Dataset Information

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy among T2DM patients with different body mass indices from GetGoal trials.

ABSTRACT: Using patient data from the GetGoal-Duo1, -L, and L-Asia trials, the objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the impact of lixisenatide once-daily add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy ±oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) among type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients subdivided into groups, based on their baseline body mass indices (BMI).Data of patients treated with lixisenatide were extracted from the modified intent-to-treat populations of the trials. Patients were subdivided into 4 groups based on baseline BMI category (BMIs <25, 25-<30, 30-<35, and ?35 kg/m(2)). At the unadjusted data level, efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated and compared among study cohorts. Additionally, multivariable regression analyses were used to specify key patient characteristics and then assess the adjusted outcomes.Of the 662 T2DM patients, the mean changes in HbA1c (-0.63 to -0.73 %, p = 0.88) and FPG levels (-3.9 to 3.2 mg/dL, p = 0.60) were not significantly different among the different BMI groups. The proportions of T2DM patients that achieved HbA1c <7 % ranged between 34.7 and 46.8 %. After adjusted for patient characteristics, T2DM patients in the lowest BMI group relative to those in the highest BMI group had a smaller reduction in HbA1c during the trial periods (difference: 0.32 %, confidence interval: 0.10, 0.53, p = 0.005) and were less likely to achieve HbA1c <7 %.The findings of this analysis of the GetGoal clinical trials suggest that lixisenatide may be a good treatment option for optimizing glycemic control in patients unable to achieve their HbA1c target on basal insulin therapy ±OADs, regardless of BMI category.

SUBMITTER: Eto K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4654794 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy among T2DM patients with different body mass indices from GetGoal trials.

Eto Kazuhiro K Naito Yusuke Y Seino Yutaka Y

Diabetology & metabolic syndrome 20151121

<h4>Background</h4>Using patient data from the GetGoal-Duo1, -L, and L-Asia trials, the objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the impact of lixisenatide once-daily add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy ±oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) among type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients subdivided into groups, based on their baseline body mass indices (BMI).<h4>Methods</h4>Data of patients treated with lixisenatide were extracted from the modified intent-to-treat populations of the trials. P ...[more]

PMID: 26594250

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of add-on lixisenatide by disease duration in Asian people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with basal insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs.MethodsData for Asian participants in the GetGoal-Duo 1, GetGoal-L, and GetGoal-L-C studies were pooled and categorized by diabetes duration: < 10 years (group 1), 10 to < 15 years (group 2), and ≥ 15 years (group 3). Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide versus placebo were evaluated by subgroup. The potential influence of diabetes duration on efficacy was examined using multivariable regression analyses.ResultsA total of 555 participants were included (mean age 53.9 years, 52.4% male). No significant differences in treatment effect between the duration subgroups were observed for the changes from baseline to 24 weeks in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial glucose (PPG), PPG excursion, body weight or body mass index, or the proportion of participants with HbA1c < 7% at 24 weeks (all P values for interaction > 0.1). Change in insulin dosage (U/day) was significantly different between subgroups (P = 0.038). Multivariable regression analysis showed participants in group 1 had a smaller change in body weight and basal insulin dose over the 24-week treatment period than participants in group 3 (P = 0.014 and 0.030, respectively) and were less likely to achieve an HbA1c < 7% than participants in group 2 (P = 0.047). No severe hypoglycemia was reported. A higher proportion of participants in group 3 versus the other groups had symptomatic hypoglycemia, for both lixisenatide and placebo, and T2D duration had a significant effect on hypoglycemia risk (P = 0.001).ConclusionsLixisenatide improved glycemic control in Asian individuals regardless of diabetes duration, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Individuals with longer disease duration had a greater risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia than individuals with shorter disease duration regardless of treatment. No additional safety concerns were observed.Clinical trial registrationGetGoal-Duo 1, ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00975286; GetGoal-L, ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00715624; GetGoal-L-C, ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT01632163.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both added to basal insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.MethodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics cohort model for T2D was used to compare liraglutide and lixisenatide (both added to basal insulin), with a societal perspective and with comparative treatment effects derived by indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Drug prices were 2016 values, and all other costs 2015 values. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin was also assessed, under different sets of assumptions.ResultsFrom the ITC, decreases in HbA1c were -1.32% and -0.43% with liraglutide and lixisenatide, respectively; decreases in BMI were -1.29 and -0.65 kg/m2, respectively. An estimated 2348 cases of retinopathy, 265 of neuropathy and 991 of nephropathy would be avoided with liraglutide compared with lixisenatide in a cohort of 10,000 patients aged over 40 years. In the base-case analysis, total direct costs were higher with liraglutide than lixisenatide, but costs associated with complications were lower. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for liraglutide added to basal insulin was SEK30,802. Base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses, except when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) differences for liraglutide added to basal insulin were abolished, suggesting these benefits were driving the cost/QALY. With liraglutide 1.2 mg instead of liraglutide 1.8 mg (adjusted for efficacy and cost), liraglutide added to basal insulin was dominant over lixisenatide 20μg.IDegLira was dominant versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin when a defined daily dose was used in the model.ConclusionsThe costs/QALY for liraglutide, 1.8 or 1.2 mg, added to basal insulin, and for IDegLira (all compared with lixisenatide 20 μg added to basal insulin) were below the threshold considered low by Swedish authorities. In some scenarios, liraglutide and IDegLira were cost-saving.

Project description:BackgroundAberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway is a key driver in the pathogenesis of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), including patients with BCC nevus syndrome (BCCNS). It is unclear whether BCCs arising in patients with BCCNS respond differently to vismodegib than in patients without BCCNS. We examined the best overall response rate (BORR) and adverse events (AEs) of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC (aBCC) with and without BCCNS.MethodsPatients were treated with vismodegib 150 mg/day in the ERIVANCE BCC trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00833417) and the expanded access study (EAS; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01160250). BCCNS diagnosis was based on medical history at the time of enrollment. Metastatic BCC response was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.0 (RECIST v1.0) in both studies. Locally advanced BCC was evaluated by a novel composite end point in ERIVANCE BCC and by RECIST v1.0 in the EAS. Response assessments were performed every 8 weeks in ERIVANCE BCC and every 8-16 weeks in the EAS. Safety assessments (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) were performed monthly in both trials. Because of described differences in response assessment/schedule, patients with BCCNS were not pooled across trials. Analytic cohorts for BCCNS and sporadic aBCC were created within each trial for comparison using descriptive statistical methods.ResultsForty-one patients with BCCNS were included in the study: 22 from ERIVANCE BCC and 19 from the EAS. Investigator-assessed BORR in BCCNS groups ranged from 31 to 81 % in patients with locally advanced BCC (n = 33) and was 50 % in patients with metastatic BCC (n = 6). These results were comparable with the non-BCCNS groups. Incidence and severity of AEs were also comparable between the BCCNS and non-BCCNS groups. Amenorrhea was observed in both patient cohorts and was reversible in two patients who discontinued treatment.ConclusionVismodegib demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety against aBCC in patients with and without BCCNS.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy among T2DM patients with different body mass indices from GetGoal trials.

Publications

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide add-on treatment to basal insulin therapy among T2DM patients with different body mass indices from GetGoal trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets