Empagliflozin as Add-on to Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A 24-week,randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of empagliflozin as add-on to metformin and sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients inadequately controlled on metformin and sulfonylurea (HbA_1c ≥7 to ≤10%) were randomized and treated with once-daily empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 225), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 216), or placebo (n = 225) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA_1c at week 24. Key secondary end points were changes from baseline in weight and mean daily glucose (MDG) at week 24.

RESULTS

At week 24, adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline in HbA_1c were −0.17% (0.05) for placebo vs. −0.82% (0.05) and −0.77% (0.05) for empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (both P < 0.001). Empagliflozin significantly reduced MDG, weight, and systolic (but not diastolic) blood pressure versus placebo. Adverse events were reported in 62.7, 67.9, and 64.1% of patients on placebo and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively. Events consistent with urinary tract infection were reported in 8.0, 10.3, and 8.3% of patients on placebo and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (females: 13.3, 18.0, and 17.5%, respectively; males: 2.7, 2.7, and 0%, respectively). Events consistent with genital infection were reported in 0.9, 2.7, and 2.3% of patients on placebo and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (females: 0.9, 4.5, and 3.9%, respectively; males: 0.9% in each group).

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg for 24 weeks as add-on to metformin plus sulfonylurea improved glycemic control, weight, and systolic blood pressure and were well tolerated.Metformin is the standard first-line pharmacotherapy to achieve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (1). However, metformin alone frequently fails to maintain glycemic control in the long term (2), and most patients with type 2 diabetes will require additional therapies (1). Although initially effective, sulfonylureas are associated with low durability (2), and common side effects are hypoglycemia and weight gain (3–5). Furthermore, as type 2 diabetes progresses, with deterioration of β-cell function and increased insulin resistance (6), the use of agents utilizing pathways dependent on insulin becomes increasingly difficult. In addition, steady increases in weight are observed in patients with type 2 diabetes (7), which may be associated with worsening markers of insulin resistance (1). Thus, there is still a great unmet need for effective and well-tolerated antidiabetes agents that can be used in combination with existing treatments to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, in particular without the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.The sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), located in the proximal tubule of the kidney, represents a promising target for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. SGLT2 is responsible for tubular reabsorption of ∼90% of the glomerular filtrated glucose (8). In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibition of SGLT2 leads to reduced renal glucose reabsorption and increased urinary glucose excretion, resulting in a reduction in hyperglycemia, irrespective of β-cell function or insulin resistance (9).Empagliflozin is a potent and selective inhibitor of SGLT2 (10). In phase II trials in patients with type 2 diabetes, a 12-week treatment with empagliflozin as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin resulted in reductions in HbA_1c, weight, and blood pressure and was well tolerated (11,12). These effects were shown to be sustained for up to 90 weeks (13).The aim of this study (EMPA-REG METSU) was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg once daily) versus placebo over 24 weeks as add-on therapy to metformin plus sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control. In addition, the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin 25 mg was investigated in poorly controlled patients with HbA_1c >10% in an open-label treatment arm.     

Safety and Efficacy of Sitagliptin Therapy for the Inpatient Management of General Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A pilot,randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin (Januvia) for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in general medicine and surgery patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this pilot, multicenter, open-label, randomized study, patients (n = 90) with a known history of T2D treated with diet, oral antidiabetic agents, or low total daily dose of insulin (≤0.4 units/kg/day) were randomized to receive sitagliptin alone or in combination with glargine insulin (glargine) or to a basal bolus insulin regimen (glargine and lispro) plus supplemental (correction) doses of lispro. Major study outcomes included differences in daily blood glucose (BG), frequency of treatment failures (defined as three or more consecutive BG >240 mg/dL or a mean daily BG >240 mg/dL), and hypoglycemia between groups.

RESULTS

Glycemic control improved similarly in all treatment groups. There were no differences in the mean daily BG after the 1st day of treatment (P = 0.23), number of readings within a BG target of 70 and 140 mg/dL (P = 0.53), number of BG readings >200 mg/dL (P = 0.23), and number of treatment failures (P > 0.99). The total daily insulin dose and number of insulin injections were significantly less in the sitagliptin groups compared with the basal bolus group (both P < 0.001). There were no differences in length of hospital stay (P = 0.78) or in the number of hypoglycemic events between groups (P = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this pilot indicate that treatment with sitagliptin alone or in combination with basal insulin is safe and effective for the management of hyperglycemia in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.Increasing evidence from observational and randomized controlled studies in general medicine and surgery patients show that type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased incidence of infections and hospital complications (1–6). Recent guidelines from professional organizations (7–10) recommend the use of subcutaneous insulin as the preferred therapy for glycemic control in hospitalized patients in a non–intensive-care unit (non-ICU) setting. Scheduled basal bolus insulin therapy using long- or intermediate-acting insulin preparations in combination with short- (regular) or rapid-acting insulin analogs has been proven to be safe and effective for glycemic management in patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia (10–12). Recent studies in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D have reported both improved glycemic control and reductions in a composite of hospital complications, including wound infections, pneumonia, bacteremia, and acute renal and respiratory failure, using basal bolus insulin regimens when compared with sliding scale insulin alone (11–14). Basal bolus regimens, however, are labor intensive, require multiple insulin injections, and are associated with a significant risk of hypoglycemia. The rate of hypoglycemia in non-ICU patients with T2D treated with basal bolus insulin regimens has been reported to be up to 32% (12,14–16).Current practice guidelines recommend against inpatient use of oral antidiabetic drugs and noninsulin injectable medications in part due to the absence of efficacy studies as well as safety concerns (7,8,10). A major limitation to using oral antidiabetic agents in the inpatient setting relates to the delay and unpredictable onset of action of these drugs, which can prevent rapid attainment of glycemic control or dose adjustments to meet the changing needs of the acutely ill patient. There is also concern regarding the potential for adverse cardiovascular effects with the use of sulfonylureas in patients with cardiac and cerebral ischemia (17) and with the safety of metformin in patients with renal or liver dysfunction, heart failure, and intravenous iodine contrast and after surgical procedures (7,8,10). In addition, the use of thiazolidinediones is limited by their lag time to active glucose control and their tendency to increase intravascular volume and precipitate or worsen congestive heart failure and peripheral edema (18).Since the U.S. approval of incretin mimetic agents in 2005–2006, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been rapidly incorporated into the outpatient management of T2D (19). These agents improve metabolic control by enhancing endogenous prandial insulin secretion and inhibiting glucagon secretion, thereby reducing postprandial glucose excursions (20). The low risk of hypoglycemia and good tolerability of the DPP-4 inhibitors (21–23) make them attractive considerations for use in hospitalized patients. At this time, however, no previous studies have investigated the use of these agents in the hospital setting. Accordingly, we conducted a prospective, randomized clinical trial to determine the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin alone or in combination with basal insulin in the management of general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.     

Canagliflozin Compared With Sitagliptin for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Do Not Have Adequate Glycemic Control With Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea: A 52-week randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with sitagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin plus sulfonylurea.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study, subjects using stable metformin plus sulfonylurea (N = 755) received canagliflozin 300 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Primary end point was change from baseline in A1C at 52 weeks. Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and systolic blood pressure (BP), and percent change in body weight, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) reports.

RESULTS

At 52 weeks, canagliflozin 300 mg demonstrated noninferiority and, in a subsequent assessment, showed superiority to sitagliptin 100 mg in reducing A1C (−1.03% [−11.3 mmol/mol] and −0.66% [−7.2 mmol/mol], respectively; least squares mean difference between groups, −0.37% [95% CI, −0.50 to −0.25] or −4.0 mmol/mol [−5.5 to −2.7]). Greater reductions in FPG, body weight, and systolic BP were observed with canagliflozin versus sitagliptin (P < 0.001). Overall AE rates were similar with canagliflozin (76.7%) and sitagliptin (77.5%); incidence of serious AEs and AE-related discontinuations was low for both groups. Higher incidences of genital mycotic infections and osmotic diuresis–related AEs were observed with canagliflozin, which led to one discontinuation. Hypoglycemia rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that canagliflozin may be a new therapeutic tool providing better improvement in glycemic control and body weight reduction than sitagliptin, but with increased genital infections in subjects with type 2 diabetes using metformin plus sulfonylurea.Patients with type 2 diabetes often require combinations of antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) to maintain glycemic control because of the progressive nature of the disease (1,2). Metformin is the recommended first-line pharmacologic therapy for type 2 diabetes (1,2). For patients who do not achieve or sustain sufficient glycemic control with metformin, a second AHA is often added (2). With further decline in glycemic control (3,4), the addition of a third oral agent is increasingly common. Currently available classes of AHAs, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR)γ agonists, and sulfonylureas, have distinct risk/benefit profiles (2,5). A recent position statement by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommends individualization of treatment for patients and suggests the use of pharmacologic agents with complementary mechanisms of action in triple therapy combinations if A1C targets are not attained with dual combination therapy (2).Canagliflozin is an inhibitor of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) in development for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (6–10). SGLT2 is responsible for the majority of glucose reabsorption in the kidney (11). Almost all glucose is reabsorbed from the tubules until renal tubular resorptive capacity is exceeded and urinary glucose excretion (UGE) ensues; the glucose concentration at which this occurs is referred to as the renal threshold for glucose. Canagliflozin lowers the renal threshold for glucose, markedly increasing UGE and thereby reducing blood glucose concentrations in patients with hyperglycemia. The increase in UGE results in a mild osmotic diuresis and also provides a net caloric loss (with most patients with type 2 diabetes losing an average of 80–120 g/day) (12). This mechanism of action, distinct from the mechanisms of glucose-lowering of current AHA classes and independent of insulin, should provide additive glycemic control across stages of type 2 diabetes and range of classes, including add-on to the combination of metformin and a sulfonylurea agent. This 52-week Canagliflozin Treatment and Trial Analysis–dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (CANTATA-D2; second comparator trial) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin 300 mg compared with sitagliptin 100 mg as add-on therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin plus a sulfonylurea agent.     

Immunoproteasome Assembly: Cooperative Incorporation of Interferon γ (IFN-γ)–inducible Subunits

LMP2, LMP7, and MECL are interferon γ–inducible catalytic subunits of vertebrate 20S proteasomes, which can replace constitutive catalytic subunits (delta, X, and Z, respectively) during proteasome biogenesis. We demonstrate that MECL requires LMP2 for efficient incorporation into preproteasomes, and preproteasomes containing LMP2 and MECL require LMP7 for efficient maturation. The latter effect depends on the presequence of LMP7, but not on LMP7 catalytic activity. This cooperative mechanism favors the assembly of homogeneous “immunoproteasomes” containing all three inducible subunits, suggesting that these subunits act in concert to enhance proteasomal generation of major histocompatibility complex class I–binding peptides.Proteasomes are multisubunit multicatalytic proteases that are responsible for the majority of nonlysosomal protein degradation within eukaryotic cells (1), and have a central role in the generation of peptides presented by MHC class I molecules (2). The 20S catalytic core (20S proteasome) is composed of 28 subunits assembled in four stacked seven-membered rings (3). The outer rings contain seven different noncatalytic α-type subunits, and the inner rings contain seven different β-type subunits, three of which are catalytic (delta, X, and Z; reference 4) (alternative nomenclature for vertebrate proteasome subunits [3]: iota, α1; C3, α2; C9, α3; C6, α4; zeta, α5; C2, α6; C8, α7; delta, Y or β1; LMP2, β1i; Z, β2; MECL, β2i; C10, β3; C7, β4; X, MB1 or β5; LMP7, β5i; C5, β6; N3, beta or β7). In addition to seven constitutively synthesized β subunits, vertebrates have three IFN-γ–inducible β subunits (LMP2, LMP7, and MECL), the former two being encoded in the MHC (5–9). All three inducible subunits have removable presequences and are catalytically active (7–11). Each inducible subunit is homologous with a constitutive catalytic subunit (LMP2/delta, LMP7/X, and MECL/Z), and can replace its homologue during proteasome assembly (7–9, 12). The inducible subunits appear to be responsible for altered peptidase specificities in IFN-γ–treated cells (13–15), transfected cells (16–18), and cells from LMP7^−/− and LMP2^−/− mice (19, 20). Presentation of certain antigens is diminished in LMP2^−/− and LMP7^−/− mice (20, 21), and in the case of LMP7^−/− mice, MHC class I expression is reduced (21). These results support a role for inducible subunits in enhancing proteasomal generation of MHC class I–binding peptides.The assembly of 20S proteasomes and the mechanism by which inducible subunits replace constitutive homologues are poorly understood. We have recently characterized proteasome assembly in mouse cells expressing both inducible and constitutive catalytic subunits using an antibody to an α subunit, anti-C8, that immunoprecipitates only 12-16S preproteasomes (22). These catalytically inactive precursor complexes (∼300 kD) contain all seven α subunits and some unprocessed β subunits. They appear to assemble in two stages, with certain unprocessed β subunits (pre-Z, pre-LMP2, pre-MECL, C10, and C7) being incorporated before others (pre-C5, pre-delta, and pre-LMP7). Maturation of preproteasomes to 20S proteasomes (∼700 kD) involves the juxtaposition of two preproteasomes at the β ring interface (3), with β subunit presequences being removed coincident with completion of assembly (23, 24). It is unknown whether the incorporation of inducible subunits and their homologues into proteasomes depends only on relative expression levels, or whether certain proteasome forms are assembled preferentially.     

TRAF-interacting Protein (TRIP): A Novel Component of the Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor (TNFR)- and CD30-TRAF Signaling Complexes That Inhibits TRAF2-mediated NF-κB Activation

