SGLT inhibitors in management of diabetes

The two main sodium-glucose cotransporters (SGLTs), SGLT1 and SGLT2, provide new therapeutic targets to reduce hyperglycaemia in patients with diabetes. SGLT1 enables the small intestine to absorb glucose and contributes to the reabsorption of glucose filtered by the kidney. SGLT2 is responsible for reabsorption of most of the glucose filtered by the kidney. Inhibitors with varying specificities for these transporters (eg, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, and empagliflozin) can slow the rate of intestinal glucose absorption and increase the renal elimination of glucose into the urine. Results of randomised clinical trials have shown the blood glucose-lowering efficacy of SGLT inhibitors in type 2 diabetes when administered as monotherapy or in addition to other glucose-lowering therapies including insulin. Increased renal glucose elimination also assists weight loss and could help to reduce blood pressure. Effective SGLT2 inhibition needs adequate glomerular filtration and might increase risk of urinary tract and genital infection, and excessive inhibition of SGLT1 can cause gastro-intestinal symptoms. However, the insulin-independent mechanism of action of SGLT inhibitors seems to offer durable glucose-lowering efficacy with low risk of clinically significant hypoglycaemia at any stage in the natural history of type 2 diabetes. SGLT inhibition might also be considered in conjunction with insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Zonisamide as a treatment for partial epileptic seizures:A systematic review

Although the majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with pharmacotherapy, up to one-third of patients can develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those patients with partial seizures. This unmet need has driven considerable efforts over the last few decades aimed at developing and testing newer antiepileptic agents to improve seizure control. One of the most promising antiepileptic drugs of the new generation is zonisamide, a benzisoxazole derivative chemically unrelated to other anticonvulsant agents. In this article, the authors present the results of a systematic literature review summarizing the current evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide for the treatment of partial seizures. Of particular interest within this updated review are the recent data on the use of zonisamide as monotherapy, as they might open new therapeutic avenues. © 2014 Springer Healthcare.

Efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections (SGA LAIs) in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder:protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder requires long-term treatment but non-adherence is a common problem. Antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) have been suggested to improve adherence but none are licensed in the UK for bipolar. However, the use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) LAIs in bipolar is not uncommon albeit there is a lack of systematic review in this area. This study aims to systematically review safety and efficacy of SGA LAIs in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and will include only randomised controlled trials comparing SGA LAIs in bipolar. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PsychINFO, LiLACS, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov will be searched, with no language restriction, from 2000 to January 2016 as first SGA LAIs came to the market after 2000. Manufacturers of SGA LAIs will also be contacted. Primary efficacy outcome is relapse rate or delayed time to relapse or reduction in hospitalisation and primary safety outcomes are drop-out rates, all-cause discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events. Qualitative reporting of evidence will be based on 21 items listed on standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) focusing on study quality (assessed using the Jadad score, allocation concealment and data analysis), risk of bias and effect size. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots. If sufficient data are available meta-analysis will be performed with primary effect size as relative risk presented with 95% CI. Sensitivity analysis, conditional on number of studies and sample size, will be carried out on manic versus depressive symptoms and monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy.

Memantine combined with an acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor:hope for the future?

Background:Memantine and cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) have distinct pharmacological actions, and interest in the use of combination therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasing. Objective: To assess the available data on the use of memantine–ChEI combination and to develop evidence-based recommendations.Method: A systematic literature review with detailed discussion of the current evidence base. Results: Available data are limited: five studies of which two were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. One study indicated that memantine–ChEI combination is not significantly more effective than placebo–ChEI in mild to moderate AD, but data were published in abstract and poster form only. A second study indicated that the memantine–ChEI combination is significantly more effective than placebo–ChEI in moderate to severe AD. The calculated effect sizes of 0.36 on cognition and 0.12 on function, which were the primary outcomes, were small, indicating a clinically minimal effect on cognition and no effect on function. No data are available on whether combination treatment is more effective than memantine monotherapy. Conclusion: The available data do not justify the use of combination therapy. Future studies should include three arms (memantine–placebo, placebo–ChEI, and memantine–ChEI), be of an adequate size and duration, and use pragmatic measures. Clinicians should have full access to data from any future trials.

