Sara Freeman

BARCELONA – Individuals with type 1 diabetes and a high body mass index gain the most benefit with the least risk when sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are added to insulin therapy, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Results from new analyses of the inTandem 1 and inTandem 2 trials with sotagliflozin (Zynquista), and the DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2 trials with dapagliflozin (Farxiga), support the recent decision of the European Medicines Agency to license the use of the drugs only in patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher.
 

inTandem with sotagliflozin

Weight gain is a challenge in patients with type 1 diabetes, said Thomas Danne, MD, who presented post hoc data from the two inTandem studies. “It’s a little bit counterintuitive,” he acknowledged, “but you have to realize, particularly in patients who have hypoglycemia, that they have to take in extra carbohydrates,” which may tip them to becoming overweight or obese.

SGLT2-inhibitor therapy with sotagliflozin or dapagliflozin added to insulin therapy has been shown to reduce body weight in individuals with type 1 diabetes, but there is an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). That risk, however, seems to be lower in the higher body-weight categories.

Dr. Danne, director of the department of general pediatrics, endocrinology, and diabetology, and clinical research at the Auf der Bult Hospital for Children and Adolescents, at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School, presented data looking at the outcomes of patients treated with sotagliflozin or placebo based on their BMI.

In all, 1,575 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 659 were of normal weight (BMI of less than 27 kg/m²; average mean, 24 kg/m² at baseline), and 916 had a higher weight (BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher; average mean, 32 kg/m² at baseline). The mean age of patients at study entry was 42 years for those with the lower BMI, and 45 years for those with the higher BMI.

Patients in the two inTandem trials had been treated with insulin plus placebo (n = 228, BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 298, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher), or insulin plus sotagliflozin at a dose of 200 mg (n = 219, BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 305, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher) or 400 mg (n = 212; BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 313, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher).
 

Glycemic control and body weight

Greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) were seen with sotagliflozin versus placebo, and even more so, if the BMI was 27 kg/m² or higher. At week 24, the least-squares mean difference in HbA_1c comparing sotagliflozin 200 mg and placebo was –0.32 in patients with the lower BMI, compared with –0.39 in those with the higher BMI. Corresponding values for the 400-mg sotagliflozin group in the higher-BMI group were –0.27 and –0.45, respectively (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

In the lower-BMI group, week 24 least-squares mean differences in body weight comparing sotagliflozin and placebo were –2.06 kg for the 200-mg group and –2.55 kg for the 400-mg group, and –2.27 kg and 3.32 kg in the higher-BMI group (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

“This is why this class of drugs holds so much of a promise, [because] it’s not only one good effect regarding improvement of glycemia judged by A_1c,” Dr. Danne said.

He also reported that treatment with sotagliflozin was associated with an increased time in range, compared with placebo, again, with greater effects seen in the higher- versus lower-BMI groups. In those with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or more, there was an additional 1 hour 58 minutes time in range for the 200-mg dose, and 3 hours 37 minutes for the 200-mg dose, compared with an extra 24 minutes and 1 hour 31 minutes, respectively, in the lower-BMI category.

“We also see a trend to improved reduction in systolic blood pressure in those with the higher BMI,” Dr. Danne said.
 

Risk for DKA

“The big charm of these drugs is that not only do you improve A_1c and all the other good things, but also you do this without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Danne. “Again, you can see a trend of a lower risk of severe hypoglycemia for both sotagliflozin doses [compared with placebo] in the group with the body mass index of greater than 27 kg/m² [versus BMI of less than 27 kg/m²].”

The risk of DKA was higher than placebo in both BMI groups, but the number of DKA events was very small when comparing the low and high body weight categories (0 and 1 events, respectively, in the placebo groups; 7 and 9, in the sotagliflozin 200-mg group; and 9 and 11, in the 400-mg group. The absolute risk difference in the exposure adjusted incidence rate was slightly lower in the lower-BMI group, he said, but the numbers were so small that it is difficult to draw conclusions from that finding.

“There is no doubt that we have an increase for the risk of DKA with this class of drugs in general ... but it is futile to discuss whether or not, just on the basis of a body mass index or something else, we will be able to reduce it in a big fashion,” Dr. Danne suggested.
 

Body weight and composition

Other data on the long-term effect of sotagliflozin on body weight and composition were presented by Sangeeta Sawhney, MD, vice-president of clinical development at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

She presented data from the DEXA substudy of the inTandem phase 3 studies in which 243 patients underwent fat mass and bone density scanning.

SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with weight loss through glycuresis and net caloric loss, Dr. Sawhney reminded the audience. As sotagliflozin is a dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and SGLT2, however, it is important to estimate the contribution of changes in fat mass and lean mass to the weight loss that could be achieved with the drug.

Pooled data from the inTandem 1 and inTandem 2 studies showed that at week 24, there were reductions in body weight of –1.7 kg and –2.6 kg with sotagliflozin 200 mg and 400 mg, respectively, and at 52 weeks, reductions of –1.9 kg and –2.9 kg. However, there was an increase in body weight with placebo (+0.5 and +0.8 kg, respectively).

For the substudy, patients underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and weeks 24 and 52. Fat mass was measured at all three time points, and bone density was evaluated at the start and end of the study.

The least-square mean change in total fat mass from baseline to week 24 and week 52 were +0.6 and +0.1 kg, respectively, for placebo, –1.6 and –1.6 kg for the sotagliflozin 200-mg dose; and –1.9 and –2.1 kg for the 400-mg dose, “which really parallels the reduction in total body weight,” Dr. Sawhney observed.

The changes in total lean mass were much smaller for sotagliflozin, she added, at –0.6 kg at week 24 and 0.3 kg at week 52 for the 200-mg dose, and –0.7 kg and –0.4 kg, respectively, for the 400-mg dose, and rises in lean mass of 0.2 kg and 0.4 kg, respectively, in placebo.

Taken together, these data show that “about 80% of the body weight reduction is really from the fat mass, and a much smaller proportion of the total body weight reduction is really coming from the lean fat mass,” said Dr. Sawhney.
 

DEPICT with dapagliflozin

In a poster, Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, of the State University of New York at Buffalo, and associates presented data from a pooled analysis of the DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2 studies looking at safety and efficacy outcomes with dapagliflozin according to five BMI categories: less than or equal to 23 kg/m²; greater than 23 kg/m² to less than or equal to 25 kg/m²; greater than 25 kg/m² to less than or equal to 27 kg/m²; greater than 27 kg/m² to less than or equal to 30 kg/m²; and greater than 30 kg/m².

The pooled analysis included 548 patients treated with dapagliflozin 5 mg and 532 who received placebo. The investigators found that patients with higher BMIs who were treated with dapagliflozin had greater weight loss, showed a trend toward achieving an HbA_1c reduction of 5.5 mmol/mol (greater than or equal to 0.5%) or more without the risk of severe hypoglycemia, and had fewer episodes of definite DKA, compared with those with those with lower BMIs.

The adjusted mean percentage change from baseline in body weight in the lowest BMI (less than or equal to 23 kg/m²) group at week 24 was +0.06 kg for placebo and –2.71 kg for dapagliflozin, and at week 52, +0.33 kg and –2.91 kg, respectively. Corresponding values comparing placebo and dapagliflozin at 24 and 52 weeks in the highest BMI group (greater than 30 kg/m²) were –0.30 kg and –3.03 kg, and +0.56 and –3.58 kg.

Odds ratios for achieving an HbA_1c reduction of 5.5 mmol/mol (greater than or equal to 0.5%) without severe hypoglycemia at week 24 with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, were, in increasing order of BMI groups: 1.85, 1.93, 3.87, 2.91, and 4.20.

“Generally, more events of definite DKA were observed in patients treated with dapagliflozin than in those treated with placebo,” but there were fewer events as BMI increased, Dr. Dandona and associates reported. “These data should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of events in each subgroup,” they added.

The number of adjudicated DKA events comparing dapagliflozin and placebo across the BMI groups were: 4 versus 1 (BMI less than or equal to 23 kg/m²); 6 versus 1 (BMI greater than 23 kg/m² to less than or equal to 25 kg/m²); 7 versus 1 (BMI greater than 25 kg/m² to less than or equal to 27 kg/m²); 3 versus 1 (BMI greater than 27 kg/m² to less than or equal to 30 kg/m²); and 2 versus 1 (BMI greater than 30 kg/m²).

In regard to limitations, “this was a post hoc analysis,” the investigators noted, adding that the studies were not originally powered for comparison between BMI subgroups, so the results should be considered exploratory. Moreover, DKA and hypoglycemia were strictly monitored in the trials, which “may differ from real-world situations,” they said.

The inTandem studies were sponsored by Lexicon and Sanofi. Dr. Danne disclosed receiving research funding and serving as a consultant, advisory board or steering committee member, or speaker for various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sawhney is an employee of and holds stoke in Lexicon. The DEPICT studies were sponsored by AstraZeneca. The lead author, Dr. Dandona, disclosed employment or consultancy services for multiple companies, including AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Danne T et al. EASD 2018, Oral Presentation 2; Dandona P et al. EASD 2019, ePoster 720; Sawhney S et al. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 3.

BARCELONA – Individuals with type 1 diabetes and a high body mass index gain the most benefit with the least risk when sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are added to insulin therapy, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Results from new analyses of the inTandem 1 and inTandem 2 trials with sotagliflozin (Zynquista), and the DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2 trials with dapagliflozin (Farxiga), support the recent decision of the European Medicines Agency to license the use of the drugs only in patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher.
 

inTandem with sotagliflozin

Weight gain is a challenge in patients with type 1 diabetes, said Thomas Danne, MD, who presented post hoc data from the two inTandem studies. “It’s a little bit counterintuitive,” he acknowledged, “but you have to realize, particularly in patients who have hypoglycemia, that they have to take in extra carbohydrates,” which may tip them to becoming overweight or obese.

SGLT2-inhibitor therapy with sotagliflozin or dapagliflozin added to insulin therapy has been shown to reduce body weight in individuals with type 1 diabetes, but there is an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). That risk, however, seems to be lower in the higher body-weight categories.

Dr. Danne, director of the department of general pediatrics, endocrinology, and diabetology, and clinical research at the Auf der Bult Hospital for Children and Adolescents, at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School, presented data looking at the outcomes of patients treated with sotagliflozin or placebo based on their BMI.

In all, 1,575 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 659 were of normal weight (BMI of less than 27 kg/m²; average mean, 24 kg/m² at baseline), and 916 had a higher weight (BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher; average mean, 32 kg/m² at baseline). The mean age of patients at study entry was 42 years for those with the lower BMI, and 45 years for those with the higher BMI.

Patients in the two inTandem trials had been treated with insulin plus placebo (n = 228, BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 298, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher), or insulin plus sotagliflozin at a dose of 200 mg (n = 219, BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 305, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher) or 400 mg (n = 212; BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 313, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher).
 

Glycemic control and body weight

Greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) were seen with sotagliflozin versus placebo, and even more so, if the BMI was 27 kg/m² or higher. At week 24, the least-squares mean difference in HbA_1c comparing sotagliflozin 200 mg and placebo was –0.32 in patients with the lower BMI, compared with –0.39 in those with the higher BMI. Corresponding values for the 400-mg sotagliflozin group in the higher-BMI group were –0.27 and –0.45, respectively (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

In the lower-BMI group, week 24 least-squares mean differences in body weight comparing sotagliflozin and placebo were –2.06 kg for the 200-mg group and –2.55 kg for the 400-mg group, and –2.27 kg and 3.32 kg in the higher-BMI group (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

“This is why this class of drugs holds so much of a promise, [because] it’s not only one good effect regarding improvement of glycemia judged by A_1c,” Dr. Danne said.

He also reported that treatment with sotagliflozin was associated with an increased time in range, compared with placebo, again, with greater effects seen in the higher- versus lower-BMI groups. In those with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or more, there was an additional 1 hour 58 minutes time in range for the 200-mg dose, and 3 hours 37 minutes for the 200-mg dose, compared with an extra 24 minutes and 1 hour 31 minutes, respectively, in the lower-BMI category.