Through their interaction with the TNF receptor–associated factor (TRAF) family, members of the tumor necrosis factor receptor (TNFR) superfamily elicit a wide range of biological effects including differentiation, proliferation, activation, or cell death. We have identified and characterized a novel component of the receptor–TRAF signaling complex, designated TRIP (TRAF-interacting protein), which contains a RING finger motif and an extended coiled-coil domain. TRIP associates with the TNFR2 or CD30 signaling complex through its interaction with TRAF proteins. When associated, TRIP inhibits the TRAF2-mediated NF-κB activation that is required for cell activation and also for protection against apoptosis. Thus, TRIP acts as a receptor–proximal regulator that may influence signals responsible for cell activation/proliferation and cell death induced by members of the TNFR superfamily.Members of the TNF receptor (TNFR)¹ superfamily play important roles in the induction of diverse signals leading to cell growth, activation, and apoptosis (1). Whether the signals induced by a given receptor leads to cell activation or death is, however, highly cell-type specific and tightly regulated during differentiation of cells. For example, the TNFRs can exert costimulatory signals for proliferation of naive lymphocytes but also induce death signals required for deletion of activated T lymphocytes (1). The cytoplasmic domains of these receptors lack intrinsic catalytic activity and also exhibit no significant homology to each other or to other known proteins. Exceptions to this include Fas(CD95) and TNFR1 that share a significant homology within an 80–amino acid region of their cytoplasmic tails (called the “death domain”; 2, 3). Therefore, it is suggested that the TNFR family members can initiate different signal transduction pathways by recruiting different types of intracellular signal transducers to the receptor complex (1).Indeed, several types of intracellular signal transducers have been identified that initiate distinct signal transduction pathways when recruited to the members of TNFR superfamily (4–19). Recent biochemical and molecular studies showed that a class of signal-transducing molecules are recruited to Fas(CD95) or TNFR1 via interaction of the death domains (2, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20). For example, Fas(CD95) and TNFR1 recruit FADD(MORT1)/RIP or TRADD/FADD (MORT1)/RIP through the interactions of their respective death domains (2, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21). Clustering of these signal transducers leads to the recruitment of FLICE/ MACH, and subsequently, to cell death (13, 14).The TNFR family members can also recruit a second class of signal transducers called TRAFs (TNFR-associated factor), some of which are responsible for the activation of NF-κB or JNK (9, 20, 22). TRAF proteins were identified by their biochemical ability to interact with TNFR2, CD40, CD30, or LT-βR (4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 23–27). These receptors interact directly with TRAFs via a short stretch of amino acids within their cytoplasmic tails, but do not interact with the death domain containing proteins (4, 5, 15, 24–27). To date, five members of the TRAF family have been identified as signaling components of the TNFR family members. All TRAF members contain a conserved TRAF domain, ∼230 amino acids in length, that is used for either homo- or heterooligomerization among the TRAF family, for interactions with the cytoplasmic regions of the TNFR superfamily, or for interactions with downstream signal transducers (4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 19, 23–25, 28). In addition to the TRAF domain, most of the TRAF family members contain an NH₂-terminal RING finger and several zinc finger structures, which appear to be important for their effector functions (4, 5, 10, 11, 23–25).Several effector functions of TRAFs were revealed by recent experiments based on a transfection system. TRAF2, first identified by its interaction with TNFR2 (4), was subsequently shown to mediate NF-κB activation induced by two TNF receptors, CD40 and CD30 (9, 28–30). TRAF5 was also implicated in NF-κB activation mediated by LTβR (10), whereas TRAF3 (also known as CRAF1, CD40bp, or LAP1; references 5, 11, 24, and 25) was shown to be involved in the regulation of CD40-mediated CD23 upregulation in B cells (5). The role of other TRAF members in the TNFR family–mediated signal transduction is not clear. They may possess some effector functions as yet to be revealed, or work as adapter proteins to recruit different downstream signal transducers to the receptor complex. For example, TRAF1 is required for the recruitment of members of the cellular inhibitor of apoptosis protein (c-IAP) family to the TNFR2-signaling complex (7). In addition to the signal transduction by the TNFR family members, TRAFs may regulate other receptor-mediated signaling pathways. For example, TRAF6 is a component of IL-1 receptor (IL1R)–signaling complex, in which it mediates the activation of NF-κB by IL-1R (31). Since TRAFs form homo- or heterooligomers, it is suggested that the repertoire of TRAF members in a given cell type may differentially affect the intracellular signals triggered by these receptors. This may be accomplished by the selective interaction of TRAFs with a specific set of downstream signal transducers. Although many aspects of TRAF-mediated effector functions leading to cellular activation have been defined, it needs to be determined whether TRAF proteins will also mediate the apoptotic signals induced by the “death-domain-less” members of the TNFR superfamily (1, 27, 32–36).Here we report the isolation and characterization of a novel component of the TNFR superfamily/TRAFs signaling complex, named TRIP (TRAF-interacting protein). TRIP associates with the receptor/TRAF signaling complex, and inhibits the TRAF2-mediated NF-κB activation. Biochemical studies indicate that TRIP associates with the TNFR2 or CD30 receptor complex via its interaction with TRAF proteins, suggesting a model which can explain why the ligation of these receptors can promote different cell fates: proliferation or death.     

Efficacy and Safety of Lixisenatide Once Daily Versus Exenatide Twice Daily in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Metformin: A 24-week,randomized, open-label,active-controlled study (GetGoal-X)

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of lixisenatide once daily versus exenatide twice daily in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Adults with diabetes inadequately controlled (HbA_1c 7–10%) with metformin were randomized to lixisenatide 20 μg once daily (n = 318) or exenatide 10 μg twice daily (n = 316) in a 24-week (main period), open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study. The primary objective was a noninferiority assessment of lixisenatide versus exenatide in HbA_1c change from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

Lixisenatide once daily demonstrated noninferiority in HbA_1c reduction versus exenatide twice daily. The least squares mean change was −0.79% (mean decrease 7.97 to 7.17%) for lixisenatide versus −0.96% (mean decrease 7.96 to 7.01%) for exenatide, and treatment difference was 0.17% (95% CI, 0.033–0.297), meeting a predefined noninferiority upper CI margin of 0.4%. Responder rate (HbA_1c <7.0%) and improvements in fasting plasma glucose were comparable. Both agents induced weight loss (from 94.5 to 91.7 kg and from 96.7 to 92.9 kg with lixisenatide and exenatide, respectively). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar for lixisenatide and exenatide, as was incidence of serious AEs (2.8 and 2.2%, respectively). Discontinuations attributable to AEs occurred in 33 lixisenatide (10.4%) and 41 exenatide (13.0%) patients. In the lixisenatide group, fewer participants experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia (2.5 vs. 7.9%; P < 0.05), with fewer gastrointestinal events (especially nausea; 24.5 vs. 35.1%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on lixisenatide once daily in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin demonstrated noninferior improvements in HbA_1c, with slightly lower mean weight loss, lower incidence of hypoglycemia, and better gastrointestinal tolerability compared with exenatide twice daily.The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor system has become an attractive target for type 2 diabetes therapies (1–5). GLP-1 receptor agonists increasingly have become established as effective therapeutic options in type 2 diabetes management (6,7).Glucose-lowering effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists are mediated by glucose-dependent stimulation of insulin release and inhibition of glucagon secretion, which decreases prandial blood glucose excursion and hepatic glucose production (1–5). Notably, GLP-1 receptor agonists achieve physiological blood glucose–insulin response with a low risk of hypoglycemia (as a result of their glucose-dependent action) (8), delay gastric emptying, and are associated with beneficial effects on weight and appetite reduction (9).Currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists include twice-daily and once-weekly formulations of exenatide, a once-daily formulation of liraglutide, and a once-daily formulation of lixisenatide. Both exenatide and liraglutide have been shown to improve glycemic control associated with beneficial effects on weight and a low risk of hypoglycemia (10,11). However, although exenatide and liraglutide share the same basic mechanisms, each has a distinct pharmacokinetic profile and molecular structure, with potential clinical implications in terms of efficacy against fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose, and in terms of regimen burden and safety. This has been demonstrated in a 26-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who were assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily or additional exenatide 10 µg twice daily (11). Liraglutide reduced mean FPG more than did exenatide (−29.0 mg/dL vs. −10.8 mg/dL; P < 0.0001), whereas exenatide reduced postprandial plasma glucose increment after breakfast and dinner more than did liraglutide (breakfast: estimated treatment difference, 23.9 mg/dL; P < 0.0001; dinner: estimated treatment difference, 18.2 mg/dL; P = 0.0005) (11). These findings suggest that liraglutide and exenatide should not be used interchangeably, but instead should be prescribed on an individual basis according to the glycemic requirements of each patient.Lixisenatide is a once-daily prandial GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that was approved by the European Medicines Agency in February 2013 (12,13). It is a 44–amino-acid peptide that is amidated at the COOH terminal amino acid and shares some structural elements with the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide; the primary difference is the addition of six lysine residues at the C terminus (13). A 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study that evaluated the dose-dependent effects of lixisenatide (5, 10, 20, or 30 µg once daily or twice daily) found that lixisenatide 20 µg administered once daily provided the best efficacy-to-tolerability ratio, with no additional benefits with any of the twice-daily doses (14). Lixisenatide 20 μg once daily subsequently has been shown to significantly improve glycemic control, with low rates of hypoglycemia and beneficial weight effects, when administered as monotherapy (15), as add-on therapy to oral agents (14,16–18), and in combination with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic therapy (19–21).In the current study, we report the results from a head-to-head study (GetGoal-X) that compared the benefit/risk profile of lixisenatide once daily versus exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.     

