Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease to the addition of once-weekly subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30 mg to 50 mg) or matching placebo to standard care. We hypothesized that albiglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. If noninferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.30, closed-testing for superiority was prespecified. Findings: Overall, 9463 participants were followed for a median of 1.6 years. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 of 4731 patients (7.1%; 4.6 events per 100 person-years) in the albiglutide group and in 428 of 4732 patients (9.0%; 5.9 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI ], 0.68 to 0.90), indicating that albiglutide, was superior to placebo (P<0.0001 for noninferiority, P=0.0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (albiglutide 10 patients and placebo 7 patients), pancreatic cancer (6 and 5), medullary thyroid carcinoma (0 and 0), and other serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Harmony Outcomes ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02465515.) noninferiority; P = 0.06 for superiority). There seems to be variation in the results of existing trials with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which if correct, might reflect drug structure or duration of action, patients studied, duration of follow-up or other factors.
OBJECTIVETo 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 METHODSIn 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.RESULTSDose-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.CONCLUSIONSWeekly albiglutide administration significantly improved glycemic control and elicited weight loss in type 2 diabetic patients, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.