Disclosure No conflict of interest to disclose. New Drugs for - - PDF document

disclosure
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Disclosure No conflict of interest to disclose. New Drugs for - - PDF document

Disclosure No conflict of interest to disclose. New Drugs for Diabetes: Which Ones, Which Patients? Lisa Kroon, PharmD, CDE Chair and Professor of Clinical Pharmacy UCSF School of Pharmacy Diabetes: U.S. Impact Learning Objectives 1 in 7


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1 | [footer text here]

New Drugs for Diabetes: Which Ones, Which Patients?

Lisa Kroon, PharmD, CDE Chair and Professor of Clinical Pharmacy UCSF School of Pharmacy

No conflict of interest to disclose.

Disclosure

§ Describe the 2018 American Diabetes Association’s pharmacologic

approaches to glycemic treatment

§ Describe the mechanism of action(s) and unique characteristics of the

various (new) classes of medications used in type 2 diabetes that are recommended as add-on therapy to metformin.

§ Discuss contraindications/warnings/precautions for use and side

effect profiles of these medications.

§ Select among the classes of medications to develop appropriate and

effective medication regimens to improve glycemic control for an individual patient.

Learning Objectives Diabetes: U.S. Impact 1 in 7 Americans has Diabetes

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db319.pdf (Sept. 2018; NHANES 2013-2016)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2 | [footer text here]

Diabetes Prevalence by Race and Hispanic Origin

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db319.pdf (Sept. 2018; NHANES 2013-2016)

Diabetes Prevalence by Weight

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db319.pdf (Sept. 2018; NHANES 2013-2016)

Diabetes-Related Complications among U.S. Adults with and without Diagnosed Diabetes (1990–2010)

Gregg EW et al. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1514-1523.

DCCT: Cumulative Incidence of First Occurrence of Nonfatal Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, or Death from Cardiovascular Disease

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643-2653.

57% ↓ risk

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3 | [footer text here] UKPDS-10 year Follow-Up: Glucose Control

3,277 patients (of 4,209) entered post-trial monitoring; seen annually for 5 years Mean A1C: Difference between conventional and control groups lost within 1 year after study ended

Holman RR et al. NEJM 2008;359:1577 [UKPDS 80]

Outcome SFU and Insulin Groups Relative Risk (p-value) Metformin Group Relative Risk (p-value) Any DM-related endpoint ↓ 9% (0.04) ↓ 21% (0.01) MI ↓15% (0.01)

↓ 33% (0.005)

Microvascular disease ↓ 24% (0.001) ↓ 16% (0.31) Death from any cause ↓13% (0.007) ↓ 27% (0.002)

Holman RR et al. NEJM 2008;359:1577 [UKPDS 80] Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Montori RM. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2016. 9(5):504-12.

“Legacy Effect” Across studies to date, tight glycemic control consistently ↓ RR of nonfatal MI by 15%.

UKPDS-10 year Follow-Up: Clinical Outcomes

§ Insulin (human and analogs) § Sulfonylureas (1950’s) § Biguanides (metformin 12/94) § Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (Acarbose 9/95) § Meglitinides (Repaglinide 12/97; Nateglinide 12/00) § Thiazolidinediones (Rosiglitazone 5/99; Pioglitazone 7/99)

Medication Treatment Options To 2000

§ Amylin (pramlintide) § Glucagon-like peptide receptors agonists (GLP-1 RAs) § Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) § Bile acid sequestrants (colesevelam) § Dopamine agonist (bromocriptine) § Sodium-glucose cotransporter- 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2

inhibitors)

Medication Treatment Options Since 2005

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4 | [footer text here] Type 2 Diabetes Drug Utilization 2006-2013

Lipska KJ et al. Diabetes Care 2017;40:468-475.

§

Brand medications $300-$450+ monthly

§

Recent price increases

  • Glutmetza (metformin XL MOD)

§

For 1000 mg pill: $133.60

§

For generic metformin ER pill: $1.50

§

For generic metformin IR pill: $0.08-$1.45

  • Insulins: Humulin U-500 vial $220 to $1,200

(6/2014) §

Generic availabilities ($4 generics)

Glycemic Control Among T2DM Patients, 2006–2013

Kasia J. Lipska et al. Diabetes Care 2017;40:468-475.

STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE IN DIABETES

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 1): S73-S85

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5 | [footer text here]

§ Metformin, if not contraindicated and if tolerated, is the preferred

initial pharmacologic agent for T2DM. A

§ Consider insulin therapy (with or without additional agents) in patients

with newly dx’d T2DM who are markedly symptomatic* and/or have elevated blood glucose levels (>300 mg/dL) or A1C (>10%). E *Symptomatic: 3 P’s (polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia), fatigue, and weight loss

§ Consider initiating dual therapy in patients with newly diagnosed

T2DM who have A1C >9%. E

Recommendations: Pharmacologic Therapy For T2 Diabetes

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 1): S73-S85

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6 | [footer text here]

§

Long-term use of metformin may be associated with biochemical vitamin B12 deficiency, and periodic measurement of vitamin B12 levels should be considered in metformin-treated patients, especially in those with anemia or peripheral neuropathy. B

§

In patients without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), if monotherapy or dual therapy does not achieve or maintain the A1C goal over 3 months, add an additional antihyperglycemic agent based on drug-specific and patient factors (Table 8.1). A

§

A patient-centered approach should be used to guide the choice of pharmacologic

  • agents. Considerations include efficacy, hypoglycemia risk, history of ASCVD, impact
  • n weight, potential side effects, renal effects, delivery method, cost, and patient
  • preferences. E

Pharmacologic Therapy For T2DM, cont’d

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 1): S73-S85

§

In patients with T2DM and established ASCVD, antihyperglycemic therapy should begin with lifestyle management and metformin and subsequently incorporate an agent proven to reduce major adverse CV events and CV mortality (currently empagliflozin and liraglutide), after considering drug-specific and patient factors (Table 8.1). A

§

In patients with T2DM and established ASCVD, after lifestyle management and metformin, the antihyperglycemic agent canagliflozin may be considered to reduce major adverse CV events, based on drug-specific and patient factors (Table 8.1). C

Pharmacologic Therapy For T2DM, cont’d

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 1): S73-S85

§

Continuous reevaluation of the medication regimen and adjustment as needed to incorporate patient factors (Table 8.1) and regimen complexity is recommended. E

§

For patients with T2DM who are not achieving glycemic goals, drug intensification, including consideration of insulin therapy, should not be delayed. B

§

Metformin should be continued when used in combination with other agents, including insulin, if not contraindicated and if tolerated. A

Pharmacologic Therapy For T2DM, cont’d

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 1): S73-S85

Glycemic Goals

üHbA1c < 7.0% (mean PG 154 mg/dl) üPre-prandial PG 80-130 mg/dl üPost-prandial PG <180 mg/dl üIndividualization is key:

Ø More stringent A1C goals (<6.5%) – short duration of

diabetes, long life expectancy, no significant CVD.

Ø Less stringent A1C goals (<8.0%) – long-standing diabetes,

limited life expectancy, advanced micro/macro complications, comorbidities, hypoglycemia prone, etc.

Avoidance of hypoglycemia

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Glycemic Targets. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl 1): S55-S64.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7 | [footer text here] Tailored Approach to the Management of Hyperglycemia

American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Glycemic Targets. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl 1): S55-S64.

low high newly diagnosed long-standing long short absent severe Few/mild absent severe Few/mild

highly motivated, adherent, excellent self-care capabilities

readily available limited

less motivated, nonadherent, poor self-care capabilities

A1C 7% more stringent less stringent

Patient/Disease Features

Risk of hypoglycemia/drug adverse effects Disease Duration Life expectancy Important comorbidities Established vascular complications Patient attitude & expected treatment efforts Resources & support system

Why Metformin as 1st Line?

§ Demonstrated long-term impact on macrovasular

complications

§ Stimulates AMP-activated protein kinase, which ¯ hepatic

glucose output

  • Inhibits mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing shift towards

anaerobic metabolism (lactate is by-product) resulting in ¯ energy for gluconeogenesis

§ +CV effects: ¯ TG, ¯ LDL-C, ­ HDL-C; improves endothelial function § Other effects: anticancer properties? § SE: GI (diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, metallic taste) § No weight gain; no hypoglycemia (except when used in

combo therapy); affordable

FDA Revised Metformin Warnings for Patients with Reduced Kidney Function

eGFR Recommendation <30 ml/min Metformin is contraindicated 30-45 ml/min Starting metformin is not recommended After on metformin, if <45 ml/min Assess benefits and risks After on metformin, if <30 ml/min Discontinue