Potential of Albiglutide, a Long-Acting GLP-1 Receptor Agonist, in Type 2 Diabetes: A randomized controlled trial exploring weekly, biweekly, and monthly dosing

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of incremental doses of albiglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, administered with three dosing schedules in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet and exercise or metformin monotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomized multicenter double-blind parallel-group study, 356 type 2 diabetic subjects with similar mean baseline characteristics (age 54 years, diabetes duration 4.9 years, BMI 32.1 kg/m², A1C 8.0%) received subcutaneous placebo or albiglutide (weekly [4, 15, or 30 mg], biweekly [15, 30, or 50 mg], or monthly [50 or 100 mg]) or exenatide twice daily as an open-label active reference (per labeling in metformin subjects only) over 16 weeks followed by an 11-week washout period. The main outcome measure was change from baseline A1C of albiglutide groups versus placebo at week 16.

RESULTS

Dose-dependent reductions in A1C were observed within all albiglutide schedules. Mean A1C was similarly reduced from baseline by albiglutide 30 mg weekly, 50 mg biweekly (every 2 weeks), and 100 mg monthly (−0.87, −0.79, and −0.87%, respectively) versus placebo (−0.17%, P < 0.004) and exenatide (−0.54%). Weight loss (−1.1 to −1.7 kg) was observed with these three albiglutide doses with no significant between-group effects. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events in subjects receiving albiglutide 30 mg weekly was less than that observed for the highest biweekly and monthly doses of albiglutide or exenatide.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly albiglutide administration significantly improved glycemic control and elicited weight loss in type 2 diabetic patients, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile.Early intervention to improve glycemic control reduces microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (1–4) and may provide long-term macrovascular benefits (5). Despite numerous available therapies, over half of patients with type 2 diabetes are unable to achieve the American Diabetes Association (ADA) target A1C level (<7%) (6–8). Moreover, weight gain and treatment-induced hypoglycemic episodes (9,10) are major barriers to achieving glycemic control (10).Antidiabetic therapies based on glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) retain the ability of native GLP-1 to stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion and suppress inappropriately elevated glucagon secretion (11,12). Native GLP-1 also slows gastric emptying and reduces food intake, which leads to modest weight loss (11). However, native GLP-1 is rapidly inactivated (half-life 1–2 min) by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), limiting its therapeutic potential (13). Exenatide (half-life 2.4 h) improves glycemic control in combination with metformin, a sulfonylurea, or a thiazolidinedione (14–18). Despite modest weight loss and improved glycemic control, gastrointestinal (GI) intolerability and twice-daily administration may lead to discontinuation (19).Albiglutide (formerly known as albugon) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist developed through the fusion of two repeats of human GLP-1 (7–36) molecules to recombinant human albumin (20). The GLP-1 dimer was used to avoid potential reductions of the interaction of the GLP-1 moiety of the monomer with its receptor in the presence of albumin. A single amino acid substitution (ala8→gly) renders the molecule resistant to DPP-4. The structure of albiglutide provides an extended half-life (∼5 days), which may allow weekly or less frequent dosing. Furthermore, albiglutide is relatively impermeant to the central nervous system (21), which may have implications for GI tolerability. In nonclinical studies, albiglutide stimulated cAMP production through the GLP-1 receptor and induced insulin secretion from INS-1 cells in vitro and in animal models (21–22). It also delayed gastric emptying and reduced food intake in rodents (21–23).This study was designed to explore a wide range of doses (4–100 mg) and schedules (weekly to monthly) to assess glycemic control and adverse event profiles for albiglutide. Exenatide was included as an open-label reference to provide clinical perspective for a GLP-1 receptor agonist.     

Further Improvement in Postprandial Glucose Control With Addition of Exenatide or Sitagliptin to Combination Therapy With Insulin Glargine and Metformin: A proof-of-concept study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of a 4-week adjunctive therapy of exenatide (EXE) (5–10 μg b.i.d.) or sitagliptin (SITA) (100 mg once daily) in response to a standardized breakfast meal challenge in 48 men or women with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin glargine (GLAR) + metformin (MET).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, active comparator–controlled study with a three-arm parallel group design, consisting of: screening, 4- to 8-week run-in period, 4-week treatment period, and follow-up. In all three groups, the GLAR dose was titrated according to an algorithm (fasting blood glucose ≤100 mg/dl).

RESULTS

The unadjusted 6-h postprandial blood glucose excursion of both GLAR + MET + EXE and GLAR + MET + SITA was statistically significantly smaller than that of GLAR + MET (606 ± 104 vs. 612 ± 133 vs. 728 ± 132 mg/dl/h; P = 0.0036 and 0.0008). A1C significantly decreased in all three groups (P < 0.0001), with the greatest reduction of −1.9 ± 0.7 under GLAR + MET + EXE (GLAR + MET + SITA −1.5 ± 0.7; GLAR + MET −1.2 ± 0.5%-points; GLAR + MET + EXE vs. GLAR + MET P = 0.0154). The American Diabetes Association A1C target of <7.0% was reached by 80.0, 87.5, and 62.5% of subjects, respectively. GLAR + MET + EXE had the highest number (47) of adverse events, mostly gastrointestinal (56%) with one dropout. GLAR + MET or GLAR + MET + SITA only had 10 and 12 adverse events, respectively, and no dropouts. Hypoglycemia (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) rates were low and comparable among groups. Weight decreased with GLAR + MET + EXE (−0.9 ± 1.7 kg; P = 0.0396) and increased slightly with GLAR + MET (0.4 ± 1.5 kg; NS; GLAR + MET + EXE vs. GLAR + MET P = 0.0377).

CONCLUSIONS

EXE or SITA added to GLAR + MET further substantially reduced postprandial blood glucose excursions. Longer-term studies in a larger population are warranted to confirm these findings.The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) demonstrated that good glycemic control in type 2 diabetes is associated with a reduced risk of diabetes complications (1). After lifestyle modifications (diet and exercise) and oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) the addition of basal insulin to OHAs is common practice (2), because this kind of regimen requires only a single injection in most cases and can improve glycemic control. Its use, however, may not adequately control postprandial hyperglycemia or may be associated with hypoglycemia and/or weight gain (3,4). Because obesity is frequently present in subjects with type 2 diabetes (5) and represents a factor contributing to insulin resistance (5) and cardiovascular risk (5), weight gain may be particularly undesirable.A significant advance in basal insulin therapy was the introduction of insulin glargine, a long-acting insulin analog with an extended duration of action of ∼24 h without exhibiting a pronounced peak (6,7). In subjects with type 2 diabetes, insulin glargine was shown to confer glycemic control at least equivalent to that of NHP insulin with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia (3,8,9). However, insulin glargine still has the drawbacks of insulin treatment such as weight gain (3,8,9) and a lower effect on postprandial glucose excursions (8) than on fasting glucose values.Exenatide is the first-in-class glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (or incretin mimetic) approved in the U.S. and Europe (10). Compared with placebo, exenatide statistically reduced A1C, whereas there was no difference in A1C improvement between exenatide and insulin glargine or biphasic insulin aspart (11–14). However, postprandial glycemia as well as weight was further reduced with exenatide compared with insulin glargine or biphasic insulin, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia (12,13).Sitagliptin is an approved once-daily, potent, and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (15). When added to metformin, sitagliptin, given at a dose of 100 mg once daily over 24 weeks, led to significant reductions in A1C, fasting, and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose and was weight-neutral (16).With this background, a therapy controlling both fasting blood glucose (FBG) and postprandial glucose excursions seems to be a promising approach for subjects with type 2 diabetes (17–21). Therefore, in the present study we investigated the influence of a 4-week adjunctive therapy of either a GLP-1 receptor agonist (exenatide) or a DPP-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin) to titrated basal insulin (insulin glargine) plus metformin versus the continuation with titrated insulin glargine plus metformin alone as active comparator in subjects with type 2 diabetes.     

