| Literature DB >> 36244997 |
Ravi Retnakaran1,2,3, Chang Ye4, Alexandra Emery4, Caroline K Kramer4,5,6, Bernard Zinman4,5,6.
Abstract
Combining a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) with basal insulin is an emerging option when initiating injectable therapy in longstanding type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recognizing that short-term insulin therapy can improve beta-cell function and induce glycemic remission in early T2DM, we hypothesized that adding the short-acting GLP1-RA exenatide to basal insulin in early T2DM may enhance the achievability of these outcomes. In this completed, 20-week, open-label, parallel-arm trial at an academic hospital, 103 individuals aged 30-80 years with <7 years duration of T2DM were randomized (by computer-generated sequence) to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar; n = 33), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro; n = 35), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide; n = 35), followed by 12-weeks washout. The analyzed population of 102 participants (median 3.5 years of T2DM, A1c 6.6% ±0.7%) consisted of 33 on Glar, 35 on Glar/Lispro and 34 on Glar/Exenatide. Oral glucose tolerance tests at baseline, 4-weeks, 8-weeks and 20-weeks enabled assessment of beta-cell function (Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 (ISSI-2)) and glycemic control. Mean ISSI-2 over the 8-week intervention (primary outcome) did not differ across the groups (Glar/Exenatide 237 ± 11; Glar/Lispro 208 ± 11; Glar 223 ± 11; p = 0.19). Baseline-adjusted A1c at 8-weeks (secondary outcome) was lowest in Glar/Exenatide followed by Glar/Lispro and Glar (mean 5.9% vs 6.0% vs 6.2%; p = 0.0007). After 12-weeks washout, however, neither baseline-adjusted A1c nor baseline-adjusted ISSI-2 (secondary outcomes) differed between the groups, nor did (additional outcome) rates of remission (Glar/Exenatide 26.7%, Glar/Lispro 43.8%, Glar 32.1%; p = 0.35). There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes. In conclusion, adding exenatide to basal insulin in early T2DM does not further enhance underlying beta-cell function or the capacity to achieve diabetes remission, despite yielding on-treatment glycemic benefit.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36244997 PMCID: PMC9573864 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33867-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 17.694
Fig. 1Flow diagram showing study design.
Fig. 2CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) profile showing flow of trial participants.
Baseline characteristics of the three groups: (I) Glargine, (II) Glargine + Lispro, and (III) Glargine + Exenatide
| (Group I) | (Group II) | (Group III) | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glargine ( | Glargine + Lispro ( | Glargine + Exenatide ( | ||
| Age (years) | 58 ± 10 | 59 ± 9 | 56 ± 10 | 0.40 |
| Sex (% male) | 19 (57.6) | 16 (45.7) | 23 (67.7) | 0.18 |
| Ethnicity: | – | – | – | 0.65 |
| White (%) | 23 (69.7) | 21 (60.0) | 20 (58.8) | – |
| South Asian (%) | 2 (6.1) | 4 (11.4) | 6 (17.7) | – |
| Other (%) | 8 (24.2) | 10 (28.6) | 8 (23.5) | – |
| Duration of diabetes (years) | 3.0 (1.9–5.5) | 4.0 (1.9–5.8) | 3.9 (1.5–5.3) | 0.87 |
| Retinopathy (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | – |
| Proteinuria (%) | 3 (9.1) | 3 (8.6) | 3 (8.8) | 0.99 |
| Neuropathy (%) | 4 (12.1) | 3 (8.6) | 3 (8.8) | 0.84 |
| DM medications before study: | – | – | – | 0.72 |
| Lifestyle only (%) | 5 (15.2) | 3 (8.6) | 8 (23.5) | – |
| Metformin (%) | 20 (60.6) | 22 (62.9) | 19 (55.9) | – |
| DPP-4 inhibitor (%) | 1 (3.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | – |
| SGLT-2 inhibitor (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.9) | – |
| Sulfonylurea (%) | 0 (0) | 2 (5.7) | 0 (0) | – |
| Metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor (%) | 6 (18.2) | 6 (17.1) | 5 (14.7) | – |
| Metformin + SGLT-2 inhibitor (%) | 1 (3.0) | 1 (2.9) | 1 (2.9) | – |
| Metformin + Sulfonylurea (%) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.9) | 0 (0) | – |
| Weight (kg) | 93.7 ± 18.1 | 88.9 ± 18.2 | 93.0 ± 23.3 | 0.56 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 32.3 ± 6.6 | 32.9 ± 8.4 | 31.7 ± 7.6 | 0.94 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 108.4 ± 14.5 | 104.7 ± 15.0 | 107.0 ± 16.9 | 0.62 |
| Glycemia: | – | – | – | – |
| A1c (%) | 6.6 ± 0.7 | 6.5 ± 0.8 | 6.6 ± 0.6 | 0.83 |
| A1c (mmol/mol) | 48.8 ± 8.1 | 47.6 ± 9.0 | 48.3 ± 6.6 | 0.83 |
| Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | 7.1 ± 1.6 | 6.9 ± 1.5 | 7.0 ± 1.2 | 0.91 |
| Insulin sensitivity/resistance: | – | – | – | – |
| Matsuda index | 2.3 (1.8–3.1) | 2.3 (1.2–3.8) | 2.6 (1.6–4.1) | 0.99 |
| HOMA-IR | 3.9 (3.3–6.7) | 4.2 (2.6–9.0) | 3.5 (2.3–7.3) | 0.95 |
| Beta-cell function: | ||||
| ISSI-2 | 195 (103–268) | 171 (114–244) | 192 (118–237) | 0.89 |
| Insulinogenic index/HOMA-IR | 1.6 (0.9–2.4) | 1.4 (0.7–2.7) | 3.5 (2.3–7.3) | 0.96 |
| ΔCpeptide0-120/Δgluc0-120 × Matsuda | 822 (313–1433) | 530 (388–1421) | 672 (333–1129) | 0.69 |
| ΔISR0-120/Δgluc0-120 × Matsuda | 2.7 (1.1–5.0) | 2.0 (1.3–6.1) | 2.7 (1.2–4.8) | 0.80 |
Continuous variables are presented as mean followed by standard deviation in parentheses (if normal distribution) or median followed by interquartile range (if skewed distribution). Categorical variables are presented as proportions.
Primary, secondary and additional outcomes at 8-weeks and 20-weeks
| Glargine | Glargine + Lispro | Glargine + Exenatide | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| (I) Primary outcome: | ||||
| Mean ISSI-2 over 8-week intervention | 223 ± 11 | 208 ± 11 | 237 ± 11 | 0.19 |
| (II) Secondary outcomes: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted A1c at 8-weeks (%) | 6.2 ± 0.07 | 6.0 ± 0.06 | 5.9 ± 0.07 | 0.0007 |
| Baseline-adjusted ISSI-2 at 20-weeks | 148.2 ± 12.0 | 148.6 ± 11.9 | 171.6 ± 14.4 | 0.36 |
| Baseline-adjusted A1c at 20-weeks (%) | 6.7 ± 0.1 | 6.6 ± 0.09 | 6.6 ± 0.1 | 0.69 |
| (III) Additional outcomes at 8-weeks: | ||||
| Additional beta-cell measures: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted insulinogenic index/HOMA-IR | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 0.92 |
| Baseline-adjusted ΔCpep0-120/Δgluc0-120 × Matsuda | 1117 ± 178 | 930 ± 143 | 1288 ± 204 | 0.34 |
| Baseline-adjusted ΔISR0-120/Δgluc0-120 × Matsuda | 3.8 ± 0.7 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 4.6 ± 0.8 | 0.50 |
| Insulin sensitivity/resistance: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted Matsuda index | 3.1 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 2.4 ± 0.3 | 0.08 |
| Baseline-adjusted HOMA-IR | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 3.6 ± 0.4 | 3.5 ± 0.4 | 0.74 |
| Additional glycemic measures: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted fasting glucose (mmol/l) | 6.0 ± 0.2 | 6.4 ± 0.2 | 5.8 ± 0.2 | 0.16 |
| Baseline-adjusted 2-hr glucose (mmol/l) | 13.1 ± 0.5 | 13.7 ± 0.5 | 12.1 ± 0.5 | 0.045 |
| Anthropometric measures: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted weight (kg) | 93.5 ± 0.4 | 92.7 ± 0.4 | 90.9 ± 0.4 | 0.0001 |
| Baseline-adjusted BMI (kg/m2) | 32.5 ± 0.2 | 32.3 ± 0.1 | 31.6 ± 0.1 | 0.0001 |
| Baseline-adjusted waist circumference (cm) | 106.6 ± 0.7 | 107.5 ± 0.6 | 105.6 ± 0.6 | 0.11 |
| (IV) Additional outcomes at 20-weeks: | ||||
| Additional beta-cell measures: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted insulinogenic index/HOMA-IR | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 0.85 |
| Baseline-adjusted ΔCpep0-120/Δgluc0-120 × Matsuda | 666 ± 133 | 700 ± 135 | 617 ± 127 | 0.90 |
| Baseline-adjusted ΔISR0-120/Δgluc0-120 × Matsuda | 2.8 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.5 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 0.91 |
| Insulin sensitivity/resistance: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted Matsuda index | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 0.43 |
