Abstract

AimAssess the pharmacodynamics of lixisenatide once daily (QD) versus liraglutide QD in type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on metformin.MethodsIn this 28-day, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre study (NCT01175473), patients (mean HbA1c 7.3%) received subcutaneous lixisenatide QD (10 µg weeks 1–2, then 20 µg; n = 77) or liraglutide QD (0.6 mg week 1, 1.2 mg week 2, then 1.8 mg; n = 71) 30 min before breakfast. Primary endpoint was change in postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) exposure from baseline to day 28 during a breakfast test meal.ResultsLixisenatide reduced PPG significantly more than liraglutide [mean change in AUC0:30–4:30h: −12.6 vs. −4.0 h·mmol/L, respectively; p < 0.0001 (0:30 h = start of meal)]. Change in maximum PPG excursion was −3.9 mmol/l vs. −1.4 mmol/l, respectively (p < 0.0001). More lixisenatide-treated patients achieved 2-h PPG <7.8 mmol/l (69% vs. 29%). Changes in fasting plasma glucose were greater with liraglutide (−0.3 vs. −1.3 mmol/l, p < 0.0001). Lixisenatide provided greater decreases in postprandial glucagon (p < 0.05), insulin (p < 0.0001) and C-peptide (p < 0.0001). Mean HbA1c decreased in both treatment groups (from 7.2% to 6.9% with lixisenatide vs. 7.4% to 6.9% with liraglutide) as did body weight (−1.6 kg vs. −2.4 kg, respectively). Overall incidence of adverse events was lower with lixisenatide (55%) versus liraglutide (65%), with no serious events or hypoglycaemia reported.ConclusionsOnce daily prebreakfast lixisenatide provided a significantly greater reduction in PPG (AUC) during a morning test meal versus prebreakfast liraglutide. Lixisenatide provided significant decreases in postprandial insulin, C-peptide (vs. an increase with liraglutide) and glucagon, and better gastrointestinal tolerability than liraglutide.

Highlights

  • Loss of postprandial glycaemic control appears to be the first step in the evolution of deteriorating glucose homeostasis in type 2 diabetes, followed by deterioration of glycaemic control during the prebreakfast and postbreakfast periods, in particular [1]

  • 28 days of treatment with lixisenatide once daily provided significantly better postprandial glucose (PPG) control during a standardized solid breakfast meal test compared with liraglutide (−129% vs. −41% change in glucose AUC0:30–4:30h, respectively)

  • The PPGlowering effect of lixisenatide was associated with significantly greater reductions in postprandial insulin, C-peptide and glucagon compared with liraglutide

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Loss of postprandial glycaemic control appears to be the first step in the evolution of deteriorating glucose homeostasis in type 2 diabetes, followed by deterioration of glycaemic control during the prebreakfast and postbreakfast periods, in particular [1]. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists provide significant improvements in HbA1c, and this class of drugs may help to decrease the risk of hypoglycaemia and promote weight loss [8]. They have widely differing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles [9,10,11,12,13], and the available evidence suggests that individual GLP-1 receptor agonists differ in their ability to target PPG throughout the day when administered using typical dosing regimens [14,15,16]. Shorter-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (such as lixisenatide) appear to have a marked effect on PPG levels, which is DIABETES, OBESITY AND METABOLISM original article likely due to substantial slowing of gastric emptying, whereas longer-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (such as liraglutide) appear to affect mainly fasting glucose and do not have any notable effect on gastric emptying in the long term [14,17]

Objectives
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.