“We also see a trend to improved reduction in systolic blood pressure in those with the higher BMI,” Dr. Danne said.
 

Risk for DKA

“The big charm of these drugs is that not only do you improve A_1c and all the other good things, but also you do this without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Danne. “Again, you can see a trend of a lower risk of severe hypoglycemia for both sotagliflozin doses [compared with placebo] in the group with the body mass index of greater than 27 kg/m² [versus BMI of less than 27 kg/m²].”

The risk of DKA was higher than placebo in both BMI groups, but the number of DKA events was very small when comparing the low and high body weight categories (0 and 1 events, respectively, in the placebo groups; 7 and 9, in the sotagliflozin 200-mg group; and 9 and 11, in the 400-mg group. The absolute risk difference in the exposure adjusted incidence rate was slightly lower in the lower-BMI group, he said, but the numbers were so small that it is difficult to draw conclusions from that finding.

“There is no doubt that we have an increase for the risk of DKA with this class of drugs in general ... but it is futile to discuss whether or not, just on the basis of a body mass index or something else, we will be able to reduce it in a big fashion,” Dr. Danne suggested.
 

Body weight and composition

Other data on the long-term effect of sotagliflozin on body weight and composition were presented by Sangeeta Sawhney, MD, vice-president of clinical development at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

She presented data from the DEXA substudy of the inTandem phase 3 studies in which 243 patients underwent fat mass and bone density scanning.

SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with weight loss through glycuresis and net caloric loss, Dr. Sawhney reminded the audience. As sotagliflozin is a dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and SGLT2, however, it is important to estimate the contribution of changes in fat mass and lean mass to the weight loss that could be achieved with the drug.

Pooled data from the inTandem 1 and inTandem 2 studies showed that at week 24, there were reductions in body weight of –1.7 kg and –2.6 kg with sotagliflozin 200 mg and 400 mg, respectively, and at 52 weeks, reductions of –1.9 kg and –2.9 kg. However, there was an increase in body weight with placebo (+0.5 and +0.8 kg, respectively).

For the substudy, patients underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and weeks 24 and 52. Fat mass was measured at all three time points, and bone density was evaluated at the start and end of the study.

The least-square mean change in total fat mass from baseline to week 24 and week 52 were +0.6 and +0.1 kg, respectively, for placebo, –1.6 and –1.6 kg for the sotagliflozin 200-mg dose; and –1.9 and –2.1 kg for the 400-mg dose, “which really parallels the reduction in total body weight,” Dr. Sawhney observed.

The changes in total lean mass were much smaller for sotagliflozin, she added, at –0.6 kg at week 24 and 0.3 kg at week 52 for the 200-mg dose, and –0.7 kg and –0.4 kg, respectively, for the 400-mg dose, and rises in lean mass of 0.2 kg and 0.4 kg, respectively, in placebo.

Taken together, these data show that “about 80% of the body weight reduction is really from the fat mass, and a much smaller proportion of the total body weight reduction is really coming from the lean fat mass,” said Dr. Sawhney.
 

DEPICT with dapagliflozin

In a poster, Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, of the State University of New York at Buffalo, and associates presented data from a pooled analysis of the DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2 studies looking at safety and efficacy outcomes with dapagliflozin according to five BMI categories: less than or equal to 23 kg/m²; greater than 23 kg/m² to less than or equal to 25 kg/m²; greater than 25 kg/m² to less than or equal to 27 kg/m²; greater than 27 kg/m² to less than or equal to 30 kg/m²; and greater than 30 kg/m².

The pooled analysis included 548 patients treated with dapagliflozin 5 mg and 532 who received placebo. The investigators found that patients with higher BMIs who were treated with dapagliflozin had greater weight loss, showed a trend toward achieving an HbA_1c reduction of 5.5 mmol/mol (greater than or equal to 0.5%) or more without the risk of severe hypoglycemia, and had fewer episodes of definite DKA, compared with those with those with lower BMIs.

The adjusted mean percentage change from baseline in body weight in the lowest BMI (less than or equal to 23 kg/m²) group at week 24 was +0.06 kg for placebo and –2.71 kg for dapagliflozin, and at week 52, +0.33 kg and –2.91 kg, respectively. Corresponding values comparing placebo and dapagliflozin at 24 and 52 weeks in the highest BMI group (greater than 30 kg/m²) were –0.30 kg and –3.03 kg, and +0.56 and –3.58 kg.

Odds ratios for achieving an HbA_1c reduction of 5.5 mmol/mol (greater than or equal to 0.5%) without severe hypoglycemia at week 24 with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, were, in increasing order of BMI groups: 1.85, 1.93, 3.87, 2.91, and 4.20.

“Generally, more events of definite DKA were observed in patients treated with dapagliflozin than in those treated with placebo,” but there were fewer events as BMI increased, Dr. Dandona and associates reported. “These data should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of events in each subgroup,” they added.

The number of adjudicated DKA events comparing dapagliflozin and placebo across the BMI groups were: 4 versus 1 (BMI less than or equal to 23 kg/m²); 6 versus 1 (BMI greater than 23 kg/m² to less than or equal to 25 kg/m²); 7 versus 1 (BMI greater than 25 kg/m² to less than or equal to 27 kg/m²); 3 versus 1 (BMI greater than 27 kg/m² to less than or equal to 30 kg/m²); and 2 versus 1 (BMI greater than 30 kg/m²).

In regard to limitations, “this was a post hoc analysis,” the investigators noted, adding that the studies were not originally powered for comparison between BMI subgroups, so the results should be considered exploratory. Moreover, DKA and hypoglycemia were strictly monitored in the trials, which “may differ from real-world situations,” they said.

The inTandem studies were sponsored by Lexicon and Sanofi. Dr. Danne disclosed receiving research funding and serving as a consultant, advisory board or steering committee member, or speaker for various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sawhney is an employee of and holds stoke in Lexicon. The DEPICT studies were sponsored by AstraZeneca. The lead author, Dr. Dandona, disclosed employment or consultancy services for multiple companies, including AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Danne T et al. EASD 2018, Oral Presentation 2; Dandona P et al. EASD 2019, ePoster 720; Sawhney S et al. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 3.

BARCELONA – Individuals with type 1 diabetes and a high body mass index gain the most benefit with the least risk when sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are added to insulin therapy, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Results from new analyses of the inTandem 1 and inTandem 2 trials with sotagliflozin (Zynquista), and the DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2 trials with dapagliflozin (Farxiga), support the recent decision of the European Medicines Agency to license the use of the drugs only in patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher.
 

inTandem with sotagliflozin

Weight gain is a challenge in patients with type 1 diabetes, said Thomas Danne, MD, who presented post hoc data from the two inTandem studies. “It’s a little bit counterintuitive,” he acknowledged, “but you have to realize, particularly in patients who have hypoglycemia, that they have to take in extra carbohydrates,” which may tip them to becoming overweight or obese.

SGLT2-inhibitor therapy with sotagliflozin or dapagliflozin added to insulin therapy has been shown to reduce body weight in individuals with type 1 diabetes, but there is an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). That risk, however, seems to be lower in the higher body-weight categories.

Dr. Danne, director of the department of general pediatrics, endocrinology, and diabetology, and clinical research at the Auf der Bult Hospital for Children and Adolescents, at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School, presented data looking at the outcomes of patients treated with sotagliflozin or placebo based on their BMI.

In all, 1,575 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 659 were of normal weight (BMI of less than 27 kg/m²; average mean, 24 kg/m² at baseline), and 916 had a higher weight (BMI of 27 kg/m² or higher; average mean, 32 kg/m² at baseline). The mean age of patients at study entry was 42 years for those with the lower BMI, and 45 years for those with the higher BMI.

Patients in the two inTandem trials had been treated with insulin plus placebo (n = 228, BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 298, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher), or insulin plus sotagliflozin at a dose of 200 mg (n = 219, BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 305, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher) or 400 mg (n = 212; BMI less than 27 kg/m²; n = 313, BMI 27 kg/m² or higher).
 

Glycemic control and body weight

Greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) were seen with sotagliflozin versus placebo, and even more so, if the BMI was 27 kg/m² or higher. At week 24, the least-squares mean difference in HbA_1c comparing sotagliflozin 200 mg and placebo was –0.32 in patients with the lower BMI, compared with –0.39 in those with the higher BMI. Corresponding values for the 400-mg sotagliflozin group in the higher-BMI group were –0.27 and –0.45, respectively (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

In the lower-BMI group, week 24 least-squares mean differences in body weight comparing sotagliflozin and placebo were –2.06 kg for the 200-mg group and –2.55 kg for the 400-mg group, and –2.27 kg and 3.32 kg in the higher-BMI group (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

“This is why this class of drugs holds so much of a promise, [because] it’s not only one good effect regarding improvement of glycemia judged by A_1c,” Dr. Danne said.

He also reported that treatment with sotagliflozin was associated with an increased time in range, compared with placebo, again, with greater effects seen in the higher- versus lower-BMI groups. In those with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or more, there was an additional 1 hour 58 minutes time in range for the 200-mg dose, and 3 hours 37 minutes for the 200-mg dose, compared with an extra 24 minutes and 1 hour 31 minutes, respectively, in the lower-BMI category.

“We also see a trend to improved reduction in systolic blood pressure in those with the higher BMI,” Dr. Danne said.
 

Risk for DKA

“The big charm of these drugs is that not only do you improve A_1c and all the other good things, but also you do this without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Danne. “Again, you can see a trend of a lower risk of severe hypoglycemia for both sotagliflozin doses [compared with placebo] in the group with the body mass index of greater than 27 kg/m² [versus BMI of less than 27 kg/m²].”

The risk of DKA was higher than placebo in both BMI groups, but the number of DKA events was very small when comparing the low and high body weight categories (0 and 1 events, respectively, in the placebo groups; 7 and 9, in the sotagliflozin 200-mg group; and 9 and 11, in the 400-mg group. The absolute risk difference in the exposure adjusted incidence rate was slightly lower in the lower-BMI group, he said, but the numbers were so small that it is difficult to draw conclusions from that finding.

“There is no doubt that we have an increase for the risk of DKA with this class of drugs in general ... but it is futile to discuss whether or not, just on the basis of a body mass index or something else, we will be able to reduce it in a big fashion,” Dr. Danne suggested.
 

Body weight and composition

Other data on the long-term effect of sotagliflozin on body weight and composition were presented by Sangeeta Sawhney, MD, vice-president of clinical development at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

She presented data from the DEXA substudy of the inTandem phase 3 studies in which 243 patients underwent fat mass and bone density scanning.

SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with weight loss through glycuresis and net caloric loss, Dr. Sawhney reminded the audience. As sotagliflozin is a dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and SGLT2, however, it is important to estimate the contribution of changes in fat mass and lean mass to the weight loss that could be achieved with the drug.

Pooled data from the inTandem 1 and inTandem 2 studies showed that at week 24, there were reductions in body weight of –1.7 kg and –2.6 kg with sotagliflozin 200 mg and 400 mg, respectively, and at 52 weeks, reductions of –1.9 kg and –2.9 kg. However, there was an increase in body weight with placebo (+0.5 and +0.8 kg, respectively).

For the substudy, patients underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and weeks 24 and 52. Fat mass was measured at all three time points, and bone density was evaluated at the start and end of the study.

The least-square mean change in total fat mass from baseline to week 24 and week 52 were +0.6 and +0.1 kg, respectively, for placebo, –1.6 and –1.6 kg for the sotagliflozin 200-mg dose; and –1.9 and –2.1 kg for the 400-mg dose, “which really parallels the reduction in total body weight,” Dr. Sawhney observed.

The changes in total lean mass were much smaller for sotagliflozin, she added, at –0.6 kg at week 24 and 0.3 kg at week 52 for the 200-mg dose, and –0.7 kg and –0.4 kg, respectively, for the 400-mg dose, and rises in lean mass of 0.2 kg and 0.4 kg, respectively, in placebo.

Taken together, these data show that “about 80% of the body weight reduction is really from the fat mass, and a much smaller proportion of the total body weight reduction is really coming from the lean fat mass,” said Dr. Sawhney.
 