¨ Before initiation, check eGFR ¨ Check eGFR annually; check more frequently in elderly

  • FDA. 04.08.16

Metformin in Renal Dysfunction

§

Incidence of lactic acidosis among metformin users is 3 to 10/100,000 person-years (almost indistinguishable from rate in people with diabetes not on metformin)

Inzucchi SE. JAMA, 2014;314:2668-75.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8 | [footer text here]

Case Study

§ RA, a 52 year old male, was diagnosed with type 2

diabetes 3 years ago. A1C at diagnosis was 8.1%. He was started on metformin 500 mg BID and titrated to 1000 mg BID over 3 months. A1C lowered to 6.9%. Since then, his A1C has increased to 8.3%. Other medical problems include hypertension (on HCTZ 25 mg daily, benazepril 40 mg daily) and dyslipidemia (on atorvastatin 40 mg daily). No history of CVD.

Ø What is your assessment of his glycemic control? Is he at goal? Ø eGFR 80;LFT’s wnl; BMI 28

Advancing to Combination Therapy:

Combine Agents with Different MOA

Advancing to Combination Therapy:

Combine Agents with Different MOA

Eur Heart J. 2015;36(34):2288-2296. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv239

Individualizing Care

1.

Set A1C target

ü Patient factors ü Provider considerations 2.

Assess how close patient is to target

ü Why or why not? ü Changes since last visit (improve/worsen/same) ü Assess adherence, medication SEs, lifestyle (exercise, meals); psychosocial factors 3.

Create a patient-specific plan to reach target

ü Is patient on submax/therapeutic dose of particular medication? Titrate ü Is patient on max/therapeutic dose of medication? Add-on? Insulin? Adapted from Anne Peters, MD. February 9, 2014

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9 | [footer text here]

Individualizing Care, cont’d

  • 4. Goal setting

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/weight-loss/getting-started/your-weight-loss-plan.html

Individualizing Care, cont’d

  • 5. Summarize plans from visit

ü Teach back ü Handouts (EMR tools)

  • 6. Follow-up

ü Continual guidance/support

http://guidelines.diabetes.ca/self-management/sme-action-plan

Actions of GLP-1

Flint A, et al. J Clin Invest. 1998;101:515-520; Data from Larsson H, et al. Acta Physiol Scand. 1997;160:413-422 Nauck MA, et al. Diabetologia. 1996;39:1546-1553; Data from Drucker DJ. Diabetes. 1998;47:159-169 Stomach:

Slows gastric emptying

Promotes satiety and inhibits appetite Liver:

¯ Glucagon reduces hepatic glucose output

Beta cells:

  • Enhances glucose-dependent

insulin secretion

  • ­Beta cell mass
  • ¯ apoptosis

Alpha cells:

¯ Postprandial glucagon secretion

GLP-1: Secreted upon the ingestion of food Plasma GLP-1 Plasma Exenatide

Postprandial Plasma Levels GLP-1 RAs versus DPP- 4 Inhibitors

Patients with T2D; Evaluable population, n = 61 for all treatment groups; Mean ± SE 2-wk post-treatment concentration data; DeFronzo RA, et al. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24:2943-2952

Baseline Exenatide Sitagliptin 2-h Postprandial Plasma GLP-1 (pM) 2-h Plasma Exenatide (pM) 25 50 75 25 50 75 7.2 7.9 15.1 63.8

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10 | [footer text here]

GLP-1 RAs: Comparisons

Exenatide (Byetta) Liraglutide (Victoza) Lixisenatide (Adlyxin) Exenatide XR (Bydureon BCise) Dulaglutide (Trulicity) Semiglutide (Ozempic)

FDA Approved 2005 2010 2016 2012 2014 2017 Glucose profile target PPG FPG/PPG PPG FPG>PPG FPG>PPG FPG>PPG Admin Twice daily Once daily Once daily Once weekly Once weekly Once weekly Renal dosing <30 not rec; 30-50 use caution No dosage adjustment No dosage adjustment <30 not rec; 30-50 use caution No dosage adjustment No dosage adjustment

Trujillo J. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2015;6:19-28.

Comparison of GLP-1 RAs (A1C) Comparison of GLP-1 RAs (Weight)

Trujillo J. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2015;6:19-28.

While nausea declines after 3 weeks, it persists in some patients.

