Efficacy and safety profile of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin once daily in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetes drug(s): results from a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority study

Abstract

Background: Exenatide once weekly (QW) is an extended-release formulation of exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that reportedly improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Objective: The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that exenatide QW is noninferior to insulin glargine, as measured by change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to end point (week 26 [primary end point]) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycemic control with oral antidiabetes drugs.

Methods: In this open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority registration study, patients were randomized (1:1) to add exenatide QW (2 mg) or once-daily insulin glargine (starting dose, 4 U) to their current oral antidiabetes drug treatment. The primary analysis was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to end point, evaluated by using a last-observation-carried-forward ANCOVA model, with a predefined noninferiority margin of 0.4%. Secondary analyses (a priori) included analysis of superiority for between-group comparisons of change in weight and the proportion of patients reaching HbA(1c) target levels of ≤7.0% or ≤6.5%.

Results: The baseline characteristics of the exenatide QW (215 patients) and insulin glargine (212 patients) treatment groups were similar: mean (SD) age, 57 (10) years and 56 (11) years, respectively; 66.0% and 69.8% male; mean HbA(1c), 8.5% (0.82%) and 8.5% (0.79%); and mean weight, 69.9 (13.2) kg and 71.0 (13.9) kg. Exenatide QW was statistically noninferior to insulin glargine for the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to end point (least squares mean difference, -0.43% [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.26]; P < 0.001), with the 95% CI upper limit less than the predefined noninferiority margin (0.4%). A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving exenatide QW compared with insulin glargine achieved HbA(1c) target levels of ≤7.0% (89 of 211 [42.2%] vs 44 of 210 [21.0%]) or ≤6.5% (44 of 214 [20.6%] vs 9 of 212 [4.2%]) at end point (P < 0.001 for both). Patient weight was reduced with exenatide QW compared with insulin glargine at end point (least squares mean difference, -2.01 kg [95% CI, -2.46 to -1.56]; P < 0.001). Exenatide QW was well tolerated, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine but a higher incidence of injection-site induration.

Conclusions: Exenatide QW was statistically noninferior to insulin glargine for the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to end point; these results suggest that exenatide QW may provide an effective alternative treatment for Japanese patients who require additional therapy to control their diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00935532.