Rosiglitazone Decreases C-Reactive Protein to a Greater Extent Relative to Glyburide and Metformin Over 4 Years Despite Greater Weight Gain: Observations from A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT)

OBJECTIVE

C-reactive protein (CRP) is closely associated with obesity and cardiovascular disease in both diabetic and nondiabetic populations. In the short term, commonly prescribed antidiabetic agents have different effects on CRP; however, the long-term effects of those agents are unknown.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT), we examined the long-term effects of rosiglitazone, glyburide, and metformin on CRP and the relationship among CRP, weight, and glycemic variables in 904 subjects over 4 years.

RESULTS

Baseline CRP was significantly correlated with homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), A1C, BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio. CRP reduction was greater in the rosiglitazone group by −47.6% relative to glyburide and by −30.5% relative to metformin at 48 months. Mean weight gain from baseline (at 48 months) was 5.6 kg with rosiglitazone, 1.8 kg with glyburide, and −2.8 kg with metformin. The change in CRP from baseline to 12 months was correlated positively with change in BMI in glyburide (r = 0.18) and metformin (r = 0.20) groups but not in the rosiglitazone (r = −0.05, NS) group. However, there was no longer a significant correlation between change in CRP and change in HOMA-IR, A1C, or waist-to-hip ratio in any of the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosiglitazone treatment was associated with durable reductions in CRP independent of changes in insulin sensitivity, A1C, and weight gain. CRP in the glyburide and metformin groups was positively associated with changes in weight, but this was not the case with rosiglitazone.C-reactive protein (CRP) has been traditionally viewed as one of the acute-phase reactants and is a sensitive systemic marker of inflammation and tissue damage. This acute-phase inflammatory protein is predominantly secreted in hepatocytes, its release being regulated by interleukin-6 and other inflammatory cytokines (1). Other studies have shown that extrahepatic sources of CRP production from adipocytes could point to a more systemic generation of CRP in the body after stimulation by inflammatory cytokines and more specifically, by the adipokine, resistin (1).Both population-based and prospective studies have demonstrated a clear association between CRP and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke (2). The magnitude of the CRP prediction for future CVD events is similar to that of other traditional CVD risk factors (cholesterol, hypertension, and smoking status) (2). CRP also may be a mediator of atherosclerosis (1,3–6). However, there is no available evidence from clinical trials that a reduction in CRP directly reduces or prevents further CVD events.The production of CRP by adipocytes may partially explain why CRP levels are elevated in patients with the metabolic syndrome (1), in whom CVD risk is increased. The strong association between CRP and body adiposity has been observed in both diabetic (7) and nondiabetic subjects (8–11) and was only moderately attenuated by adjustment of insulin sensitivity. These results suggest that obesity, insulin resistance, and the metabolic syndrome are interconnected in a proinflammatory state that may be mediated by cytokines and subsequently cause elevated levels of CRP. Elevated CRP concentrations have been shown to predict an increased risk of diabetes (9,12,13). Therefore, CRP may play an active role in the causal relationship among obesity, diabetes, and the high risk of future CVD events. Statins (14) and weight loss (15–17), which can reduce CRP levels and improve other CVD risk factors, also show benefits in reducing CVD events.Glucose-lowering agents have different effects on CRP, weight, insulin sensitivity, and glycemic control in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The thiazolidinediones (TZDs) rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, insulin-sensitizing oral antidiabetic agents, have been shown to be effective in reducing CRP in several short-term (≤6 months) studies (18–21). However, it is not clear whether the weight gain associated with TZDs could attenuate the effect on CRP reduction over larger periods of time. In short-term studies, metformin moderately decreases CRP (16,18), increases insulin sensitivity, and produces weight loss (16). The longer-term relationships among the three commonly used oral antidiabetic agents (TZDs, sulfonylureas, and metformin) with CRP, insulin sensitivity, weight, and glycemic control have not been investigated previously.A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT) provided the opportunity to evaluate the effects of members of these three classes of oral agents in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving >4,000 patients, treated for a median time of 4 years (22,23). This study compared the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone, glyburide, and metformin in drug-naive patients with newly diagnosed (≤3 years) type 2 diabetes. We have previously reported the association of CRP, obesity, and insulin resistance in the baseline examination of the ADOPT study (7). We discuss here a subgroup analysis of ADOPT, in which we examined prospectively the long-term effects of rosiglitazone, glyburide, and metformin on CRP reduction and the relationship among CRP, insulin sensitivity, weight, and glycemic variables.     

The Efficacy and Safety of Saxagliptin When Added to Metformin Therapy in Patients With Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes With Metformin Alone

OBJECTIVE

This 24-week trial assessed the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control with metformin alone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of saxagliptin (2.5, 5, or 10 mg once daily) or placebo plus a stable dose of metformin (1,500–2,500 mg) in 743 patients (A1C ≥7.0 and ≤10.0%). Efficacy analyses were performed using an ANCOVA model using last observation carried forward methodology on primary (A1C) and secondary (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and postprandial glucose [PPG] area under the curve [AUC]) end points.

RESULTS

Saxagliptin (2.5, 5, and 10 mg) plus metformin demonstrated statistically significant adjusted mean decreases from baseline to week 24 versus placebo in A1C (−0.59, −0.69, and −0.58 vs. +0.13%; all P < 0.0001), FPG (−14.31, −22.03, and −20.50 vs. +1.24 mg/dl; all P < 0.0001), and PPG AUC (−8,891, −9,586, and −8,137 vs. −3,291 mg · min/dl; all P < 0.0001). More than twice as many patients achieved A1C <7.0% with 2.5, 5, and 10 mg saxagliptin versus placebo (37, 44, and 44 vs. 17%; all P < 0.0001). β-Cell function and postprandial C-peptide, insulin, and glucagon AUCs improved in all saxagliptin treatment groups at week 24. Incidence of hypoglycemic adverse events and weight reductions were similar to those with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin once daily added to metformin therapy was generally well tolerated and led to statistically significant improvements in glycemic indexes versus placebo added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone.Saxagliptin is a potent, selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, specifically designed for extended inhibition of the DPP-4 enzyme (1,2). DPP-4 rapidly cleaves and inactivates the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) (1). GLP-1 and GIP regulate blood glucose homeostasis by stimulation of glucose-dependent insulin secretion (3). GLP-1 also delays gastric emptying and inhibits glucagon secretion (3,4). In rodents, GLP-1 has been shown to stimulate β-cell growth and differentiation and inhibit β-cell apoptosis (5). Such an approach is needed because the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes fail to achieve recommended glycemic targets with existing therapies, owing to safety and tolerability issues and loss of efficacy over time (6).Metformin is the most widely prescribed first-line agent for the management of type 2 diabetes and is standard first-line pharmacotherapy, along with diet and exercise (7). Mechanistically, metformin reduces hepatic glucose production and improves insulin sensitivity (8); however, metformin alone is frequently insufficient to maintain glycemic goals in the face of progressive β-cell failure and increasing insulin resistance (9). Consequently, many patients require multiple oral antihyperglycemic agents (9,10). Metformin works through pathways complementary to saxagliptin, and the combination of saxagliptin with metformin may improve glycemic control (11,12). Studies of other DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin over 24 weeks have demonstrated increased efficacy versus placebo (13–15). The safety and efficacy of saxagliptin monotherapy in treatment-naive patients were established previously in a 12-week study across a dose range of 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Significant A1C reductions were demonstrated in all active treatment groups with maximal A1C efficacy observed with 5 mg saxagliptin. A test for log-linear trend across the treatment groups did not demonstrate a statistically significant dose response after 12 weeks of treatment. The overall frequency of adverse events was comparable across all treatment groups and placebo and did not appear to be dose related (16). The current trial (CV181-014) examined the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in combination with metformin administered for up to 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone.     