DEPICT with dapagliflozin

In a poster, Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, of the State University of New York at Buffalo, and associates presented data from a pooled analysis of the DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2 studies looking at safety and efficacy outcomes with dapagliflozin according to five BMI categories: less than or equal to 23 kg/m²; greater than 23 kg/m² to less than or equal to 25 kg/m²; greater than 25 kg/m² to less than or equal to 27 kg/m²; greater than 27 kg/m² to less than or equal to 30 kg/m²; and greater than 30 kg/m².

The pooled analysis included 548 patients treated with dapagliflozin 5 mg and 532 who received placebo. The investigators found that patients with higher BMIs who were treated with dapagliflozin had greater weight loss, showed a trend toward achieving an HbA_1c reduction of 5.5 mmol/mol (greater than or equal to 0.5%) or more without the risk of severe hypoglycemia, and had fewer episodes of definite DKA, compared with those with those with lower BMIs.

The adjusted mean percentage change from baseline in body weight in the lowest BMI (less than or equal to 23 kg/m²) group at week 24 was +0.06 kg for placebo and –2.71 kg for dapagliflozin, and at week 52, +0.33 kg and –2.91 kg, respectively. Corresponding values comparing placebo and dapagliflozin at 24 and 52 weeks in the highest BMI group (greater than 30 kg/m²) were –0.30 kg and –3.03 kg, and +0.56 and –3.58 kg.

Odds ratios for achieving an HbA_1c reduction of 5.5 mmol/mol (greater than or equal to 0.5%) without severe hypoglycemia at week 24 with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, were, in increasing order of BMI groups: 1.85, 1.93, 3.87, 2.91, and 4.20.

“Generally, more events of definite DKA were observed in patients treated with dapagliflozin than in those treated with placebo,” but there were fewer events as BMI increased, Dr. Dandona and associates reported. “These data should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of events in each subgroup,” they added.

The number of adjudicated DKA events comparing dapagliflozin and placebo across the BMI groups were: 4 versus 1 (BMI less than or equal to 23 kg/m²); 6 versus 1 (BMI greater than 23 kg/m² to less than or equal to 25 kg/m²); 7 versus 1 (BMI greater than 25 kg/m² to less than or equal to 27 kg/m²); 3 versus 1 (BMI greater than 27 kg/m² to less than or equal to 30 kg/m²); and 2 versus 1 (BMI greater than 30 kg/m²).

In regard to limitations, “this was a post hoc analysis,” the investigators noted, adding that the studies were not originally powered for comparison between BMI subgroups, so the results should be considered exploratory. Moreover, DKA and hypoglycemia were strictly monitored in the trials, which “may differ from real-world situations,” they said.

The inTandem studies were sponsored by Lexicon and Sanofi. Dr. Danne disclosed receiving research funding and serving as a consultant, advisory board or steering committee member, or speaker for various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sawhney is an employee of and holds stoke in Lexicon. The DEPICT studies were sponsored by AstraZeneca. The lead author, Dr. Dandona, disclosed employment or consultancy services for multiple companies, including AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Danne T et al. EASD 2018, Oral Presentation 2; Dandona P et al. EASD 2019, ePoster 720; Sawhney S et al. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 3.

BARCELONA – Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) alone or given in combination with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) had little to no effect on the progression of type 1 diabetes in children, according to early data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There was no difference between the two active treatment groups and placebo for the primary outcome measure, which was the effect on meal-stimulated C-peptide secretion before and after 1 year of treatment, study investigator Kenneth L. McCormick, MD, reported, nor was there any difference in glycemic control, based on hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and insulin dose, between the children who received GABA alone (n = 39) or combined with GAD (n = 22), and those who received placebo (n = 30).

“However, the GABA–GAD combination tended to have greater efficacy [than placebo] in terms of the daily insulin dose and the fasting C-peptide–to–glucagon ratio,” said Dr. McCormick, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Some beneficial effects on glucagon were seen with the GABA–GAD combination. “At 12 months, fasting glucagon was reduced [P less than .013] in the GABA–GAD group, compared with placebo,” he said. This was a “novel observation,” because stimulated glucagon was also reduced in this cohort. “This could be a potential salutatory metabolic effect in diabetes.”

The data were the first to be reported from the trial, and results of the immunologic analyses should be available by the end of the year and might reveal more positive effects of GABA and GAD, Dr. McCormick suggested. Data from a “proinsulin analysis” will also be available later.

The inspiration for the trial was a study performed in mice showing that GABA exerted a protective and regenerative effect on the islet beta cells and “reversed diabetes” (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:11692-7). It took almost 4 years from the publication of that study to enroll the first patient for the current study.

“GABA was intriguing ... first of all, it is available in health food stores and in supermarkets in the United States,” said Dr. McCormick. “It has a strong safety profile, it’s tasteless, and can be given orally – what better could you ask for in a trial of children with type 1 diabetes?”

GABA is thought to have multiple effects in the pancreas, from increasing insulin secretion and suppressing glucagon secretion, to altering inflammation and T-cell populations. “That’s what’s so important to emphasize, besides its metabolic effects, this compound also has immunosuppressant action,” Dr. McCormick noted.

SOURCE: McCormick KL et al. EASD 2019, Abstract S05.1.

BARCELONA – Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) alone or given in combination with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) had little to no effect on the progression of type 1 diabetes in children, according to early data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There was no difference between the two active treatment groups and placebo for the primary outcome measure, which was the effect on meal-stimulated C-peptide secretion before and after 1 year of treatment, study investigator Kenneth L. McCormick, MD, reported, nor was there any difference in glycemic control, based on hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and insulin dose, between the children who received GABA alone (n = 39) or combined with GAD (n = 22), and those who received placebo (n = 30).

“However, the GABA–GAD combination tended to have greater efficacy [than placebo] in terms of the daily insulin dose and the fasting C-peptide–to–glucagon ratio,” said Dr. McCormick, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Some beneficial effects on glucagon were seen with the GABA–GAD combination. “At 12 months, fasting glucagon was reduced [P less than .013] in the GABA–GAD group, compared with placebo,” he said. This was a “novel observation,” because stimulated glucagon was also reduced in this cohort. “This could be a potential salutatory metabolic effect in diabetes.”

The data were the first to be reported from the trial, and results of the immunologic analyses should be available by the end of the year and might reveal more positive effects of GABA and GAD, Dr. McCormick suggested. Data from a “proinsulin analysis” will also be available later.

The inspiration for the trial was a study performed in mice showing that GABA exerted a protective and regenerative effect on the islet beta cells and “reversed diabetes” (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:11692-7). It took almost 4 years from the publication of that study to enroll the first patient for the current study.

“GABA was intriguing ... first of all, it is available in health food stores and in supermarkets in the United States,” said Dr. McCormick. “It has a strong safety profile, it’s tasteless, and can be given orally – what better could you ask for in a trial of children with type 1 diabetes?”

GABA is thought to have multiple effects in the pancreas, from increasing insulin secretion and suppressing glucagon secretion, to altering inflammation and T-cell populations. “That’s what’s so important to emphasize, besides its metabolic effects, this compound also has immunosuppressant action,” Dr. McCormick noted.

SOURCE: McCormick KL et al. EASD 2019, Abstract S05.1.

BARCELONA – Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) alone or given in combination with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) had little to no effect on the progression of type 1 diabetes in children, according to early data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There was no difference between the two active treatment groups and placebo for the primary outcome measure, which was the effect on meal-stimulated C-peptide secretion before and after 1 year of treatment, study investigator Kenneth L. McCormick, MD, reported, nor was there any difference in glycemic control, based on hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and insulin dose, between the children who received GABA alone (n = 39) or combined with GAD (n = 22), and those who received placebo (n = 30).

“However, the GABA–GAD combination tended to have greater efficacy [than placebo] in terms of the daily insulin dose and the fasting C-peptide–to–glucagon ratio,” said Dr. McCormick, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Some beneficial effects on glucagon were seen with the GABA–GAD combination. “At 12 months, fasting glucagon was reduced [P less than .013] in the GABA–GAD group, compared with placebo,” he said. This was a “novel observation,” because stimulated glucagon was also reduced in this cohort. “This could be a potential salutatory metabolic effect in diabetes.”

The data were the first to be reported from the trial, and results of the immunologic analyses should be available by the end of the year and might reveal more positive effects of GABA and GAD, Dr. McCormick suggested. Data from a “proinsulin analysis” will also be available later.

The inspiration for the trial was a study performed in mice showing that GABA exerted a protective and regenerative effect on the islet beta cells and “reversed diabetes” (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:11692-7). It took almost 4 years from the publication of that study to enroll the first patient for the current study.

“GABA was intriguing ... first of all, it is available in health food stores and in supermarkets in the United States,” said Dr. McCormick. “It has a strong safety profile, it’s tasteless, and can be given orally – what better could you ask for in a trial of children with type 1 diabetes?”

GABA is thought to have multiple effects in the pancreas, from increasing insulin secretion and suppressing glucagon secretion, to altering inflammation and T-cell populations. “That’s what’s so important to emphasize, besides its metabolic effects, this compound also has immunosuppressant action,” Dr. McCormick noted.

SOURCE: McCormick KL et al. EASD 2019, Abstract S05.1.

BARCELONA – Patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with semaglutide achieved greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels and body weight, compared with those receiving liraglutide, according to results presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDEdge News

In the phase 3b SUSTAIN 10 trial, conducted in 11 European countries, mean glycated hemoglobin at 30 weeks decreased by 1.7% with once-weekly semaglutide and 1.0% for once-daily liraglutide, from the overall baseline level of 8.2%. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) between the two treatments was –0.69 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.82 to –0.56; P less than .0001).

Mean body weight decreased during the same period by 5.8 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with liraglutide, from a baseline of 96.9 kg. The ETD was 3.83 kg (95% CI, –4.57 to –3.09; P less than .0001).

The doses of semaglutide and liraglutide used in the study were 1.0 mg and 1.2 mg, respectively, the latter being the dose that is used most commonly in clinical practice, study investigator Matthew Capehorn, MB, CAB, explained in an interview at the meeting.

“We know that at a dose of 1.8 mg, liraglutide is more effective than 1.2 mg, but it’s about whether it is deemed more cost effective,” said Dr. Capehorn, who is clinical manager at Rotherham (England) Institute for Obesity, Clifton Medical Centre. “Certainly, in the United Kingdom, we’re encouraged to use the 1.2-mg dose” according to guidance from the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence, and “other European countries are the same.”

Dr. Capehorn noted that studies are being done with a higher dose of semaglutide to see if it has potential as a weight loss drug in its own right in patients who do not have type 2 diabetes. “I care as much about obesity and cardiovascular disease as I do about chasing the HbA_1c level and getting that reduced, so I would rather pick an agent that covers all three [components], than just looking at the HbA_1c,” he said.

In SUSTAIN 10,577 adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA_1c level of between 7.0% and 11.0% who were on stable doses of one to three oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to receive semaglutide (n = 290) or liraglutide (n = 287) for 30 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

In presenting the findings, which were simultaneously published in Diabetes & Metabolism, Dr. Capehorn noted that the efficacy results were consistent with those of other SUSTAIN trials that compared semaglutide with other glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonists, notably SUSTAIN 3 (with exenatide extended release) and SUSTAIN 7 (with dulaglutide).

Other efficacy findings from SUSTAIN 10 were that semaglutide produced greater mean changes than did liraglutide in both fasting plasma glucose and in a 7-point, self-monitoring of blood glucose profile.

A greater percentage of people treated with semaglutide, compared with liraglutide, also achieved their glycemic targets of less than 7.0% (80% vs. 46%, respectively) and of 6.5% or less (58% vs. 25%), and their weight loss targets of 5% or more (56% vs. 18%) and 10% or more (19% vs. 4%).

In addition, more semaglutide- than liraglutide-treated patients achieved an HbA_1c target of less than 7.0% without severe or blood glucose–confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, with or without weight gain (76% vs. 37%; P less than .0001). There were also more semaglutide patients who achieved an HbA_1c reduction of 1% or more and a weight loss reduction of 10% or more (17% vs. 4% for liraglutide, P less than .0001).