Inhaled human insulin (Exubera®):clinical profile and patient considerations

Inhaled human insulin (Exubera®) is a rapid-acting regular human insulin administered by oral inhalation before meals. It provides a non-invasive alternative to multiple subcutaneous injections for the treatment of hyperglycemia in adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Compared with subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogs, Exubera provides equivalent HbA1c control. As a monotherapy or in combination with oral agents, Exubera also provides greater glycemic control than oral agents alone, at least in patients with high levels of HbA1c. Exubera demonstrates improved patient satisfaction compared with subcutaneous insulin or oral agents alone. When offered as a treatment option together with standard treatments in uncontrolled patients naive to insulin, Exubera increases acceptance of insulin therapy three-fold compared with patients offered standard regimens only. Exubera is well tolerated in comparison to subcutaneous insulin, with a similar incidence of mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Although cough is a common adverse effect early in therapy, this leads to treatment discontinuations in less than 1% of patients. Despite an increased incidence of insulin antibodies compared with subcutaneous administration, and a consistent but minor impact on pulmonary function, long-term safety data of up to 4 years continue to support the safety profile of Exubera.

Pronounced reduction of postprandial glucagon by lixisenatide:a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists improve islet function and delay gastric emptying in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of the once-daily prandial GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), glucagon and insulin levels. Methods: Six randomized, placebo-controlled studies of lixisenatide 20μg once daily were included in this analysis: lixisenatide as monotherapy (GetGoal-Mono), as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs; GetGoal-M, GetGoal-S) or in combination with basal insulin (GetGoal-L, GetGoal-Duo-1 and GetGoal-L-Asia). Change in 2-h PPG and glucose excursion were evaluated across six studies. Change in 2-h glucagon and postprandial insulin were evaluated across two studies. A meta-analysis was performed on least square (LS) mean estimates obtained from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)-based linear regression. Results: Lixisenatide significantly reduced 2-h PPG from baseline (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -4.9mmol/l, p<0.001) and glucose excursion (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -4.5mmol/l, p<0.001). As measured in two studies, lixisenatide also reduced postprandial glucagon (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -19.0ng/l, p<0.001) and insulin (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -64.8 pmol/l, p<0.001). There was a stronger correlation between 2-h postprandial glucagon and 2-h PPG with lixisenatide than with placebo. Conclusions: Lixisenatide significantly reduced 2-h PPG and glucose excursion together with a marked reduction in postprandial glucagon and insulin; thus, lixisenatide appears to have biological effects on blood glucose that are independent of increased insulin secretion. These effects may be, in part, attributed to reduced glucagon secretion. © 2014 John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Avandamet:Combined metformin-rosiglitazone treatment for insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes

Insulin resistance is a major endocrinopathy underlying the development of hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Metformin (a biguanide) and rosiglitazone (a thiazolidinedione) counter insulin resistance, acting by different cellular mechanisms. The two agents can be used in combination to achieve additive glucose-lowering efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without stimulating insulin secretion and without causing hypoglycaemia. Both agents also reduce a range of atherothrombotic factors and markers, indicating a lower cardiovascular risk. Early intervention with metformin is already known to reduce myocardial infarction and increase survival in overweight type 2 patients. Recently, a single-tablet combination of metformin and rosiglitazone, Avandamet, has become available. Avandamet is suitable for type 2-diabetic patients who are inadequately controlled by monotherapy with metformin or rosiglitazone. Patients already receiving separate tablets of metformin and rosiglitazone may switch to the single-tablet combination for convenience. Also, early introduction of the combination before maximal titration of one agent can reduce side effects. Use of Avandamet requires attention to the precautions for both metformin and rosiglitazone, especially renal, cardiac and hepatic competence. In summary, Avandamet is a single-tablet metformin-rosiglitazone combination that doubly targets insulin resistance as therapy for hyperglycaemia and vascular risk in type 2 diabetes. © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Defining response to anti-VEGF therapies in neovascular AMD

The introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has made significant impact on the reduction of the visual loss due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n-AMD). There are significant inter-individual differences in response to an anti-VEGF agent, made more complex by the availability of multiple anti-VEGF agents with different molecular configurations. The response to anti-VEGF therapy have been found to be dependent on a variety of factors including patient’s age, lesion characteristics, lesion duration, baseline visual acuity (VA) and the presence of particular genotype risk alleles. Furthermore, a proportion of eyes with n-AMD show a decline in acuity or morphology, despite therapy or require very frequent re-treatment. There is currently no consensus as to how to classify optimal response, or lack of it, with these therapies. There is, in particular, confusion over terms such as ‘responder status’ after treatment for n-AMD, ‘tachyphylaxis’ and ‘recalcitrant’ n-AMD. This document aims to provide a consensus on definition/categorisation of the response of n-AMD to anti-VEGF therapies and on the time points at which response to treatment should be determined. Primary response is best determined at 1 month following the last initiation dose, while maintained treatment (secondary) response is determined any time after the 4th visit. In a particular eye, secondary responses do not mirror and cannot be predicted from that in the primary phase. Morphological and functional responses to anti-VEGF treatments, do not necessarily correlate, and may be dissociated in an individual eye. Furthermore, there is a ceiling effect that can negate the currently used functional metrics such as >5 letters improvement when the baseline VA is good (ETDRS>70 letters). It is therefore important to use a combination of both the parameters in determining the response.The following are proposed definitions: optimal (good) response is defined as when there is resolution of fluid (intraretinal fluid; IRF, subretinal fluid; SRF and retinal thickening), and/or improvement of >5 letters, subject to the ceiling effect of good starting VA. Poor response is defined as <25% reduction from the baseline in the central retinal thickness (CRT), with persistent or new IRF, SRF or minimal or change in VA (that is, change in VA of 0+4 letters). Non-response is defined as an increase in fluid (IRF, SRF and CRT), or increasing haemorrhage compared with the baseline and/or loss of >5 letters compared with the baseline or best corrected vision subsequently. Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF may be due to clinical factors including suboptimal dosing than that required by a particular patient, increased dosing intervals, treatment initiation when disease is already at an advanced or chronic stage), cellular mechanisms, lesion type, genetic variation and potential tachyphylaxis); non-clinical factors including poor access to clinics or delayed appointments may also result in poor treatment outcomes. In eyes classified as good responders, treatment should be continued with the same agent when disease activity is present or reactivation occurs following temporary dose holding. In eyes that show partial response, treatment may be continued, although re-evaluation with further imaging may be required to exclude confounding factors. Where there is persistent, unchanging accumulated fluid following three consecutive injections at monthly intervals, treatment may be withheld temporarily, but recommenced with the same or alternative anti-VEGF if the fluid subsequently increases (lesion considered active). Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF treatments requires re-evaluation of diagnosis and if necessary switch to alternative therapies including other anti-VEGF agents and/or with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Idiopathic polypoidal choroidopathy may require treatment with PDT monotherapy or combination with anti-VEGF. A committee comprised of retinal specialists with experience of managing patients with n-AMD similar to that which developed the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines to Ranibizumab was assembled. Individual aspects of the guidelines were proposed by the committee lead (WMA) based on relevant reference to published evidence base following a search of Medline and circulated to all committee members for discussion before approval or modification. Each draft was modified according to feedback from committee members until unanimous approval was obtained in the final draft. A system for categorising the range of responsiveness of n-AMD lesions to anti-VEGF therapy is proposed. The proposal is based primarily on morphological criteria but functional criteria have been included. Recommendations have been made on when to consider discontinuation of therapy either because of success or futility. These guidelines should help clinical decision-making and may prevent over and/or undertreatment with anti-VEGF therapy.

Discovering biomarkers for antidepressant response:protocol from the Canadian biomarker integration network in depression (CAN-BIND) and clinical characteristics of the first patient cohort

Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is among the most prevalent and disabling medical conditions worldwide. Identification of clinical and biological markers ("biomarkers") of treatment response could personalize clinical decisions and lead to better outcomes. This paper describes the aims, design, and methods of a discovery study of biomarkers in antidepressant treatment response, conducted by the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND). The CAN-BIND research program investigates and identifies biomarkers that help to predict outcomes in patients with MDD treated with antidepressant medication. The primary objective of this initial study (known as CAN-BIND-1) is to identify individual and integrated neuroimaging, electrophysiological, molecular, and clinical predictors of response to sequential antidepressant monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in MDD. Methods: CAN-BIND-1 is a multisite initiative involving 6 academic health centres working collaboratively with other universities and research centres. In the 16-week protocol, patients with MDD are treated with a first-line antidepressant (escitalopram 10-20 mg/d) that, if clinically warranted after eight weeks, is augmented with an evidence-based, add-on medication (aripiprazole 2-10 mg/d). Comprehensive datasets are obtained using clinical rating scales; behavioural, dimensional, and functioning/quality of life measures; neurocognitive testing; genomic, genetic, and proteomic profiling from blood samples; combined structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging; and electroencephalography. De-identified data from all sites are aggregated within a secure neuroinformatics platform for data integration, management, storage, and analyses. Statistical analyses will include multivariate and machine-learning techniques to identify predictors, moderators, and mediators of treatment response. Discussion: From June 2013 to February 2015, a cohort of 134 participants (85 outpatients with MDD and 49 healthy participants) has been evaluated at baseline. The clinical characteristics of this cohort are similar to other studies of MDD. Recruitment at all sites is ongoing to a target sample of 290 participants. CAN-BIND will identify biomarkers of treatment response in MDD through extensive clinical, molecular, and imaging assessments, in order to improve treatment practice and clinical outcomes. It will also create an innovative, robust platform and database for future research. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01655706. Registered July 27, 2012.