Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Weight loss is often key in the management of obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes, yet few treatments for diabetes achieve clinically meaningful weight loss. We aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of treatment with MEDI0382, a balanced glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist developed to provide glycaemic control and weight loss, in patients with type 2 diabetes. This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, combined multiple-ascending dose (MAD) and phase 2a study was done at 11 study sites (hospitals and contract research organisations) in Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18–65 years with controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] levels of 6·5–8·5% at screening) and a body-mass index between 27 kg/m2 and 40 kg/m2. An interactive web-response system was used to randomly assign patients to receive MEDI0382 or placebo. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 in cohorts A–C and 3:1 in cohorts D and E in the MAD portion of the study, and 1:1 in the phase 2a portion. Randomisation was done by a contracted third-party operator who was not involved in the clinical operations of the study. The pharmacists, participants, and study site personnel involved in treating and assessing participants were masked to treatment allocation. Patients received once-daily subcutaneous injections of the study drug at doses of no more than 300 μg for 22 days or less in the MAD portion of the study, and a dose of no more than 200 μg for 41 days or less in the phase 2a portion. The two primary endpoints of the phase 2a portion were the change from baseline to day 41 in glucose area under the curve at 0–4 h (AUC0–4 h) after a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT), assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and whose measurements were taken at baseline and day 41, and change from baseline in bodyweight, assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety analyses were done in all participants who received any study drug analysed according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02548585. Patients were recruited between Dec 9, 2015, and Feb 24, 2017. 61 patients were randomly assigned to the MAD part of the study (42 to MEDI0382 and 19 to placebo). 51 patients were randomly assigned to the phase 2a part, of whom 25 were randomly assigned to MEDI0382 and 26 to placebo. In the phase 2a study, three patients in the MEDI0382 group and one in the placebo group discontinued, all as a result of adverse events. 22 (88%) patients in the MEDI0382 group and 25 (96%) in the placebo group received at least one dose and had measurements taken at baseline and day 41. Glucose AUC0–4 h post MMTT decreased significantly with MEDI0382 versus placebo (least squares [LS] mean −32·78% [90% CI −36·98 to −28·57] vs −10·16% [–14·10 to −6·21], and the mean difference was −22·62% [–28·40 to −16·85]; p<0·0001). In the ITT population, reduction in bodyweight was significantly greater with MEDI0382 than with placebo (LS mean −3·84 kg [90% CI −4·55 to −3·12] vs −1·70 kg [–2·40 to −1·01] and mean difference of 2·14 kg [–3·13 to −1·31]; p=0·0008). The proportion of patients who had a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between treatment groups (22 [88%] of 25 in the MEDI0382 group vs 23 [88%] of 26 in the placebo group); gastrointestinal disorders (18 [72%] vs 13 [40%]) and decreased appetite (five [20%] vs none) occurred more frequently with MEDI0382 than placebo. No participants in the MEDI0382 group had a grade 3 or worse TEAE (vs two [8%] in the placebo group). MEDI0382 has the potential to deliver clinically meaningful reductions in blood glucose and bodyweight in obese or overweight individuals with type 2 diabetes. MedImmune.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of switching from twice-daily exenatide to once-daily liraglutide or of 40 weeks of continuous liraglutide therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: When added to oral antidiabetes drugs in a 26-week randomized trial (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes [LEAD]-6), liraglutide more effectively improved A1C, fasting plasma glucose, and the homeostasis model of β-cell function (HOMA-B) than exenatide, with less persistent nausea and hypoglycemia. In this 14-week extension of LEAD-6, patients switched from 10 μg twice-daily exenatide to 1.8 mg once-daily liraglutide or continued liraglutide. RESULTS: Switching from exenatide to liraglutide further and significantly reduced A1C (0.32%), fasting plasma glucose (0.9 mmol/l), body weight (0.9 kg), and systolic blood pressure (3.8 mmHg) with minimal minor hypoglycemia (1.30 episodes/patient-year) or nausea (3.2%). Among patients continuing liraglutide, further significant decreases in body weight (0.4 kg) and systolic blood pressure (2.2 mmHg) occurred with 0.74 episodes/patient-year of minor hypoglycemia and 1.5% experiencing nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from exenatide to liraglutide is well tolerated and provides additional glycemic control and cardiometabolic benefits.

In patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, weekly semaglutide significantly reduced risks of major kidney events, cardiovascular events, and death from any cause while slowing loss of kidney function.

Lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of diabetes, has shown neuroprotective properties in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease. In this phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the effect of lixisenatide on the progression of motor disability in persons with Parkinson's disease. Participants in whom Parkinson's disease was diagnosed less than 3 years earlier, who were receiving a stable dose of medications to treat symptoms, and who did not have motor complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to daily subcutaneous lixisenatide or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 2-month washout period. The primary end point was the change from baseline in scores on the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III (range, 0 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater motor disability), which was assessed in patients in the on-medication state at 12 months. Secondary end points included other MDS-UPDRS subscores at 6, 12, and 14 months and doses of levodopa equivalent. A total of 156 persons were enrolled, with 78 assigned to each group. MDS-UPDRS part III scores at baseline were approximately 15 in both groups. At 12 months, scores on the MDS-UPDRS part III had changed by -0.04 points (indicating improvement) in the lixisenatide group and 3.04 points (indicating worsening disability) in the placebo group (difference, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 5.30; P = 0.007). At 14 months, after a 2-month washout period, the mean MDS-UPDRS motor scores in the off-medication state were 17.7 (95% CI, 15.7 to 19.7) with lixisenatide and 20.6 (95% CI, 18.5 to 22.8) with placebo. Other results relative to the secondary end points did not differ substantially between the groups. Nausea occurred in 46% of participants receiving lixisenatide, and vomiting occurred in 13%. In participants with early Parkinson's disease, lixisenatide therapy resulted in less progression of motor disability than placebo at 12 months in a phase 2 trial but was associated with gastrointestinal side effects. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effects and safety of lixisenatide in persons with Parkinson's disease. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; LIXIPARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439943.).

In this trial involving patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with thrombolysis within 3 hours after symptom onset, the use of adjunctive intravenous argatroban or eptifibatide did not improve 90-day poststroke outcomes.

This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of the GLP-1 analogue once a week subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg versus semaglutide 1·0 mg (the dose approved for diabetes treatment) and placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes. This double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, superiority study enrolled adults with a body-mass index of at least 27 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin 7–10% (53–86 mmol/mol) who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least 180 days before screening. Patients were recruited from 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries across Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system and stratified by background glucose-lowering medication and glycated haemoglobin, to subcutaneous injection of semaglutide 2·4 mg, or semaglutide 1·0 mg, or visually matching placebo, once a week for 68 weeks, plus a lifestyle intervention. Patients, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. Coprimary endpoints were percentage change in bodyweight and achievement of weight reduction of at least 5% at 68 weeks for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo, assessed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03552757 and is closed to new participants. From June 4 to Nov 14, 2018, 1595 patients were screened, of whom 1210 were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2·4 mg (n=404), semaglutide 1·0 mg (n=403), or placebo (n=403) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Estimated change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 68 was −9·6% (SE 0·4) with semaglutide 2·4 mg vs −3·4% (0·4) with placebo. Estimated treatment difference for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo was −6·2 percentage points (95% CI −7·3 to −5·2; p<0·0001). At week 68, more patients on semaglutide 2·4 mg than on placebo achieved weight reductions of at least 5% (267 [68·8%] of 388 vs 107 [28·5%] of 376; odds ratio 4·88, 95% CI 3·58 to 6·64; p<0·0001). Adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide 2·4 mg (in 353 [87·6%] of 403 patients) and 1·0 mg (329 [81·8%] of 402) than with placebo (309 [76·9%] of 402). Gastrointestinal adverse events, which were mostly mild to moderate, were reported in 256 (63·5%) of 403 patients with semaglutide 2·4 mg, 231 (57·5%) of 402 with semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 138 (34·3%) of 402 with placebo. In adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week achieved a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. Novo Nordisk.

This double-blind study randomly assigned adults with obesity (or overweight and with one or more weight-related coexisting conditions) without diabetes to 68 weeks of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. Semaglutide therapy was associated with sustained, clinically relevant weight reduction.