Tyrosine Phosphorylation of Pyk2 Is Selectively Regulated by Fyn During TCR Signaling

The Src family protein tyrosine kinases (PTKs), Lck and Fyn, are coexpressed in T cells and perform crucial functions involved in the initiation of T cell antigen receptor (TCR) signal transduction. However, the mechanisms by which Lck and Fyn regulate TCR signaling are still not completely understood. One important question is whether Lck and Fyn have specific targets or only provide functional redundancy during TCR signaling. We have previously shown that Lck plays a major role in the tyrosine phosphorylation of the TCR-ζ chain and the ZAP-70 PTK. In an effort to identify the targets that are specifically regulated by Fyn, we have studied the tyrosine phosphorylation of Pyk2, a recently discovered new member of the focal adhesion kinase family PTK. We demonstrated that Pyk2 was rapidly tyrosine phosphorylated following TCR stimulation. TCR-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of Pyk2 was selectively dependent on Fyn but not Lck. Moreover, in heterologous COS-7 cells, coexpression of Pyk2 with Fyn but not Lck resulted in substantial increases in Pyk2 tyrosine phosphorylation. The selective regulation of Pyk2 tyrosine phosphorylation by Fyn in vivo correlated with the preferential phosphorylation of Pyk2 by Fyn in vitro. Our results demonstrate that Pyk2 is a specific target regulated by Fyn during TCR signaling.Engagement of the TCR evokes a series of signal transduction events critical for the functional activation of T cells (reviewed in reference 1). Signal transduction through the TCR is also important for T cell development (1). The earliest detectable signaling event after TCR stimulation is the activation of protein tyrosine kinases (PTKs)¹, resulting in the tyrosine phosphorylation of cellular proteins (1). Lck and Fyn, two cytoplasmic PTKs of the Src family, have been implicated as the initiating PTKs for TCR signaling. Lck is critical for TCR signaling. Mutant T cell lines lacking functional Lck or T cells from lck ^−/− mice respond to TCR stimulation with very limited tyrosine phosphorylation of cellular proteins, greatly decreased calcium mobilization, and reduced proliferation (2–4). Lck also plays a critical role in T cell development, as lck ^−/− mice have a pronounced reduction in thymocyte numbers and a block in thymocyte development at the early CD4⁺CD8⁺ stage (2). The residual progression of thymocytes from CD4⁻CD8⁻ to CD4⁺CD8⁺ stage in lck ^−/− mice depends upon the redundant function of Fyn. Combined disruption of both Lck and Fyn (lck ^−/−/fyn ^−/−) completely arrests thymocyte development at the CD4⁻CD8⁻ stage (5, 6). Fyn is also important for TCR signaling. Mature CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ thymocytes from fyn ^−/− mice are severely impaired in TCR signaling as measured by calcium mobilization, protein tyrosine phosphorylation, IL-2 production, and proliferation (7, 8). Peripheral T cells from fyn ^−/− mice are also impaired in TCR signaling, albeit to a lesser degree (7, 8).The mechanisms by which Lck or Fyn regulates proximal TCR signaling are still not completely understood. One important issue is whether Lck and Fyn have specific targets or only provide functional redundancy during TCR signaling. We have studied the TCR signaling pathway in T cells from lck ^−/− or fyn ^−/− mice in an attempt to identify targets for Lck and Fyn. We have shown previously that Lck is the primary PTK that regulates the tyrosine phosphorylation of the TCR subunits and of ZAP-70 (9), a Syk family PTK critical for TCR signaling (reviewed in reference 10). The identity of the downstream target(s) for Fyn has not been identified. In the present study, we have focused our efforts in identifying target(s) whose phosphorylation is specifically regulated by Fyn. Previous studies have shown that Fyn interacts with a number of proteins in T cells (11–16), including several proteins migrating from 110 to 130 kD. These proteins are potential targets for Fyn, though their identities have not been fully elucidated. A recently discovered cytoplasmic PTK Pyk2 has a molecular mass of 112 kD (17–19). Pyk2 is a member of the focal adhesion kinase (FAK) family and has been shown to play important roles in signal transduction of neuronal cells (17, 20, 21). Because Pyk2 is also expressed in T cells (18, 19), we examined whether it might be a target for Fyn during TCR signaling. Our data demonstrate that Pyk2 is a novel Fyndependent tyrosine-phosphorylated substrate during TCR signaling.     

Association Between Metformin Therapy and Mortality After Breast Cancer: A population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Metformin has been associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk and may improve survival after cancer through direct and indirect tumor-suppressing mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of metformin therapy on survival in women with breast cancer using methods that accounted for the duration of treatment with glucose-lowering therapies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This population-based study, using Ontario health care databases, recruited women aged 66 years or older diagnosed with diabetes and breast cancer between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2008. Using Cox regression analyses, we explored the association between cumulative duration of past metformin use and all-cause and breast cancer–specific mortality. We modeled cumulative duration of past metformin use as a time-varying exposure.

RESULTS

Of 2,361 breast cancer patients identified, mean (± SD) age at cancer diagnosis was 77.4 ± 6.3 years, and mean follow-up was 4.5 ± 3.0 years. There were 1,101 deaths(46.6%), among which 386 (16.3%) were breast cancer–specific deaths. No significant association was found between cumulative duration of past metformin use and all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.97 [95% CI 0.92–1.02]) or breast cancer–specific mortality (0.91 [0.81–1.03]) per additional year of cumulative use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings failed to show an association between improved survival and increased cumulative metformin duration in older breast cancer patients who had recent-onset diabetes. Further research is needed to clarify this association, accounting for effects of cancer stage and BMI in younger populations or those with differing stages of diabetes as well as in nondiabetic populations.Pre-existing diabetes may increase the risk of death by as much as 40% in cancer patients (1). Up to 16% of patients with breast cancer have pre-existing diabetes and are thus at risk for worse outcomes (2,3). Metformin, an insulin sensitizer, is the most commonly prescribed diabetes treatment and is currently recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes (4,5). If glycemic targets are not met with metformin alone, other glucose-lowering medications are added to or substituted for metformin. Recent evidence suggests that metformin may have antitumor effects (6). Several studies have evaluated the effect of metformin on cancer incidence, and meta-analyses suggest that metformin is associated with a 20–30% reduction in new cancers (6–8). However, of greater interest is the potential therapeutic role of metformin in patients with pre-existing cancer.There is mounting evidence that metformin may affect the prognosis of breast cancer. Metformin use has been associated with higher rates of pathologic complete response after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with diabetes (9), and clinical trials have shown a reduction in tumor proliferation markers in nondiabetic breast cancer patients treated with metformin (10–12). However, observational studies evaluating the effect of metformin on survival after breast cancer have been inconsistent. One study of women with HER2+ breast cancer found metformin exposure was associated with a 48% reduction in overall mortality compared with other glucose-lowering medications (13). However, another study of women with triple-negative receptor breast cancer did not show a significant association between metformin and cancer mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% CI 0.87–3.06]) (13,14). Interpretation of these previous studies is hampered by small sample sizes, heterogeneity of disease subtypes, inclusion of diabetic populations with varying disease severity and duration, and inconsistent definitions of metformin exposure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between cumulative metformin use and mortality in patients with breast cancer and recently diagnosed diabetes.     