Pratley R et al. Int J Clin Pract 2011;65:397-407

GLP-1 RAs: Nausea

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 | [footer text here]

DPP-4 Inhibitors: Comparisons

Sitagliptin (Januvia) Saxagliptin (Onglyza) Linagliptin (Tradjenta) Alogliptin (Nesina)

FDA Approved 2006 2009 2011 2013 Dosing frequency 100 mg daily 5 mg daily 5 mg daily 25 mg daily Efficacy (↓ A1C) monotherapy ↓ 0.6% ↓ 0.7% ↓ 0.4% ↓ 0.8% Efficacy (↓ A1C) combination therapy ↓ 0.7% ↓ 1.2% ↓ 0.7% ↓ 0.9% Renal dosing (ml/min) 50 mg daily (30-50) 25 mg (<30) 2.5 mg daily (<50)* No dosage adjustment 12.5 mg (30-60) 6.25 mg (<30)

Baetta R. Drugs 2011;71:1441-67.

* Also DDI with CYP3A4/5

§

Risk of pancreatitis difficult to determine due to:

  • Extremely low event rate
  • Type 2 DM associated with 3-fold increased risk

§

Incidence of acute pancreatitis in liraglutide RCTs (n=18) was 1.6 cases/1000 PYE vs. 0.7 cases/1000 PYE for active comparators. Jensen T.

Diabetes Care. 2015:1058-66

§

Population-based cohort study to assess risk of acute pancreatitis with DDP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs: pool adjusted HR of 1.03 compared with current use of 2 other DM drugs. Azoulay L et al. JAMA Intern Med. Published online

August 01, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1522

§

Avoid if history of pancreatitis, gallstones, alcoholism, hypertriglyceridemia

§

Patient education: abdominal pain (persistent, severe, radiating to back, N/V, anorexia) to contact provider

Incretin Therapy and Pancreatitis

GLP -1 RAs vs. DPP-4 Inhibitors (not head-to-head)

Aroda VR et al. Clinical Therapeutics. 2012

SGLT-2 inhibitors

§

SGLT-2 inhibitor class: inhibit sodium glucose cotransporter-2 in proximal tubules, where ~90% of glucose filtered through nephron is reabsorbed

Chao EC. Nat Rev Drug Disc. 2010; 551-9.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 | [footer text here]

SGLT-2 Inhibitors: Comparisons

Canagliflozin (Invokana) Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) Empagliflozin (Jardiance)

FDA Approved 2013 2014 2014 Dosing frequency 100-300 mg daily 5-10 mg daily 10-25 mg daily Efficacy (↓ A1C) monotherapy ↓ 0.77-1.03% ↓ 0.8-0.9% ↓ 0.7-0.8% Efficacy (↓ A1C) combination therapy ↓ 0.79-0.94% ↓ 0.7-0.8% ↓ 0.7-0.8% Weight lowering (kg)

  • 2.3 to -4.0
  • 3.22
  • 2.4 to -2.8

Renal dosing 45-59: 100 mg max Do not use <45 Do not use <60 Do not use <45

Heerspink H et al. J Am Soc Nephrol 28: 2016. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016030278

SGLT-2 Inhibitors: Safety Issues

§ Side effects

  • Common side effects: genital fungal infections and UTIs (due to increased

glucose in urine)

  • Increased risk of dehydration, hypovolemia, hypotension, dizziness in 1st few

months (diuretic effect) § Warnings & Precautions

  • Hypotension
  • Urosepsis and pyelonephritis
  • Acute kidney injury and impairment of renal function (and hyperkalemia)
  • Bone fracture risk/decreased bone density (canagliflozin)
  • Do not use in patients with active bladder cancer and use with caution if

history of bladder cancer (dapaglifozin)

  • Risk of lower-limb amputations (canagliflozin)

SGLT-2 Inhibitors: Safety Issues, cont’d

§

Euglycemic DKA: FDA safety alert (05.15.15, 20 reports); updated 12.04.15: 73 case reports

§

Potential triggers include intercurrent illness, reduced food and fluid intake, reduced insulin doses and history of alcohol intake; use in T1 DM/LADA (insulin deficiency)

§

“Artificially” lowers plasma glucose

§

Patients who develop N/V, malaise, SOB on SGLT-2 should evaluate urine/blood ketones even if BG normal