The safety profiles were similar for semaglutide and liraglutide, Dr. Capehorn noted, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more prevalent in patients receiving semaglutide, compared with liraglutide (43.9% vs. 38.3%), and more patients receiving semaglutide discontinued treatment prematurely because of those adverse events (11.4% vs. 6.6% for liraglutide).

Novo Nordisk sponsored the study. Dr. Capehorn reported receiving research funding from, providing advisory board support to, and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and from several other companies.
 

SOURCE: Capehorn M et al. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 53; Capehorn M et al. Diabetes Metab. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2019.101117.

BARCELONA – Patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with semaglutide achieved greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels and body weight, compared with those receiving liraglutide, according to results presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDEdge News

In the phase 3b SUSTAIN 10 trial, conducted in 11 European countries, mean glycated hemoglobin at 30 weeks decreased by 1.7% with once-weekly semaglutide and 1.0% for once-daily liraglutide, from the overall baseline level of 8.2%. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) between the two treatments was –0.69 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.82 to –0.56; P less than .0001).

Mean body weight decreased during the same period by 5.8 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with liraglutide, from a baseline of 96.9 kg. The ETD was 3.83 kg (95% CI, –4.57 to –3.09; P less than .0001).

The doses of semaglutide and liraglutide used in the study were 1.0 mg and 1.2 mg, respectively, the latter being the dose that is used most commonly in clinical practice, study investigator Matthew Capehorn, MB, CAB, explained in an interview at the meeting.

“We know that at a dose of 1.8 mg, liraglutide is more effective than 1.2 mg, but it’s about whether it is deemed more cost effective,” said Dr. Capehorn, who is clinical manager at Rotherham (England) Institute for Obesity, Clifton Medical Centre. “Certainly, in the United Kingdom, we’re encouraged to use the 1.2-mg dose” according to guidance from the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence, and “other European countries are the same.”

Dr. Capehorn noted that studies are being done with a higher dose of semaglutide to see if it has potential as a weight loss drug in its own right in patients who do not have type 2 diabetes. “I care as much about obesity and cardiovascular disease as I do about chasing the HbA_1c level and getting that reduced, so I would rather pick an agent that covers all three [components], than just looking at the HbA_1c,” he said.

In SUSTAIN 10,577 adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA_1c level of between 7.0% and 11.0% who were on stable doses of one to three oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to receive semaglutide (n = 290) or liraglutide (n = 287) for 30 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

In presenting the findings, which were simultaneously published in Diabetes & Metabolism, Dr. Capehorn noted that the efficacy results were consistent with those of other SUSTAIN trials that compared semaglutide with other glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonists, notably SUSTAIN 3 (with exenatide extended release) and SUSTAIN 7 (with dulaglutide).

Other efficacy findings from SUSTAIN 10 were that semaglutide produced greater mean changes than did liraglutide in both fasting plasma glucose and in a 7-point, self-monitoring of blood glucose profile.

A greater percentage of people treated with semaglutide, compared with liraglutide, also achieved their glycemic targets of less than 7.0% (80% vs. 46%, respectively) and of 6.5% or less (58% vs. 25%), and their weight loss targets of 5% or more (56% vs. 18%) and 10% or more (19% vs. 4%).

In addition, more semaglutide- than liraglutide-treated patients achieved an HbA_1c target of less than 7.0% without severe or blood glucose–confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, with or without weight gain (76% vs. 37%; P less than .0001). There were also more semaglutide patients who achieved an HbA_1c reduction of 1% or more and a weight loss reduction of 10% or more (17% vs. 4% for liraglutide, P less than .0001).

The safety profiles were similar for semaglutide and liraglutide, Dr. Capehorn noted, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more prevalent in patients receiving semaglutide, compared with liraglutide (43.9% vs. 38.3%), and more patients receiving semaglutide discontinued treatment prematurely because of those adverse events (11.4% vs. 6.6% for liraglutide).

Novo Nordisk sponsored the study. Dr. Capehorn reported receiving research funding from, providing advisory board support to, and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and from several other companies.
 

SOURCE: Capehorn M et al. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 53; Capehorn M et al. Diabetes Metab. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2019.101117.

BARCELONA – Patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with semaglutide achieved greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels and body weight, compared with those receiving liraglutide, according to results presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDEdge News

In the phase 3b SUSTAIN 10 trial, conducted in 11 European countries, mean glycated hemoglobin at 30 weeks decreased by 1.7% with once-weekly semaglutide and 1.0% for once-daily liraglutide, from the overall baseline level of 8.2%. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) between the two treatments was –0.69 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.82 to –0.56; P less than .0001).

Mean body weight decreased during the same period by 5.8 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with liraglutide, from a baseline of 96.9 kg. The ETD was 3.83 kg (95% CI, –4.57 to –3.09; P less than .0001).

The doses of semaglutide and liraglutide used in the study were 1.0 mg and 1.2 mg, respectively, the latter being the dose that is used most commonly in clinical practice, study investigator Matthew Capehorn, MB, CAB, explained in an interview at the meeting.

“We know that at a dose of 1.8 mg, liraglutide is more effective than 1.2 mg, but it’s about whether it is deemed more cost effective,” said Dr. Capehorn, who is clinical manager at Rotherham (England) Institute for Obesity, Clifton Medical Centre. “Certainly, in the United Kingdom, we’re encouraged to use the 1.2-mg dose” according to guidance from the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence, and “other European countries are the same.”

Dr. Capehorn noted that studies are being done with a higher dose of semaglutide to see if it has potential as a weight loss drug in its own right in patients who do not have type 2 diabetes. “I care as much about obesity and cardiovascular disease as I do about chasing the HbA_1c level and getting that reduced, so I would rather pick an agent that covers all three [components], than just looking at the HbA_1c,” he said.

In SUSTAIN 10,577 adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA_1c level of between 7.0% and 11.0% who were on stable doses of one to three oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to receive semaglutide (n = 290) or liraglutide (n = 287) for 30 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

In presenting the findings, which were simultaneously published in Diabetes & Metabolism, Dr. Capehorn noted that the efficacy results were consistent with those of other SUSTAIN trials that compared semaglutide with other glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonists, notably SUSTAIN 3 (with exenatide extended release) and SUSTAIN 7 (with dulaglutide).

Other efficacy findings from SUSTAIN 10 were that semaglutide produced greater mean changes than did liraglutide in both fasting plasma glucose and in a 7-point, self-monitoring of blood glucose profile.

A greater percentage of people treated with semaglutide, compared with liraglutide, also achieved their glycemic targets of less than 7.0% (80% vs. 46%, respectively) and of 6.5% or less (58% vs. 25%), and their weight loss targets of 5% or more (56% vs. 18%) and 10% or more (19% vs. 4%).

In addition, more semaglutide- than liraglutide-treated patients achieved an HbA_1c target of less than 7.0% without severe or blood glucose–confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, with or without weight gain (76% vs. 37%; P less than .0001). There were also more semaglutide patients who achieved an HbA_1c reduction of 1% or more and a weight loss reduction of 10% or more (17% vs. 4% for liraglutide, P less than .0001).

The safety profiles were similar for semaglutide and liraglutide, Dr. Capehorn noted, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more prevalent in patients receiving semaglutide, compared with liraglutide (43.9% vs. 38.3%), and more patients receiving semaglutide discontinued treatment prematurely because of those adverse events (11.4% vs. 6.6% for liraglutide).

Novo Nordisk sponsored the study. Dr. Capehorn reported receiving research funding from, providing advisory board support to, and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and from several other companies.
 

SOURCE: Capehorn M et al. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 53; Capehorn M et al. Diabetes Metab. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2019.101117.

BARCELONA – Obesity, more so than having a poor lifestyle, significantly raised the odds of developing type 2 diabetes, independent of individuals’ genetic susceptibility, according to data from a Danish population-based, case-cohort study.

In fact, having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/m2 was linked with a 480% risk of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with being of normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2). The 95% confidence interval was 5.16-6.55. Being overweight (BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m2) also carried a 100% increased risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 2.15-2.62).

Having an unfavorable lifestyle – which was defined as having no or only one of several healthy-living characteristics, from not smoking and moderating alcohol use to eating a well-balanced, nutritious diet and exercising regularly – increased the risk of diabetes by 18%, compared with having a favorable lifestyle (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30).

Individuals with a high genetic risk score (GRS) had a 100% increased risk of developing the disease versus those with a low GRS (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3).

“High genetic risk, obesity, and [an] unfavorable lifestyle increase the individual-level risk of incident type 2 diabetes,” Hermina Jakupovic and associates reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Their results suggest that “the effect of obesity on type 2 diabetes risk is dominant over other risk factors, highlighting the importance of weight management in type 2 diabetes prevention.”

Ms. Jakupovic, a PhD student at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors examined data on 9,555 participants of the Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort, a large, prospective study that has been running since the early 1990s.

Around half of the study sample were women and the mean age was 52 years. Just over one-fifth (22.8%) were obese, 43% were overweight, and the remaining 35.2% were of normal weight. A quarter (25.4%) had an unfavorable lifestyle, 40% a favorable lifestyle, and the remainder an “intermediate” lifestyle. Over a follow-up of almost 15 years, nearly half (49.5%) developed type 2 diabetes.

Genetic risk was assessed by a GRS comprising 193 genetic variants known to be strongly associated with type 2 diabetes, Ms. Jakupovic explained, adding that, using the GRS, patients were categorized into being at low (the lowest 20%), intermediate (middle 60%) and high risk (top 20%) of type 2 diabetes.

Considering individuals’ GRS and lifestyle score together showed an increasing risk of developing type 2 diabetes from the low GRS/favorable-lifestyle category (HR, 1.0; reference) upward to the high GRS/unfavorable lifestyle (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76-2.81).

The Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort is supported by the Danish Cancer Society. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research is an independent research center at the University of Copenhagen partially funded by an unrestricted donation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Jakupovic and associates are funded either directly or indirectly by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

SOURCE: Jakupovic H et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 376.

BARCELONA – Obesity, more so than having a poor lifestyle, significantly raised the odds of developing type 2 diabetes, independent of individuals’ genetic susceptibility, according to data from a Danish population-based, case-cohort study.

In fact, having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/m2 was linked with a 480% risk of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with being of normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2). The 95% confidence interval was 5.16-6.55. Being overweight (BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m2) also carried a 100% increased risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 2.15-2.62).

Having an unfavorable lifestyle – which was defined as having no or only one of several healthy-living characteristics, from not smoking and moderating alcohol use to eating a well-balanced, nutritious diet and exercising regularly – increased the risk of diabetes by 18%, compared with having a favorable lifestyle (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30).

Individuals with a high genetic risk score (GRS) had a 100% increased risk of developing the disease versus those with a low GRS (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3).

“High genetic risk, obesity, and [an] unfavorable lifestyle increase the individual-level risk of incident type 2 diabetes,” Hermina Jakupovic and associates reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Their results suggest that “the effect of obesity on type 2 diabetes risk is dominant over other risk factors, highlighting the importance of weight management in type 2 diabetes prevention.”

Ms. Jakupovic, a PhD student at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors examined data on 9,555 participants of the Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort, a large, prospective study that has been running since the early 1990s.

Around half of the study sample were women and the mean age was 52 years. Just over one-fifth (22.8%) were obese, 43% were overweight, and the remaining 35.2% were of normal weight. A quarter (25.4%) had an unfavorable lifestyle, 40% a favorable lifestyle, and the remainder an “intermediate” lifestyle. Over a follow-up of almost 15 years, nearly half (49.5%) developed type 2 diabetes.

Genetic risk was assessed by a GRS comprising 193 genetic variants known to be strongly associated with type 2 diabetes, Ms. Jakupovic explained, adding that, using the GRS, patients were categorized into being at low (the lowest 20%), intermediate (middle 60%) and high risk (top 20%) of type 2 diabetes.

Considering individuals’ GRS and lifestyle score together showed an increasing risk of developing type 2 diabetes from the low GRS/favorable-lifestyle category (HR, 1.0; reference) upward to the high GRS/unfavorable lifestyle (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76-2.81).

The Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort is supported by the Danish Cancer Society. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research is an independent research center at the University of Copenhagen partially funded by an unrestricted donation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Jakupovic and associates are funded either directly or indirectly by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

SOURCE: Jakupovic H et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 376.

BARCELONA – Obesity, more so than having a poor lifestyle, significantly raised the odds of developing type 2 diabetes, independent of individuals’ genetic susceptibility, according to data from a Danish population-based, case-cohort study.

In fact, having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/m2 was linked with a 480% risk of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with being of normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2). The 95% confidence interval was 5.16-6.55. Being overweight (BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m2) also carried a 100% increased risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 2.15-2.62).

Having an unfavorable lifestyle – which was defined as having no or only one of several healthy-living characteristics, from not smoking and moderating alcohol use to eating a well-balanced, nutritious diet and exercising regularly – increased the risk of diabetes by 18%, compared with having a favorable lifestyle (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30).

Individuals with a high genetic risk score (GRS) had a 100% increased risk of developing the disease versus those with a low GRS (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3).

“High genetic risk, obesity, and [an] unfavorable lifestyle increase the individual-level risk of incident type 2 diabetes,” Hermina Jakupovic and associates reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Their results suggest that “the effect of obesity on type 2 diabetes risk is dominant over other risk factors, highlighting the importance of weight management in type 2 diabetes prevention.”

Ms. Jakupovic, a PhD student at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors examined data on 9,555 participants of the Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort, a large, prospective study that has been running since the early 1990s.

Around half of the study sample were women and the mean age was 52 years. Just over one-fifth (22.8%) were obese, 43% were overweight, and the remaining 35.2% were of normal weight. A quarter (25.4%) had an unfavorable lifestyle, 40% a favorable lifestyle, and the remainder an “intermediate” lifestyle. Over a follow-up of almost 15 years, nearly half (49.5%) developed type 2 diabetes.

Genetic risk was assessed by a GRS comprising 193 genetic variants known to be strongly associated with type 2 diabetes, Ms. Jakupovic explained, adding that, using the GRS, patients were categorized into being at low (the lowest 20%), intermediate (middle 60%) and high risk (top 20%) of type 2 diabetes.

Considering individuals’ GRS and lifestyle score together showed an increasing risk of developing type 2 diabetes from the low GRS/favorable-lifestyle category (HR, 1.0; reference) upward to the high GRS/unfavorable lifestyle (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76-2.81).

The Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort is supported by the Danish Cancer Society. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research is an independent research center at the University of Copenhagen partially funded by an unrestricted donation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Jakupovic and associates are funded either directly or indirectly by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

SOURCE: Jakupovic H et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 376.

BARCELONA – The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide added onto metformin with or without basal insulin effectively reduced hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose levels in children with type 2 diabetes in the 52-week ELLIPSE study.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The primary endpoint of the trial, which was the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to 26 weeks, was met, with a greater percentage point decrease with liraglutide (Victoza) than placebo (–0.64 vs. +0.42), with an estimated treatment difference of –1.06 percentage points (P less than .001). At the end of the study, the percentage point changes were –0.50 and +0.80, with a between-group difference of –1.30 in favor of liraglutide.

“Those of us working in pediatric practice are seeing an increasing demand for our clinical services in children with type 2 diabetes,” study investigator Timothy Barrett, PhD, MBBS, observed at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. This reflects the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in this age group and is most likely linked to the rising rates of obesity and overweight that have been reported widely in young people in recent years, he added.

“Unfortunately, we look with envy upon our adult physician colleagues, and the range of treatments they have available to treat type 2 diabetes in adults.” In pediatrics, the only licensed treatments that have been available until recently were metformin and insulin, with the latter being an “illogical treatment to treat those with obesity-related diabetes.” The study’s findings, however, support liraglutide as another option to consider, said Dr. Barrett, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics and child health based at the University of Birmingham, England.

“Liraglutide at doses of up to 1.8 mg/day when added to metformin, and basal insulin if required, does seem to offer an additional treatment option for children and young people with type 2 diabetes who require improved glycemic control after they’ve reached a maximum dose of metformin,” he said.

ELLIPSE (Evaluation of Liraglutide in Pediatrics with Diabetes) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of liraglutide as an add-on treatment to metformin, with or without basal insulin, in 134 overweight or obese children and adolescents (aged 10-17) with type 2 diabetes.

For inclusion, patients had to be able to complete the trial before their 18th birthday, and have an HbA_1c of at least 7% if being treated with diet and exercise, or 6.5% or higher if already being treated with metformin, with or without insulin. Body mass index had to be above the 85the percentile for their age and sex.

Of 307 children and adolescents screened at 84 centers in 25 countries, 135 were randomized and 134 were treated between 2012 and 2018. Screening took place over a period of 2 weeks, after which time those eligible for the trial underwent a 3- to 4-week period where their dose of metformin was titrated if needed followed by an 8-week maintenance period. Only after that was randomization to liraglutide or placebo done, with the GLP-1R started at a subcutaneous dose of 0.6 mg and titrated up to 1.2 or 1.8 mg over 3 days to achieve a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of less than 6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL). However, not all patients were escalated to the top dose, Dr. Barrett noted.

The mean age of patients in the trial was 14.5 years; about 60% of patients were female. The duration of diabetes was about 1.9 years and the average body weight and BMI a respective 91 kg and 33 kg/m².

Over the course of the study, FPG fell by 1.06 mmol/L at week 26 and 1.03 mmol/L at week 52 in the liraglutide group but rose in the placebo group by 0.80 and 0.78 mmol/L, respectively. The estimated treatment difference was –1.88 (P = .002) and –1.81 at 26 an 52 weeks, respectively.

What was “a really gratifying to see,” said Dr. Barrett, was that the proportion of children and young people achieving a glycemic target of an HbA_1c of less than 7% by the end of the double-blind treatment period was significantly higher in the liraglutide than placebo group, at 63.7% and 36.5%, respectively.

Most of the adverse effects seen in the study were gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, in about 20% of liraglutide-treated patients, compared with roughly 10% of placebo-treated patients. “This is really reflected in the adult studies as well, and many of these were thankfully transient.”

As for hypoglycemia, Dr. Barrett reported that there was a higher rate in liraglutide- than placebo-treated patients (45.5% vs. 25% for any event), although there were no severe episodes in the liraglutide group and one in the placebo group. Almost a third (31%) of hypoglycemic episodes were asymptomatic, versus 17.6% for the placebo group.

“This is the first successfully completed phase 3 trial showing efficacy of a noninsulin agent, in this case, for children who do not get managed solely on metformin monotherapy,” Dr. Barrett said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved liraglutide for use in pediatric patients 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes, based in part on results of the ELLIPSE results, Novo Nordisk announced in June. The trial results were published prior to the EASD meeting (Tamborlane WV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 15;381:637-46).

Novo Nordisk initiated and funded the trial, and most of the investigators reported receiving funds from the company outside the submitted work. Dr Barrett disclosed being a consultant to and/or receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk and Servier.

SOURCE: Barrett T et al. EASD 2019. Abstract 84.

BARCELONA – The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide added onto metformin with or without basal insulin effectively reduced hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose levels in children with type 2 diabetes in the 52-week ELLIPSE study.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The primary endpoint of the trial, which was the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to 26 weeks, was met, with a greater percentage point decrease with liraglutide (Victoza) than placebo (–0.64 vs. +0.42), with an estimated treatment difference of –1.06 percentage points (P less than .001). At the end of the study, the percentage point changes were –0.50 and +0.80, with a between-group difference of –1.30 in favor of liraglutide.

“Those of us working in pediatric practice are seeing an increasing demand for our clinical services in children with type 2 diabetes,” study investigator Timothy Barrett, PhD, MBBS, observed at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. This reflects the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in this age group and is most likely linked to the rising rates of obesity and overweight that have been reported widely in young people in recent years, he added.

“Unfortunately, we look with envy upon our adult physician colleagues, and the range of treatments they have available to treat type 2 diabetes in adults.” In pediatrics, the only licensed treatments that have been available until recently were metformin and insulin, with the latter being an “illogical treatment to treat those with obesity-related diabetes.” The study’s findings, however, support liraglutide as another option to consider, said Dr. Barrett, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics and child health based at the University of Birmingham, England.

“Liraglutide at doses of up to 1.8 mg/day when added to metformin, and basal insulin if required, does seem to offer an additional treatment option for children and young people with type 2 diabetes who require improved glycemic control after they’ve reached a maximum dose of metformin,” he said.

ELLIPSE (Evaluation of Liraglutide in Pediatrics with Diabetes) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of liraglutide as an add-on treatment to metformin, with or without basal insulin, in 134 overweight or obese children and adolescents (aged 10-17) with type 2 diabetes.

For inclusion, patients had to be able to complete the trial before their 18th birthday, and have an HbA_1c of at least 7% if being treated with diet and exercise, or 6.5% or higher if already being treated with metformin, with or without insulin. Body mass index had to be above the 85the percentile for their age and sex.

Of 307 children and adolescents screened at 84 centers in 25 countries, 135 were randomized and 134 were treated between 2012 and 2018. Screening took place over a period of 2 weeks, after which time those eligible for the trial underwent a 3- to 4-week period where their dose of metformin was titrated if needed followed by an 8-week maintenance period. Only after that was randomization to liraglutide or placebo done, with the GLP-1R started at a subcutaneous dose of 0.6 mg and titrated up to 1.2 or 1.8 mg over 3 days to achieve a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of less than 6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL). However, not all patients were escalated to the top dose, Dr. Barrett noted.

The mean age of patients in the trial was 14.5 years; about 60% of patients were female. The duration of diabetes was about 1.9 years and the average body weight and BMI a respective 91 kg and 33 kg/m².

Over the course of the study, FPG fell by 1.06 mmol/L at week 26 and 1.03 mmol/L at week 52 in the liraglutide group but rose in the placebo group by 0.80 and 0.78 mmol/L, respectively. The estimated treatment difference was –1.88 (P = .002) and –1.81 at 26 an 52 weeks, respectively.

What was “a really gratifying to see,” said Dr. Barrett, was that the proportion of children and young people achieving a glycemic target of an HbA_1c of less than 7% by the end of the double-blind treatment period was significantly higher in the liraglutide than placebo group, at 63.7% and 36.5%, respectively.

Most of the adverse effects seen in the study were gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, in about 20% of liraglutide-treated patients, compared with roughly 10% of placebo-treated patients. “This is really reflected in the adult studies as well, and many of these were thankfully transient.”

As for hypoglycemia, Dr. Barrett reported that there was a higher rate in liraglutide- than placebo-treated patients (45.5% vs. 25% for any event), although there were no severe episodes in the liraglutide group and one in the placebo group. Almost a third (31%) of hypoglycemic episodes were asymptomatic, versus 17.6% for the placebo group.

“This is the first successfully completed phase 3 trial showing efficacy of a noninsulin agent, in this case, for children who do not get managed solely on metformin monotherapy,” Dr. Barrett said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved liraglutide for use in pediatric patients 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes, based in part on results of the ELLIPSE results, Novo Nordisk announced in June. The trial results were published prior to the EASD meeting (Tamborlane WV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 15;381:637-46).

Novo Nordisk initiated and funded the trial, and most of the investigators reported receiving funds from the company outside the submitted work. Dr Barrett disclosed being a consultant to and/or receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk and Servier.

SOURCE: Barrett T et al. EASD 2019. Abstract 84.

BARCELONA – The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide added onto metformin with or without basal insulin effectively reduced hemoglobin A_1c and fasting plasma glucose levels in children with type 2 diabetes in the 52-week ELLIPSE study.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The primary endpoint of the trial, which was the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to 26 weeks, was met, with a greater percentage point decrease with liraglutide (Victoza) than placebo (–0.64 vs. +0.42), with an estimated treatment difference of –1.06 percentage points (P less than .001). At the end of the study, the percentage point changes were –0.50 and +0.80, with a between-group difference of –1.30 in favor of liraglutide.

“Those of us working in pediatric practice are seeing an increasing demand for our clinical services in children with type 2 diabetes,” study investigator Timothy Barrett, PhD, MBBS, observed at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. This reflects the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in this age group and is most likely linked to the rising rates of obesity and overweight that have been reported widely in young people in recent years, he added.