Maternal and Neonatal Circulating Markers of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Risk in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) Trial: Responses to maternal metformin versus insulin treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to compare glucose, lipids, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in women with gestational diabetes mellitus treated with metformin or insulin and in cord plasma of their offspring and to examine how these markers relate to infant size at birth.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Women with gestational diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned to metformin or insulin in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trial. Fasting maternal plasma glucose, lipids, and CRP were measured at randomization, 36 weeks’ gestation, and 6–8 weeks postpartum as well as in cord plasma. Women with available cord blood samples (metformin n = 236, insulin n = 242) were included.

RESULTS

Maternal plasma triglycerides increased more from randomization to 36 weeks’ gestation in women treated with metformin (21.93%) versus insulin (9.69%, P < 0.001). Maternal and cord plasma lipids, CRP, and neonatal anthropometry did not differ between treatments. In logistic regression analyses adjusted for confounders, the strongest associations with birth weight >90th centile were maternal triglycerides and measures of glucose control at 36 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few differences in circulating maternal and neonatal markers of metabolic status and no differences in measures of anthropometry between the offspring of women treated with metformin and the offspring of women treated with insulin. There may be subtle effects of metformin on maternal lipid function, but the findings suggest that treating gestational diabetes mellitus with metformin does not adversely affect lipids or CRP in cord plasma or neonatal anthropometric measures.Gestational diabetes mellitus is carbohydrate intolerance first diagnosed during pregnancy (1) and affects up to 18% of pregnancies. The prevalence varies depending on maternal demographics and diagnostic criteria (2). The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus is increasing, which is likely driven by the rising population prevalence of overweight and obesity and increasing maternal age at pregnancy (3). Gestational diabetes mellitus increases maternal and infant morbidity and mortality during pregnancy (4). Women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are at risk for metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes (5), and cardiovascular disease in later life (6). Children born to women with gestational diabetes mellitus have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and obesity (7).Treating gestational diabetes mellitus improves pregnancy outcomes for both mother and infant (8). Current therapies include modification of diet, increased physical activity, and drug therapy with insulin and oral hypoglycemic agents, including metformin. In addition to improving insulin sensitivity and hyperglycemia, metformin therapy in the setting of type 2 diabetes reduces triglycerides (9), total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol (10), and VLDL cholesterol; increases HDL cholesterol (9); and reduces markers of inflammation and thrombosis (11). Metformin therapy in gestational diabetes mellitus achieves maternal glucose control and pregnancy outcomes similar to insulin therapy (12,13).In contrast to insulin, metformin crosses the placenta (14) and, therefore, could directly influence fetal metabolism. Our recent follow-up studies in 2-year-old offspring of women enrolled in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial showed increased subcutaneous fat measurements with no increase in abdominal adiposity or total fat (15). Further assessments are required to determine whether metformin actually reduces visceral/ectopic fat. Therefore, we hypothesized that metformin would be more effective than insulin in improving markers of insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular risk during pregnancy and postpartum in women with gestational diabetes mellitus and in their newborns.     

The Relative Contribution of Prepregnancy Overweight and Obesity,Gestational Weight Gain,and IADPSG-Defined Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to Fetal Overgrowth

OBJECTIVE

The International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) identifies women and infants at risk for adverse outcomes, which are also strongly associated with maternal overweight, obesity, and excess gestational weight gain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 9,835 women who delivered at ≥20 weeks’ gestation; had a prenatal, 2-h, 75-g oral glucose tolerance test; and were not treated with diet, exercise, or antidiabetic medications during pregnancy. Women were classified as having GDM based on IADPSG criteria and were categorized into six mutually exclusive prepregnancy BMI/GDM groups: normal weight ± GDM, overweight ± GDM, and obese ± GDM.

RESULTS

Overall, 5,851 (59.5%) women were overweight or obese and 1,892 (19.2%) had GDM. Of those with GDM, 1,443 (76.3%) were overweight or obese. The prevalence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants was significantly higher for overweight and obese women without GDM compared with their normal-weight counterparts. Among women without GDM, 21.6% of LGA infants were attributable to maternal overweight and obesity, and the combination of being overweight or obese and having GDM accounted for 23.3% of LGA infants. Increasing gestational weight gain was associated with a higher prevalence of LGA in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepregnancy overweight and obesity account for a high proportion of LGA, even in the absence of GDM. Interventions that focus on maternal overweight/obesity and gestational weight gain, regardless of GDM status, have the potential to reach far more women at risk for having an LGA infant.Both International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG)–defined gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (1,2) and maternal overweight and obesity (2–4) are associated with increased risk for adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, such as fetal overgrowth, shoulder dystocia and birth injury, pre-eclampsia, and preterm delivery. Although most studies addressing the effects of maternal BMI on adverse outcomes include women with GDM (2–6), a few have reported these associations in overweight or obese women with normal glucose tolerance (7–9). Scant data exist that demonstrate associations between GDM and adverse outcomes in the absence of overweight or obesity (9).Although it is currently estimated that 10–25% of pregnant women develop GDM by IADPSG criteria (1,2,10), 50–60% of women are overweight or obese at the start of their pregnancies (6,7,11,12). Prepregnancy overweight and obesity are also associated with GDM development, as 65–75% of women with GDM are also overweight or obese (11,13). As such, the relative impact of prepregnancy BMI and maternal glycemia during pregnancy on adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes is difficult to tease apart. Moreover, excess gestational weight gain complicates a large number of pregnancies and is highly correlated with maternal overweight and obesity, as well as the development of GDM (14–16). Despite the fact that studies have reported increases in the risk of adverse outcomes with increasing gestational weight gain (13,15–18), many studies examining the effects of maternal obesity and/or glucose levels have not accounted for this important factor.The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of prepregnancy overweight and obesity among women with and without IADPSG-defined GDM on clinically important adverse outcomes, focusing primarily on fetal overgrowth, one of the most prevalent adverse conditions associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity. In addition to magnitude of association, we determine the proportion of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants attributable to each risk factor and combinations thereof. We also examine the relative contribution of increasing gestational weight gain to the development of LGA.     

Large Pre- and Postexercise Rapid-Acting Insulin Reductions Preserve Glycemia and Prevent Early- but Not Late-Onset Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To examine the acute and 24-h glycemic responses to reductions in postexercise rapid-acting insulin dose in type 1 diabetic patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After preliminary testing, 11 male patients (24 ± 2 years, HbA_1c 7.7 ± 0.3%; 61 ± 3.4 mmol/mol) attended the laboratory on three mornings. Patients consumed a standardized breakfast (1 g carbohydrate ⋅ kg⁻¹ BM; 380 ± 10 kcal) and self-administered a 25% rapid-acting insulin dose 60 min prior to performing 45 min of treadmill running at 72.5 ± 0.9% VO_2peak. At 60 min postexercise, patients ingested a meal (1 g carbohydrate ⋅ kg⁻¹ BM; 660 ± 21 kcal) and administered a Full, 75%, or 50% rapid-acting insulin dose. Blood glucose concentrations were measured for 3 h postmeal. Interstitial glucose was recorded for 20 h after leaving the laboratory using a continuous glucose monitoring system.

