reduced body weight and improved metabolic control. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes NN8022-1839 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01272219.)

New treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus are needed to retain insulin–glucose coupling and lower the risk of weight gain and hypoglycaemia. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of liraglutide as monotherapy for this disorder. In a double-blind, double-dummy, active-control, parallel-group study, 746 patients with early type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to once daily liraglutide (1·2 mg [n=251] or 1·8 mg [n=247]) or glimepiride 8 mg (n=248) for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was change in proportion of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA 1c). Analysis was done by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC00294723. At 52 weeks, HbA 1c decreased by 0·51% (SD 1·20%) with glimepiride, compared with 0·84% (1·23%) with liraglutide 1·2 mg (difference −0·33%; 95% CI −0·53 to −0·13, p=0·0014) and 1·14% (1·24%) with liraglutide 1·8 mg (−0·62; −0·83 to −0·42, p<0·0001). Five patients in the liraglutide 1·2 mg, and one in 1·8 mg groups discontinued treatment because of vomiting, whereas none in the glimepiride group did so. Liraglutide is safe and effective as initial pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus and leads to greater reductions in HbA 1c, weight, hypoglycaemia, and blood pressure than does glimepiride. Novo Nordisk A/S.

Liraglutide 3·0 mg was shown to reduce bodyweight and improve glucose metabolism after the 56-week period of this trial, one of four trials in the SCALE programme. In the 3-year assessment of the SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial we aimed to evaluate the proportion of individuals with prediabetes who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults with prediabetes and a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with comorbidities, were randomised 2:1, using a telephone or web-based system, to once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 3·0 mg or matched placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. Time to diabetes onset by 160 weeks was the primary outcome, evaluated in all randomised treated individuals with at least one post-baseline assessment. The trial was conducted at 191 clinical research sites in 27 countries and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01272219. The study ran between June 1, 2011, and March 2, 2015. We randomly assigned 2254 patients to receive liraglutide (n=1505) or placebo (n=749). 1128 (50%) participants completed the study up to week 160, after withdrawal of 714 (47%) participants in the liraglutide group and 412 (55%) participants in the placebo group. By week 160, 26 (2%) of 1472 individuals in the liraglutide group versus 46 (6%) of 738 in the placebo group were diagnosed with diabetes while on treatment. The mean time from randomisation to diagnosis was 99 (SD 47) weeks for the 26 individuals in the liraglutide group versus 87 (47) weeks for the 46 individuals in the placebo group. Taking the different diagnosis frequencies between the treatment groups into account, the time to onset of diabetes over 160 weeks among all randomised individuals was 2·7 times longer with liraglutide than with placebo (95% CI 1·9 to 3·9, p<0·0001), corresponding with a hazard ratio of 0·21 (95% CI 0·13–0·34). Liraglutide induced greater weight loss than placebo at week 160 (–6·1 [SD 7·3] vs −1·9% [6·3]; estimated treatment difference −4·3%, 95% CI −4·9 to −3·7, p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 227 (15%) of 1501 randomised treated individuals in the liraglutide group versus 96 (13%) of 747 individuals in the placebo group. In this trial, we provide results for 3 years of treatment, with the limitation that withdrawn individuals were not followed up after discontinuation. Liraglutide 3·0 mg might provide health benefits in terms of reduced risk of diabetes in individuals with obesity and prediabetes. Novo Nordisk, Denmark.

Objective: Liraglutide, a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, induced clinically meaningful weight loss in a phase 2 study in obese individuals without diabetes. The present randomized phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy of liraglutide in maintaining weight loss achieved with a low-calorie diet (LCD). Methods: Obese/overweight participants (⩾18 years, body mass index ⩾30 kg m −2 or ⩾27 kg m −2 with comorbidities) who lost ⩾5% of initial weight during a LCD run-in were randomly assigned to liraglutide 3.0 mg per day or placebo (subcutaneous administration) for 56 weeks. Diet and exercise counseling were provided throughout the trial. Co-primary end points were percentage weight change from randomization, the proportion of participants that maintained the initial ⩾5% weight loss, and the proportion that lost ⩾5% of randomization weight (intention-to-treat analysis). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00781937. Results: Participants ( n =422) lost a mean 6.0% (s.d. 0.9) of screening weight during run-in. From randomization to week 56, weight decreased an additional mean 6.2% (s.d. 7.3) with liraglutide and 0.2% (s.d. 7.0) with placebo (estimated difference −6.1% (95% class intervals −7.5 to −4.6), P <0.0001). More participants receiving liraglutide (81.4%) maintained the ⩾5% run-in weight loss, compared with those receiving placebo (48.9%) (estimated odds ratio 4.8 (3.0; 7.7), P <0.0001), and 50.5% versus 21.8% of participants lost ⩾5% of randomization weight (estimated odds ratio 3.9 (2.4; 6.1), P <0.0001). Liraglutide produced small but statistically significant improvements in several cardiometabolic risk factors compared with placebo. Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders were reported more frequently with liraglutide than placebo, but most events were transient, and mild or moderate in severity. Conclusion: Liraglutide, with diet and exercise, maintained weight loss achieved by caloric restriction and induced further weight loss over 56 weeks. Improvements in some cardiovascular disease-risk factors were also observed. Liraglutide, prescribed as 3.0 mg per day, holds promise for improving the maintenance of lost weight.

Background Oral semaglutide is a tablet co-formulation of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog semaglutide with the absorption enhancer sodium N -(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC). The absorption of coadministered oral drugs may be altered due to enhancement by SNAC, potential gastric emptying delay by semaglutide, or other mechanisms. Two one-sequence crossover trials investigated the effect of oral semaglutide on the pharmacokinetics of lisinopril, warfarin, digoxin, and metformin. Methods In trial 1, 52 healthy subjects received lisinopril (20 mg single dose) or warfarin (25 mg single dose) with subsequent coadministration with SNAC alone (300 mg single dose), followed by oral semaglutide 20 mg once daily (steady state). In trial 2, 32 healthy subjects received digoxin (500 μg single dose) or metformin (850 mg twice daily for 4 days), with subsequent coadministration with SNAC alone followed by oral semaglutide, as in trial 1. Results There were no apparent effects of oral semaglutide on area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration ( C max ) for lisinopril, warfarin, and digoxin. The AUC of metformin was increased by 32% (90% confidence interval 1.23–1.43) by oral semaglutide coadministration versus metformin alone, whereas the C max was unaffected. SNAC alone did not affect exposure of lisinopril, warfarin, digoxin, or metformin. Adverse events were in line with those previously observed for GLP-1 receptor agonists. Conclusions Oral semaglutide or SNAC alone did not appear to affect the exposure of lisinopril, warfarin, or digoxin, and, based on its wide therapeutic index, the higher metformin exposure with oral semaglutide was not considered clinically relevant.