“Unfortunately, we look with envy upon our adult physician colleagues, and the range of treatments they have available to treat type 2 diabetes in adults.” In pediatrics, the only licensed treatments that have been available until recently were metformin and insulin, with the latter being an “illogical treatment to treat those with obesity-related diabetes.” The study’s findings, however, support liraglutide as another option to consider, said Dr. Barrett, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics and child health based at the University of Birmingham, England.

“Liraglutide at doses of up to 1.8 mg/day when added to metformin, and basal insulin if required, does seem to offer an additional treatment option for children and young people with type 2 diabetes who require improved glycemic control after they’ve reached a maximum dose of metformin,” he said.

ELLIPSE (Evaluation of Liraglutide in Pediatrics with Diabetes) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of liraglutide as an add-on treatment to metformin, with or without basal insulin, in 134 overweight or obese children and adolescents (aged 10-17) with type 2 diabetes.

For inclusion, patients had to be able to complete the trial before their 18th birthday, and have an HbA_1c of at least 7% if being treated with diet and exercise, or 6.5% or higher if already being treated with metformin, with or without insulin. Body mass index had to be above the 85the percentile for their age and sex.

Of 307 children and adolescents screened at 84 centers in 25 countries, 135 were randomized and 134 were treated between 2012 and 2018. Screening took place over a period of 2 weeks, after which time those eligible for the trial underwent a 3- to 4-week period where their dose of metformin was titrated if needed followed by an 8-week maintenance period. Only after that was randomization to liraglutide or placebo done, with the GLP-1R started at a subcutaneous dose of 0.6 mg and titrated up to 1.2 or 1.8 mg over 3 days to achieve a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of less than 6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL). However, not all patients were escalated to the top dose, Dr. Barrett noted.

The mean age of patients in the trial was 14.5 years; about 60% of patients were female. The duration of diabetes was about 1.9 years and the average body weight and BMI a respective 91 kg and 33 kg/m².

Over the course of the study, FPG fell by 1.06 mmol/L at week 26 and 1.03 mmol/L at week 52 in the liraglutide group but rose in the placebo group by 0.80 and 0.78 mmol/L, respectively. The estimated treatment difference was –1.88 (P = .002) and –1.81 at 26 an 52 weeks, respectively.

What was “a really gratifying to see,” said Dr. Barrett, was that the proportion of children and young people achieving a glycemic target of an HbA_1c of less than 7% by the end of the double-blind treatment period was significantly higher in the liraglutide than placebo group, at 63.7% and 36.5%, respectively.

Most of the adverse effects seen in the study were gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, in about 20% of liraglutide-treated patients, compared with roughly 10% of placebo-treated patients. “This is really reflected in the adult studies as well, and many of these were thankfully transient.”

As for hypoglycemia, Dr. Barrett reported that there was a higher rate in liraglutide- than placebo-treated patients (45.5% vs. 25% for any event), although there were no severe episodes in the liraglutide group and one in the placebo group. Almost a third (31%) of hypoglycemic episodes were asymptomatic, versus 17.6% for the placebo group.

“This is the first successfully completed phase 3 trial showing efficacy of a noninsulin agent, in this case, for children who do not get managed solely on metformin monotherapy,” Dr. Barrett said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved liraglutide for use in pediatric patients 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes, based in part on results of the ELLIPSE results, Novo Nordisk announced in June. The trial results were published prior to the EASD meeting (Tamborlane WV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 15;381:637-46).

Novo Nordisk initiated and funded the trial, and most of the investigators reported receiving funds from the company outside the submitted work. Dr Barrett disclosed being a consultant to and/or receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk and Servier.

SOURCE: Barrett T et al. EASD 2019. Abstract 84.

BARCELONA – Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) was better than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) and other glycemic endpoints in people with type 1 diabetes, regardless of the type of insulin delivery method used in a 3-year follow-up of a prospective, real-world clinical trial.

Long-term results from the COMISAIR study showed that the end-of-study HbA_1c values were significantly lower, compared with baseline values, in people with type 1 diabetes who used rtCGM with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = .0002) or an insulin pump (6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P less than .0001). There was no significant difference between the two rtCGM delivery-method groups.

Final HbA_1c values for those who used SMBG with multiple daily injections or an insulin pump were 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol), respectively, but were not significantly different from baseline (P = .3574 and P = .1, respectively).

These findings could help guide physicians when discussing treatment and monitoring options with their patients, suggested study investigator Jan Šoupal, MD, PhD, of Charles University in Prague, when he presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Šoupal and associates have previously reported data from the COMISAIR (Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens) study at 1 year of follow-up for 65 patients (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:532-8). The findings he presented at the EASD meeting, simultaneously published online in Diabetes Care, were for the full cohort of 94 patients and, with 3 years of follow-up, makes it “the longest CGM trial ever,” he said.

At the time the COMISAIR study was initiated, in 2013, “we knew that insulin pump therapy, especially in combination with real-time CGM, can improve several outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Šoupal observed. However, the effectiveness of CGM in patients with MDI was not widely described, and comparisons between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin MDI with rtCGM were lacking. “Moreover, we didn’t have any comparison between insulin pump therapy alone, without CGM, and MDI with CGM, and there were no long-term trials with real-time [continuous glucose monitoring].”

The aim of the COMISAIR study was therefore to compare four different treatment strategies in people with type 1 diabetes who had an HbA_1c of 7%-­­10% (53-86 mmol/mol), despite MDI treatment with insulin analogues and SMBG. The treatment strategies tested were CSII plus rtCGM (n = 26), MDI plus rtCGM (n = 22), CSII plus SMBG (n = 25), and MDI plus SMBG (n = 21). Patients were not randomized to these treatment arms but exposed to all of them during a 4-day DAFNE-like training session and then allowed to choose which they would like to use according to their individual needs and preferences, reflecting real-life practice.

Dr. Šoupal pointed out that two different continuous glucose monitoring devices had been used in the trial, and that 100% of the CGM groups wore a sensor for more than 70% of the time, which was one of the prerequisites for inclusion in the trial. Good adherence was observed, with 93% of patients completing all study visits, and CGM users wearing their sensors on average 88% of the time. “This nice adherence may be connected to the pretty good results,” he observed.

In discussing the HbA_1c results, Dr. Šoupal noted that “improvement observed in patients with [continuous glucose monitoring] is stable throughout 3 years, which is not always a reality for different types of treatment for diabetes.” In addition, “it is not so important how insulin is delivered, what is more important is how patients with type 1 diabetes monitor their glucose.”

Another key endpoint of the trial was time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]). Results showed significantly more patients achieving this with rtCGM than with SMBG, regardless of whether they were using pump therapy or MDI. Comparing 3-year with baseline values, time in range was 72.3% versus 50.9% for rtCGM with CSII and 69% versus 48.7% for rtCGM with MDI (P less than .0001 for both). Results with SMBG with CSII or MDI were a respective 57.8% versus 50.6% (P = .0114) and 54.7% versus 51.8% (P = 1.0).

Glycemic variability was reduced in patients using insulin pumps with SBMG, and “not surprisingly, there was a reduction in both CGM-augmented groups,” Dr. Šoupal stated.

There was a reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia from baseline to year 3 in all four groups, but that was significant only for the two rtCGM groups. Overall, there were seven severe hypoglycemia episodes, five in the SMBG groups (two in the CSII group, three in the MDI group) and two in the rtCGM groups (one each in the CSII and MDI groups), with one episode only occurring when the CGM sensor was not being worn.

Three episodes of ketoacidosis were reported – one each in the SMBG-pump, SMBG-MDI, and rtCGM-pump groups.

In summing up, Dr. Šoupal said that “real-time CGM, both with insulin pumps and with [multiple daily injections], provided significant, comparable, and stable improvement of glycemic outcomes.” He added that “treatment with CGM and MDI was more effective than treatment with insulin pump therapy alone, and that CGM and MDI can even be considered as a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin pumps and CMG for some patients.”

With many treatment options available, some will suit patients better than others, he suggested, but although “individualization of our treatment is important”, the COMISAIR data show that “it is CGM that makes the difference”.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dr. Šoupal reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dexcom also paid for the development of the manuscript published in Diabetes Care.
 

SOURCES: Šoupal J et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 40; Šoupal J et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.

BARCELONA – Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) was better than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) and other glycemic endpoints in people with type 1 diabetes, regardless of the type of insulin delivery method used in a 3-year follow-up of a prospective, real-world clinical trial.

Long-term results from the COMISAIR study showed that the end-of-study HbA_1c values were significantly lower, compared with baseline values, in people with type 1 diabetes who used rtCGM with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = .0002) or an insulin pump (6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P less than .0001). There was no significant difference between the two rtCGM delivery-method groups.

Final HbA_1c values for those who used SMBG with multiple daily injections or an insulin pump were 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol), respectively, but were not significantly different from baseline (P = .3574 and P = .1, respectively).

These findings could help guide physicians when discussing treatment and monitoring options with their patients, suggested study investigator Jan Šoupal, MD, PhD, of Charles University in Prague, when he presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Šoupal and associates have previously reported data from the COMISAIR (Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens) study at 1 year of follow-up for 65 patients (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:532-8). The findings he presented at the EASD meeting, simultaneously published online in Diabetes Care, were for the full cohort of 94 patients and, with 3 years of follow-up, makes it “the longest CGM trial ever,” he said.

At the time the COMISAIR study was initiated, in 2013, “we knew that insulin pump therapy, especially in combination with real-time CGM, can improve several outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Šoupal observed. However, the effectiveness of CGM in patients with MDI was not widely described, and comparisons between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin MDI with rtCGM were lacking. “Moreover, we didn’t have any comparison between insulin pump therapy alone, without CGM, and MDI with CGM, and there were no long-term trials with real-time [continuous glucose monitoring].”

The aim of the COMISAIR study was therefore to compare four different treatment strategies in people with type 1 diabetes who had an HbA_1c of 7%-­­10% (53-86 mmol/mol), despite MDI treatment with insulin analogues and SMBG. The treatment strategies tested were CSII plus rtCGM (n = 26), MDI plus rtCGM (n = 22), CSII plus SMBG (n = 25), and MDI plus SMBG (n = 21). Patients were not randomized to these treatment arms but exposed to all of them during a 4-day DAFNE-like training session and then allowed to choose which they would like to use according to their individual needs and preferences, reflecting real-life practice.

Dr. Šoupal pointed out that two different continuous glucose monitoring devices had been used in the trial, and that 100% of the CGM groups wore a sensor for more than 70% of the time, which was one of the prerequisites for inclusion in the trial. Good adherence was observed, with 93% of patients completing all study visits, and CGM users wearing their sensors on average 88% of the time. “This nice adherence may be connected to the pretty good results,” he observed.

In discussing the HbA_1c results, Dr. Šoupal noted that “improvement observed in patients with [continuous glucose monitoring] is stable throughout 3 years, which is not always a reality for different types of treatment for diabetes.” In addition, “it is not so important how insulin is delivered, what is more important is how patients with type 1 diabetes monitor their glucose.”

Another key endpoint of the trial was time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]). Results showed significantly more patients achieving this with rtCGM than with SMBG, regardless of whether they were using pump therapy or MDI. Comparing 3-year with baseline values, time in range was 72.3% versus 50.9% for rtCGM with CSII and 69% versus 48.7% for rtCGM with MDI (P less than .0001 for both). Results with SMBG with CSII or MDI were a respective 57.8% versus 50.6% (P = .0114) and 54.7% versus 51.8% (P = 1.0).

Glycemic variability was reduced in patients using insulin pumps with SBMG, and “not surprisingly, there was a reduction in both CGM-augmented groups,” Dr. Šoupal stated.

There was a reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia from baseline to year 3 in all four groups, but that was significant only for the two rtCGM groups. Overall, there were seven severe hypoglycemia episodes, five in the SMBG groups (two in the CSII group, three in the MDI group) and two in the rtCGM groups (one each in the CSII and MDI groups), with one episode only occurring when the CGM sensor was not being worn.