RESULTS

All glycemic responses were similar across conditions up to 60 min postexercise. After the postexercise meal, blood glucose was preserved under 50%, but declined under Full and 75%. Thence at 3 h, blood glucose was highest under 50% (50% [10.4 ± 1.2] vs. Full [6.2 ± 0.7] and 75% [7.6 ± 1.2 mmol ⋅ L⁻¹], P = 0.029); throughout this period, all patients were protected against hypoglycemia under 50% (blood glucose ≤3.9; Full, n = 5; 75%, n = 2; 50%, n = 0). Fifty percent continued to protect patients against hypoglycemia for a further 4 h under free-living conditions. However, late-evening and nocturnal glycemia were similar; as a consequence, late-onset hypoglycemia was experienced under all conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

A 25% pre-exercise and 50% postexercise rapid-acting insulin dose preserves glycemia and protects patients against early-onset hypoglycemia (≤8 h). However, this strategy does not protect against late-onset postexercise hypoglycemia.Patients with type 1 diabetes are encouraged to engage in regular exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle (1,2). However, engaging in exercise is not without its difficulties (1). Defective glucose regulation presents a significant challenge in preventing hypoglycemia during, and particularly after, exercise (3,4). Exercise-induced hypoglycemia is both a frequent (5) and dangerous occurrence (6) and remains a major obstacle to patients who wish to engage in exercise (7).Much of the literature has focused on providing strategies to help combat hypoglycemia during, and early after, exercise (8–17), with investigations focusing on altering exercise modality (14,18), carbohydrate consumption (12,16,17), and reductions to pre-exercise, rapid-acting insulin dose (10–12,17,19). Prior to moderate-intensity, continuous, aerobic exercise, it is recommended that patients should reduce their prandial rapid-acting insulin dose by ∼75% to prevent hypoglycemia during exercise (10–12). However, despite best preserving blood glucose, it has been shown that this strategy is not fully protective against postexercise hypoglycemia (11,12). This has, in part, been attributed to iatrogenic causes (11), whereby patients administer their usual doses of rapid-acting insulin in a heightened insulin-sensitive state, potentially leading to unexpected falls in blood glucose and, consequently, hypoglycemia (11).A potential strategy to help minimize the risk of developing hypoglycemia after exercise could be to reduce the dose of rapid-acting insulin administered with the postexercise meal (20). Exercise increases the sensitivity of the body to insulin for many hours after exercise (3) and patients could be faced with a window of particularly high sensitivity around the postexercise meal, whereby greater rates of glucose uptake could occur to supplement the high metabolic priority of replenishing muscle glycogen (21). Thus, the meal consumed after exercise is important. With this in mind, it would be intuitive to reduce the amount of insulin administered with the meal consumed at this time; this may preserve glycemia and prevent postexercise hypoglycemia. Conversely, severe reductions in rapid-acting insulin dose may incur prolonged postexercise hyperglycemia, even more so if the pre-exercise dose is also reduced. However, there is a lack of data to confirm or refute these hypotheses. In addition, it would be prudent to examine the extent to which rapid-acting insulin dose adjustments may help combat late falls in glycemia after exercise, considering type 1 diabetic patients are susceptible to late-onset, postexercise hypoglycemia (3), suggested to be due to a biphasic response in glucose uptake occurring early and also late after exercise (22). Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the acute and 24-h postexercise glycemic responses to reducing the postexercise rapid-acting insulin dose, when using the recommended pre-exercise insulin reductions, in type 1 diabetic patients.     

β-Lactamase Inhibitors Are Substrates for the Multidrug Efflux Pumps of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The MexAB-OprM multidrug efflux system exports a number of antimicrobial compounds, including β-lactams. In an attempt to define more fully the range of antimicrobial compounds exported by this system, and, in particular, to determine whether β-lactamase inhibitors were also accommodated by the MexAB-OprM pump, the influence of pump status (its presence or absence) on the intrinsic antibacterial activities of these compounds and on their abilities to enhance β-lactam susceptibility in intact cells was assessed. MIC determinations clearly demonstrated that all three compounds tested, clavulanate, cloxacillin, and BRL42715, were accommodated by the pump. Moreover, by using β-lactams which were readily hydrolyzed by the Pseudomonas aeruginosa class C chromosomal β-lactamase, it was demonstrated that elimination of the mexAB-oprM-encoded efflux system greatly enhanced the abilities of cloxacillin and BRL42715 (but not clavulanate) to increase β-lactam susceptibility. With β-lactams which were poorly hydrolyzed, however, the inhibitors failed to enhance β-lactam susceptibility in MexAB-OprM⁺ strains, although BRL42715 did enhance β-lactam susceptibility in MexAB-OprM⁻ strains, suggesting that even with poorly hydrolyzed β-lactams this inhibitor was effective when it was not subjected to efflux. MexEF-OprN-overexpressing strains, but not MexCD-OprJ-overexpressing strains, also facilitated resistance to β-lactamase inhibitors, indicating that these compounds are also substrates for the MexEF-OprN pump. These data indicate that an ability to inactivate MexAB-OprM (and like efflux systems in other bacteria) will markedly enhance the efficacies of β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitor combinations in treating bacterial infections.Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic human pathogen characterized by an innate resistance to a variety of antimicrobial agents. Previously attributed to a highly impermeable outer membrane (22), this resistance is now recognized to result from the synergy between broadly specific drug efflux pumps and low outer membrane permeability (16). One such efflux system, encoded by the mexAB-oprM operon (8, 28, 29), effluxes a range of antibiotics, including tetracycline, chloramphenicol, quinolones, β-lactams, novobiocin, macrolides, and trimethoprim (8, 9, 12, 29). Expressed constitutively in wild-type cells, where it contributes to intrinsic drug resistance (5, 12, 29), the operon is hyperexpressed in nalB mutants (30), producing elevated levels of resistance to substrate antibiotics (8, 9, 12, 29). Homologous efflux systems encoded by the mexC-mexD-oprJ (27) and mexE-mexF-oprN (10) operons have also been described. Apparently not expressed during growth under normal laboratory conditions, these systems are expressed in nfxB (27) and nfxC (10) multidrug-resistant mutants, respectively. nfxB strains are resistant to chloramphenicol, tetracycline, quinolones, macrolides, novobiocin, and newer cephalosporins such as cefepime and cefpirome but display hypersusceptibility to most β-lactam antibiotics (18). nfxC strains exhibit resistance to chloramphenicol, trimethoprim, quinolones, and carbapenems, including imipenem, although the resistance to imipenem results from the loss of the porin protein OprD in these mutants and not from the overexpression of MexEF-OprN (6, 10).The tripartite efflux pumps consist of an inner membrane component (MexB, MexD, and MexF) which functions as a resistance-nodulation-division family H⁺ antiport exporter (21, 31), an outer membrane, a presumed channel-forming component (OprM, OprJ, and OprN) (16, 23), and a so-called membrane fusion protein predicted to link the membrane-associated efflux components (MexA, MexC, and MexE) (16, 23). Recent data suggest that the operation of MexAB-OprM (and by analogy the remaining efflux systems) is at least partially dependent upon the TonB energy-coupling protein implicated in the opening of outer membrane gated channels responsible for iron-siderophore uptake across the P. aeruginosa outer membrane (36). Thus, the outer membrane components of these efflux pumps may be gated channels.In an effort to further define the range of antibiotic compounds which are accommodated by the known P. aeruginosa efflux systems, we examined β-lactamase inhibitors as possible pump substrates by assessing the influence of pump status (its presence or absence) on the intrinsic antibacterial activities of these compounds and on their abilities to enhance the efficacies of β-lactam compounds.