§

Stop prior to surgery; consider ½ dose

§

Seeking T1DM indication

Rosenstock J. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:1638-42. Peters A. Diabetes Care. DOI:10.2337/dc15-0843

T2DM Medications CVOTs

William T. Cefalu et al. Dia Care 2018;41:14-31.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 | [footer text here]

§ FDA issued guidance for new DM medication studies to ensure

no unacceptable CV risk (rosiglitazone, ACCORD trial with intense glucose lowering)

§ Expectations

  • Phase 2 & 3 trials include patients at higher CV risk; sufficient size
  • Independent adjudication of CV events
  • Meta-analysis performed
  • Premarketing data comparing CV events with upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI of

estimated RR <1.8; if not, then separate, large CV trial

  • If 95% CI 1.3-1.8, then postmarketing trial (or continuation of premarketing trial) to

demonstrate RR <1.3

2008 FDA Guidance on CVOTs

§ 3-point MACE (CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal storke) § 4-point MACE (added hospitalization for unstable angina) § 5-point MACE (hospitalization for angina or HF) § Studies: different populations (e.g., % primary versus

secondary prevention), different sites, different protocols

Ø “Big data” set analysis; RWE studies

CVOTs: CV Outcomes

Cefalu WT et al. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41:14-31.

EMPA-REG: Empagliflozin-Type 2 DM at high CV Risk (83% with established CVD);

Primary outcome: 3-pt MACE (CV death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke) FDA indication: “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease”

Zinman B et al. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2117-2128.

↓38% ↓14% ↓35% ↓32%

NNT to prevent 1 death in 3 years = 39

NNT 63 over 3.1 years

LEADER: Liraglutide

Type 2 DM at high CV Risk (83% with established CVD) Primary outcome: 3-pt MACE (CV death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke) FDA indication: “to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease”

Marso SP et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311-322. Death from any cause ↓15%

NNT 53 over 3.8 years

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14 | [footer text here]

SUSTAIN-6: Semaglutide

Type 2 DM at high CV Risk (83% with established CVD) Primary outcome: 3-pt MACE (CV death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke)

Marso SP et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1834-1844.

NNT 44 over 2 years

CANVAS Program: Canagliflozin

Type 2 DM at high CV Risk (66% with established CVD) Primary outcome: 3-pt MACE (CV death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke); progression of albuminuria

Neal B et al. N Engl J Med 2017;377:644-657.

Pioglitazone: CVD risk & other ADEs

§

PROactive study (secondary prevention): Pioglitazone does not appear to have MI risk, however does increase risk for heart failure (11% vs 8%)

Dormandy JA et al. Lancet. 2005;366; 1279-89.

Secondary endpoint: All-cause mortality, MI, stroke 16% RR ↓

§

Observational study suggested rosi has HR for heart failure of 1.25 compared to pioglitazone in an elderly population (Graham DJ et al. JAMA 2010;304)

§

Should not be used if active bladder cancer

§

Reduced risk of stroke in non-DM patients with insulin resistance as secondary prevention. Kernan WN et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1321-1331 § What 2nd agent would you add?

  • SFU
  • DPP-4 inhibitor
  • GLP-1 RA
  • SGLT-2 inhibitor
  • TZD
  • Insulin

§ How would you modify his therapy if…he developed renal

dysfunction; was obese; had severe liver dysfunction; had

  • steopenia/osteoporosis; had CVD; was elderly with history of an

MI; A1C was 10.1% on metformin only? Or was on 2 (or 3) non- insulin therapies?

Case Study, cont’d

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15 | [footer text here]

Individualizing Therapy: Examples

Circumstance Avoid Consider Renal dysfunction Metformin, certain SFUs Glipizide, glinides, DPP-4 inhibitors (dose adjust some) Severe liver dysfunction Most agents Insulin, caution with others Overweight/obese TZD Metformin, GLP-1 RAs, SGLT-2 inhibitors; DPP-4 inhibitors Heart failure TZD, metformin (only unstable/severe), alogliptin, saxagliptin Most other agents Reduced bone density or

  • steoporosis

TZD, Canagliflozin Most other agents History of pancreatitis GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4 inhibitors Most other agents History of bladder cancer Dapagliflozin; pioglitazone Most other agents Pre-existing edema TZD Most other agents Joint pain DPP-4 inhibitors Most other agents

Questions

Lisa.Kroon@ucsf.edu Thank you!