Three episodes of ketoacidosis were reported – one each in the SMBG-pump, SMBG-MDI, and rtCGM-pump groups.

In summing up, Dr. Šoupal said that “real-time CGM, both with insulin pumps and with [multiple daily injections], provided significant, comparable, and stable improvement of glycemic outcomes.” He added that “treatment with CGM and MDI was more effective than treatment with insulin pump therapy alone, and that CGM and MDI can even be considered as a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin pumps and CMG for some patients.”

With many treatment options available, some will suit patients better than others, he suggested, but although “individualization of our treatment is important”, the COMISAIR data show that “it is CGM that makes the difference”.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dr. Šoupal reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dexcom also paid for the development of the manuscript published in Diabetes Care.
 

SOURCES: Šoupal J et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 40; Šoupal J et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.

BARCELONA – Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) was better than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) and other glycemic endpoints in people with type 1 diabetes, regardless of the type of insulin delivery method used in a 3-year follow-up of a prospective, real-world clinical trial.

Long-term results from the COMISAIR study showed that the end-of-study HbA_1c values were significantly lower, compared with baseline values, in people with type 1 diabetes who used rtCGM with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = .0002) or an insulin pump (6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P less than .0001). There was no significant difference between the two rtCGM delivery-method groups.

Final HbA_1c values for those who used SMBG with multiple daily injections or an insulin pump were 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol), respectively, but were not significantly different from baseline (P = .3574 and P = .1, respectively).

These findings could help guide physicians when discussing treatment and monitoring options with their patients, suggested study investigator Jan Šoupal, MD, PhD, of Charles University in Prague, when he presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Šoupal and associates have previously reported data from the COMISAIR (Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens) study at 1 year of follow-up for 65 patients (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:532-8). The findings he presented at the EASD meeting, simultaneously published online in Diabetes Care, were for the full cohort of 94 patients and, with 3 years of follow-up, makes it “the longest CGM trial ever,” he said.

At the time the COMISAIR study was initiated, in 2013, “we knew that insulin pump therapy, especially in combination with real-time CGM, can improve several outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Šoupal observed. However, the effectiveness of CGM in patients with MDI was not widely described, and comparisons between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin MDI with rtCGM were lacking. “Moreover, we didn’t have any comparison between insulin pump therapy alone, without CGM, and MDI with CGM, and there were no long-term trials with real-time [continuous glucose monitoring].”

The aim of the COMISAIR study was therefore to compare four different treatment strategies in people with type 1 diabetes who had an HbA_1c of 7%-­­10% (53-86 mmol/mol), despite MDI treatment with insulin analogues and SMBG. The treatment strategies tested were CSII plus rtCGM (n = 26), MDI plus rtCGM (n = 22), CSII plus SMBG (n = 25), and MDI plus SMBG (n = 21). Patients were not randomized to these treatment arms but exposed to all of them during a 4-day DAFNE-like training session and then allowed to choose which they would like to use according to their individual needs and preferences, reflecting real-life practice.

Dr. Šoupal pointed out that two different continuous glucose monitoring devices had been used in the trial, and that 100% of the CGM groups wore a sensor for more than 70% of the time, which was one of the prerequisites for inclusion in the trial. Good adherence was observed, with 93% of patients completing all study visits, and CGM users wearing their sensors on average 88% of the time. “This nice adherence may be connected to the pretty good results,” he observed.

In discussing the HbA_1c results, Dr. Šoupal noted that “improvement observed in patients with [continuous glucose monitoring] is stable throughout 3 years, which is not always a reality for different types of treatment for diabetes.” In addition, “it is not so important how insulin is delivered, what is more important is how patients with type 1 diabetes monitor their glucose.”

Another key endpoint of the trial was time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]). Results showed significantly more patients achieving this with rtCGM than with SMBG, regardless of whether they were using pump therapy or MDI. Comparing 3-year with baseline values, time in range was 72.3% versus 50.9% for rtCGM with CSII and 69% versus 48.7% for rtCGM with MDI (P less than .0001 for both). Results with SMBG with CSII or MDI were a respective 57.8% versus 50.6% (P = .0114) and 54.7% versus 51.8% (P = 1.0).

Glycemic variability was reduced in patients using insulin pumps with SBMG, and “not surprisingly, there was a reduction in both CGM-augmented groups,” Dr. Šoupal stated.

There was a reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia from baseline to year 3 in all four groups, but that was significant only for the two rtCGM groups. Overall, there were seven severe hypoglycemia episodes, five in the SMBG groups (two in the CSII group, three in the MDI group) and two in the rtCGM groups (one each in the CSII and MDI groups), with one episode only occurring when the CGM sensor was not being worn.

Three episodes of ketoacidosis were reported – one each in the SMBG-pump, SMBG-MDI, and rtCGM-pump groups.

In summing up, Dr. Šoupal said that “real-time CGM, both with insulin pumps and with [multiple daily injections], provided significant, comparable, and stable improvement of glycemic outcomes.” He added that “treatment with CGM and MDI was more effective than treatment with insulin pump therapy alone, and that CGM and MDI can even be considered as a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin pumps and CMG for some patients.”

With many treatment options available, some will suit patients better than others, he suggested, but although “individualization of our treatment is important”, the COMISAIR data show that “it is CGM that makes the difference”.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dr. Šoupal reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dexcom also paid for the development of the manuscript published in Diabetes Care.
 

SOURCES: Šoupal J et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 40; Šoupal J et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.

BARCELONA – Further differences in how adults and adolescents with type 2 diabetes respond to glucose and glucagon have been demonstrated by new data from the Restoring Insulin SEcretion (RISE) studies presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In a comparison of responses to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), youth (n = 85) were more likely than were adults (n = 353) to have a biphasic type of glucose response curve (18.8% vs. 8.2%, respectively), which is considered a more normal response curve. However, that “did not foretell an advantageous outcome to the RISE interventions in the younger age group,” said study investigator Silva Arslanian, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Fewer youth than adults had an incessant response (10.6% vs. 14.5%, respectively) or monophasic response to an OGTT (70.6% vs. 77.3%), and that was associated with lower beta-cell responses, compared with individuals with monophasic or biphasic glucose curves.

“Irrespective of curve type, insulin sensitivity was lower in youth than in adults,” Dr. Arslanian said. She added that beta-cell responses were greater in youth than in adults, except in youth with the worst incessant-increase curve type. In youth with the incessant-increase glucose curve, there was no evidence of beta-cell hypersecretion, which suggested youth “have more severe beta-cell dysfunction,” compared with adults.

There were also data presented on whether differences in alpha-cell function between youth and adults might be important. Those data showed that although fasting glucagon concentrations did not increase with fasting glucose in youth, they did in adults. It was found that fasting and stimulated glucagon concentrations were lower in youth than in adults, meaning that “alpha-cell function does not explain the beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes,” reported study investigator Steven Kahn, MD, ChB, of VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, Seattle.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“What was new, however, was that [the beta-cells of] youth were hyperresponsive and were really making large amounts of insulin.” Increased insulin production might be expected when there is insulin resistance, he added, but the level seen was “more than you would expect.” Over time, that might be toxic to the beta cells, and evidence from the earlier TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) studies suggested that the rate of beta-cell dysfunction was more rapid in youth than in adults.

Giving his perspective, as a pediatrician, on the new OGTT analyses from the RISE studies, Dr. Zeitler said that these data showed that the characteristic beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth “actually disappears as glycemia worsens.” In youth with the incessant glucose response pattern, “it shows that they cannot tolerate glucose, and their glucose levels just go up and up and up” until the beta cells fail.

This is a critical observation, Dr. Zeitler said, noting that it “sort of had to be the case, because sooner or later you had to lose beta cells ... this is probably the point where aggressive therapy is needed ... it was always a bit of a paradox, if these kids have such an aggressive course, how come they were starting out being so hyperresponsive?”

With regard to alpha-cell function, “these are really fresh data. We haven’t really had a long time to think about it,” said Dr. Zeitler. “What I find interesting is that there isn’t alpha-cell glucagon hypersecretion in youth like there is in adults.” That may be because youth are making so much insulin that they are suppressing glucagon production, but that’s not an entirely satisfying answer,” he said.

“The TODAY study demonstrated that diabetes in kids is aggressive; these RISE data now start to put some physiology around that, why is it more aggressive? Hyperresponsiveness, loss of beta-cell function over time, lack of response to intervention, compared with the adults.”

As for the clinical implications, Dr. Zeitler said that this is further evidence that the default approach to treating younger patients with greater caution than adults is perhaps not the best way to treat type 2 diabetes.

“These data are really showing that there is a very important toxic period that is occurring in these kids early on [and] that probably argues for more, not less, aggressive therapy,” than with adults. “Clearly, something is happening that is putting them at really big risk for rapid progression, and that’s your chance to treat much more aggressively, much earlier.”

The RISE studies are sponsored by the RISE Study Group in collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler disclosed that he had acted as a consultant to Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and had received research support from Janssen. Dr. Arslanian stated that she has nothing to disclose. Dr. Khan did not provide any disclosure information.

SOURCES: Arslanian S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.1; Kahn S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.3

BARCELONA – Further differences in how adults and adolescents with type 2 diabetes respond to glucose and glucagon have been demonstrated by new data from the Restoring Insulin SEcretion (RISE) studies presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In a comparison of responses to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), youth (n = 85) were more likely than were adults (n = 353) to have a biphasic type of glucose response curve (18.8% vs. 8.2%, respectively), which is considered a more normal response curve. However, that “did not foretell an advantageous outcome to the RISE interventions in the younger age group,” said study investigator Silva Arslanian, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Fewer youth than adults had an incessant response (10.6% vs. 14.5%, respectively) or monophasic response to an OGTT (70.6% vs. 77.3%), and that was associated with lower beta-cell responses, compared with individuals with monophasic or biphasic glucose curves.

“Irrespective of curve type, insulin sensitivity was lower in youth than in adults,” Dr. Arslanian said. She added that beta-cell responses were greater in youth than in adults, except in youth with the worst incessant-increase curve type. In youth with the incessant-increase glucose curve, there was no evidence of beta-cell hypersecretion, which suggested youth “have more severe beta-cell dysfunction,” compared with adults.

There were also data presented on whether differences in alpha-cell function between youth and adults might be important. Those data showed that although fasting glucagon concentrations did not increase with fasting glucose in youth, they did in adults. It was found that fasting and stimulated glucagon concentrations were lower in youth than in adults, meaning that “alpha-cell function does not explain the beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes,” reported study investigator Steven Kahn, MD, ChB, of VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, Seattle.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“What was new, however, was that [the beta-cells of] youth were hyperresponsive and were really making large amounts of insulin.” Increased insulin production might be expected when there is insulin resistance, he added, but the level seen was “more than you would expect.” Over time, that might be toxic to the beta cells, and evidence from the earlier TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) studies suggested that the rate of beta-cell dysfunction was more rapid in youth than in adults.

Giving his perspective, as a pediatrician, on the new OGTT analyses from the RISE studies, Dr. Zeitler said that these data showed that the characteristic beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth “actually disappears as glycemia worsens.” In youth with the incessant glucose response pattern, “it shows that they cannot tolerate glucose, and their glucose levels just go up and up and up” until the beta cells fail.

This is a critical observation, Dr. Zeitler said, noting that it “sort of had to be the case, because sooner or later you had to lose beta cells ... this is probably the point where aggressive therapy is needed ... it was always a bit of a paradox, if these kids have such an aggressive course, how come they were starting out being so hyperresponsive?”

With regard to alpha-cell function, “these are really fresh data. We haven’t really had a long time to think about it,” said Dr. Zeitler. “What I find interesting is that there isn’t alpha-cell glucagon hypersecretion in youth like there is in adults.” That may be because youth are making so much insulin that they are suppressing glucagon production, but that’s not an entirely satisfying answer,” he said.

“The TODAY study demonstrated that diabetes in kids is aggressive; these RISE data now start to put some physiology around that, why is it more aggressive? Hyperresponsiveness, loss of beta-cell function over time, lack of response to intervention, compared with the adults.”