| Baseline-adjusted HOMA-IR | 5.4 ± 0.6 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 0.48 |
| Additional glycemic measures: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted fasting glucose (mmol/l) | 7.6 ± 0.2 | 7.6 ± 0.2 | 7.0 ± 0.2 | 0.14 |
| Baseline-adjusted 2-hr glucose (mmol/l) | 14.9 ± 0.6 | 14.2 ± 0.6 | 14.6 ± 0.6 | 0.63 |
| Anthropometric measures: | ||||
| Baseline-adjusted weight (kg) | 92.3 ± 0.6 | 91.8 ± 0.5 | 90.8 ± 0.5 | 0.15 |
| Baseline-adjusted BMI (kg/m2) | 32.1 ± 0.2 | 31.9 ± 0.2 | 31.6 ± 0.2 | 0.13 |
| Baseline-adjusted waist circumference (cm) | 105.6 ± 0.8 | 106.7 ± 0.8 | 105.0 ± 0.8 | 0.27 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard error.
Fig. 3Changes over time in metabolic variables.
A A1c, B fasting glucose, C Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 (ISSI-2), and D Matsuda index. Data are presented as mean values ± standard error. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to test time-treatment interaction effect during the 8-week intervention. Two-tailed P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (multiple comparisons not considered). Number of participants: Glar n = 33; Glar/Lispro n = 35; Glar/Exen n = 34.
Fig. 4Changes over time in anthropometric variables.
A body mass index (BMI) and B waist circumference. Data are presented as mean values ± standard error. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to test time-treatment interaction effect during the 8-week intervention. Two-tailed P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant (multiple comparisons not considered). Number of participants: Glar n = 33; Glar/Lispro n = 35; Glar/Exen n = 34.
Fig. 5Percentages of participants with A1c ≤ 6.0% and remission of diabetes.
A Percentage of participants in each group with A1c ≤ 6.0% at baseline, 8-weeks and washout, respectively. B Percentage of participants in each group with remission of diabetes after 3-months washout. Chi-square test was used to compare proportions between groups. Two-tailed P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (multiple comparisons not considered). Number of participants: Glar n = 33; Glar/Lispro n = 35; Glar/Exen n = 34.
Incidence and rates of hypoglycemia in the treatment arms, with hypoglycemia assessed at three different thresholds in three ways: (i) number of individuals, (ii) number of events, and (iii) rate per patient-year
| Glargine | Glargine + Lispro | Glargine + Exenatide | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (I) Number of individuals:a | ||||
| Blood glucose <4.0 mmol/l | 15 | 26 | 23 | 0.04 |
| Blood glucose <3.5 mmol/l | 10 | 12 | 6 | 0.27 |
| Blood glucose ≤3.0 mmol/l | 1 | 8 | 5 | 0.06 |
| (II) Number of events:b | ||||
| Blood glucose <4.0 mmol/l | 68 | 158 | 130 | 0.10 |
| Blood glucose <3.5 mmol/l | 21 | 34 | 17 | 0.49 |
| Blood glucose ≤3.0 mmol/l | 3 | 11 | 5 | 0.19 |
| (III) Rate of events per patient-year:c | ||||
| Blood glucose <4.0 mmol/l | 13.7 | 30.6 | 27.6 | 0.14 |
| Blood glucose <3.5 mmol/l | 4.2 | 6.6 | 3.6 | 0.45 |
| Blood glucose ≤3.0 mmol/l | 0.6 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.21 |
aFor comparison of number of individuals, Chi-Square test or Fisher exact test was used to compare proportions.
bFor comparison of number of events, negative binomial regression was used to compare counts between the groups because the event could occur multiple times in some participants and we assumed that each participant has recurrent events according to an individual poisson event rate and that the distribution for the number of events for each participant in the total population follows negative binomial distribution.
cFor comparison of rate per patient-year during the trial, rates were defined as total number of events divided by total weeks of follow-up to account for varying intervals of follow-up[35]. Negative binomial regression with the offset of the amount log(observed time period in years or weeks) was used to account for different lengths of follow-up of participants.