As for the clinical implications, Dr. Zeitler said that this is further evidence that the default approach to treating younger patients with greater caution than adults is perhaps not the best way to treat type 2 diabetes.

“These data are really showing that there is a very important toxic period that is occurring in these kids early on [and] that probably argues for more, not less, aggressive therapy,” than with adults. “Clearly, something is happening that is putting them at really big risk for rapid progression, and that’s your chance to treat much more aggressively, much earlier.”

The RISE studies are sponsored by the RISE Study Group in collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler disclosed that he had acted as a consultant to Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and had received research support from Janssen. Dr. Arslanian stated that she has nothing to disclose. Dr. Khan did not provide any disclosure information.

SOURCES: Arslanian S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.1; Kahn S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.3

BARCELONA – Further differences in how adults and adolescents with type 2 diabetes respond to glucose and glucagon have been demonstrated by new data from the Restoring Insulin SEcretion (RISE) studies presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In a comparison of responses to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), youth (n = 85) were more likely than were adults (n = 353) to have a biphasic type of glucose response curve (18.8% vs. 8.2%, respectively), which is considered a more normal response curve. However, that “did not foretell an advantageous outcome to the RISE interventions in the younger age group,” said study investigator Silva Arslanian, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Fewer youth than adults had an incessant response (10.6% vs. 14.5%, respectively) or monophasic response to an OGTT (70.6% vs. 77.3%), and that was associated with lower beta-cell responses, compared with individuals with monophasic or biphasic glucose curves.

“Irrespective of curve type, insulin sensitivity was lower in youth than in adults,” Dr. Arslanian said. She added that beta-cell responses were greater in youth than in adults, except in youth with the worst incessant-increase curve type. In youth with the incessant-increase glucose curve, there was no evidence of beta-cell hypersecretion, which suggested youth “have more severe beta-cell dysfunction,” compared with adults.

There were also data presented on whether differences in alpha-cell function between youth and adults might be important. Those data showed that although fasting glucagon concentrations did not increase with fasting glucose in youth, they did in adults. It was found that fasting and stimulated glucagon concentrations were lower in youth than in adults, meaning that “alpha-cell function does not explain the beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes,” reported study investigator Steven Kahn, MD, ChB, of VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, Seattle.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“What was new, however, was that [the beta-cells of] youth were hyperresponsive and were really making large amounts of insulin.” Increased insulin production might be expected when there is insulin resistance, he added, but the level seen was “more than you would expect.” Over time, that might be toxic to the beta cells, and evidence from the earlier TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) studies suggested that the rate of beta-cell dysfunction was more rapid in youth than in adults.

Giving his perspective, as a pediatrician, on the new OGTT analyses from the RISE studies, Dr. Zeitler said that these data showed that the characteristic beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth “actually disappears as glycemia worsens.” In youth with the incessant glucose response pattern, “it shows that they cannot tolerate glucose, and their glucose levels just go up and up and up” until the beta cells fail.

This is a critical observation, Dr. Zeitler said, noting that it “sort of had to be the case, because sooner or later you had to lose beta cells ... this is probably the point where aggressive therapy is needed ... it was always a bit of a paradox, if these kids have such an aggressive course, how come they were starting out being so hyperresponsive?”

With regard to alpha-cell function, “these are really fresh data. We haven’t really had a long time to think about it,” said Dr. Zeitler. “What I find interesting is that there isn’t alpha-cell glucagon hypersecretion in youth like there is in adults.” That may be because youth are making so much insulin that they are suppressing glucagon production, but that’s not an entirely satisfying answer,” he said.

“The TODAY study demonstrated that diabetes in kids is aggressive; these RISE data now start to put some physiology around that, why is it more aggressive? Hyperresponsiveness, loss of beta-cell function over time, lack of response to intervention, compared with the adults.”

As for the clinical implications, Dr. Zeitler said that this is further evidence that the default approach to treating younger patients with greater caution than adults is perhaps not the best way to treat type 2 diabetes.

“These data are really showing that there is a very important toxic period that is occurring in these kids early on [and] that probably argues for more, not less, aggressive therapy,” than with adults. “Clearly, something is happening that is putting them at really big risk for rapid progression, and that’s your chance to treat much more aggressively, much earlier.”

The RISE studies are sponsored by the RISE Study Group in collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler disclosed that he had acted as a consultant to Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and had received research support from Janssen. Dr. Arslanian stated that she has nothing to disclose. Dr. Khan did not provide any disclosure information.

SOURCES: Arslanian S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.1; Kahn S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.3

BARCELONA – A similar overall risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was observed with insulin degludec (Tresiba) and insulin glargine U300 (Toujeo) in the phase 3 CONCLUDE study data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

During a 36-week maintenance treatment period, the rate ratio (RR) for the primary endpoint of the study – severe or confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, defined as a blood-glucose level of less than 3.1 mmol/L (56 mg/dL) – was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.06; P = .17) in a comparison the two long-acting insulins.

There were some differences that favored insulin degludec over insulin glargine when other endpoints were considered, but because a statistical testing hierarchy was used, “no confirmatory results can be made from CONCLUDE,” one of the study investigators, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, said during a special symposium at the meeting.

“If the primary endpoint was not achieved, the testing hierarchy stopped after the first occurrence of nonsignificance,” she explained. Although that occurred, the other endpoints could still be analyzed as they were all prespecified, she argued. These showed that during the maintenance treatment period, there were lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; P = .0014) and severe episodes (those requiring third-party assistance; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57; P = .0027) with insulin degludec, compared with insulin glargine.

The trial came under fire, however, from Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology in the department of endocrinology metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa, Italy, who provided the EASD-invited independent commentary on the study’s findings. “This is the CONCLUDE trial. You’d could expect a CONCLUDE trial to be conclusive in its conclusions!” he said, noting that there were “too many uncertainties” in the trial.

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, head-to-head study of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in 1,609 adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia associated with the two long-acting insulins.

“Hypoglycemia is a very common event in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Thomas Pieber, MD, Medical University Graz, Austria, reminded the audience. Severe hypoglycemia is associated with insulin use, and data show that patients with type 2 diabetes are at as much risk as are those with type 1 diabetes in the longer term (Diabetologia. 2007;50:1140-7).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

He said that it was not clear from the findings why there might be a lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec. He noted that the rate of diurnal hypoglycemia should be considered, and that the statistical interpretation of the data may be “a matter of uncertainty as well.”

Dr. Del Prato agreed that “prevention of hypoglycemia remained a major task in treating type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those on insulin therapy.” He proposed that differentiating between new basal insulin analogs may need “better tools for characterization of PK/PD, rigorous interpretation of the results, careful assessment of the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials performed in selected study populations, and independent research and careful real-world studies to be performed.”

Furthermore, he said translating the potential benefit of new insulin analogs “cannot just rely on their properties, rather it requires validation over the time of the accuracy of glucose meters, and adequate patient education, and even more, education reinforcement.”

All of the speakers disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, which funded the study, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCES: Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 90; Pieber T. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.1; Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.2; Del Prato S. EASD 2019. Oral Presentation S38.3.

BARCELONA – A similar overall risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was observed with insulin degludec (Tresiba) and insulin glargine U300 (Toujeo) in the phase 3 CONCLUDE study data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

During a 36-week maintenance treatment period, the rate ratio (RR) for the primary endpoint of the study – severe or confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, defined as a blood-glucose level of less than 3.1 mmol/L (56 mg/dL) – was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.06; P = .17) in a comparison the two long-acting insulins.

There were some differences that favored insulin degludec over insulin glargine when other endpoints were considered, but because a statistical testing hierarchy was used, “no confirmatory results can be made from CONCLUDE,” one of the study investigators, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, said during a special symposium at the meeting.

“If the primary endpoint was not achieved, the testing hierarchy stopped after the first occurrence of nonsignificance,” she explained. Although that occurred, the other endpoints could still be analyzed as they were all prespecified, she argued. These showed that during the maintenance treatment period, there were lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; P = .0014) and severe episodes (those requiring third-party assistance; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57; P = .0027) with insulin degludec, compared with insulin glargine.

The trial came under fire, however, from Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology in the department of endocrinology metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa, Italy, who provided the EASD-invited independent commentary on the study’s findings. “This is the CONCLUDE trial. You’d could expect a CONCLUDE trial to be conclusive in its conclusions!” he said, noting that there were “too many uncertainties” in the trial.

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, head-to-head study of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in 1,609 adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia associated with the two long-acting insulins.

“Hypoglycemia is a very common event in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Thomas Pieber, MD, Medical University Graz, Austria, reminded the audience. Severe hypoglycemia is associated with insulin use, and data show that patients with type 2 diabetes are at as much risk as are those with type 1 diabetes in the longer term (Diabetologia. 2007;50:1140-7).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

He said that it was not clear from the findings why there might be a lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec. He noted that the rate of diurnal hypoglycemia should be considered, and that the statistical interpretation of the data may be “a matter of uncertainty as well.”

Dr. Del Prato agreed that “prevention of hypoglycemia remained a major task in treating type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those on insulin therapy.” He proposed that differentiating between new basal insulin analogs may need “better tools for characterization of PK/PD, rigorous interpretation of the results, careful assessment of the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials performed in selected study populations, and independent research and careful real-world studies to be performed.”

Furthermore, he said translating the potential benefit of new insulin analogs “cannot just rely on their properties, rather it requires validation over the time of the accuracy of glucose meters, and adequate patient education, and even more, education reinforcement.”

All of the speakers disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, which funded the study, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCES: Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 90; Pieber T. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.1; Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.2; Del Prato S. EASD 2019. Oral Presentation S38.3.

BARCELONA – A similar overall risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was observed with insulin degludec (Tresiba) and insulin glargine U300 (Toujeo) in the phase 3 CONCLUDE study data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

During a 36-week maintenance treatment period, the rate ratio (RR) for the primary endpoint of the study – severe or confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, defined as a blood-glucose level of less than 3.1 mmol/L (56 mg/dL) – was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.06; P = .17) in a comparison the two long-acting insulins.

There were some differences that favored insulin degludec over insulin glargine when other endpoints were considered, but because a statistical testing hierarchy was used, “no confirmatory results can be made from CONCLUDE,” one of the study investigators, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, said during a special symposium at the meeting.

“If the primary endpoint was not achieved, the testing hierarchy stopped after the first occurrence of nonsignificance,” she explained. Although that occurred, the other endpoints could still be analyzed as they were all prespecified, she argued. These showed that during the maintenance treatment period, there were lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; P = .0014) and severe episodes (those requiring third-party assistance; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57; P = .0027) with insulin degludec, compared with insulin glargine.

The trial came under fire, however, from Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology in the department of endocrinology metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa, Italy, who provided the EASD-invited independent commentary on the study’s findings. “This is the CONCLUDE trial. You’d could expect a CONCLUDE trial to be conclusive in its conclusions!” he said, noting that there were “too many uncertainties” in the trial.

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, head-to-head study of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in 1,609 adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia associated with the two long-acting insulins.

“Hypoglycemia is a very common event in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Thomas Pieber, MD, Medical University Graz, Austria, reminded the audience. Severe hypoglycemia is associated with insulin use, and data show that patients with type 2 diabetes are at as much risk as are those with type 1 diabetes in the longer term (Diabetologia. 2007;50:1140-7).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

He said that it was not clear from the findings why there might be a lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec. He noted that the rate of diurnal hypoglycemia should be considered, and that the statistical interpretation of the data may be “a matter of uncertainty as well.”

Dr. Del Prato agreed that “prevention of hypoglycemia remained a major task in treating type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those on insulin therapy.” He proposed that differentiating between new basal insulin analogs may need “better tools for characterization of PK/PD, rigorous interpretation of the results, careful assessment of the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials performed in selected study populations, and independent research and careful real-world studies to be performed.”

Furthermore, he said translating the potential benefit of new insulin analogs “cannot just rely on their properties, rather it requires validation over the time of the accuracy of glucose meters, and adequate patient education, and even more, education reinforcement.”

All of the speakers disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, which funded the study, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCES: Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 90; Pieber T. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.1; Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.2; Del Prato S. EASD 2019. Oral Presentation S38.3.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.