There is an unmet need for pharmacological therapies for children with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We assessed the efficacy and safety of an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, alogliptin, 25 mg once daily (QD), as a potential treatment for pediatric patients with T2DM.

This phase 3, 52-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in children and adolescents (10-17 years old) with T2DM. Participants had glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 6.5% at baseline (≥ 6.5% to < 11% without treatment or on metformin alone; ≥ 7.0% to < 11% on insulin alone or in combination with metformin). Where required, participants underwent prerandomization stabilization of their background metformin and/or insulin therapy. All received diabetes education and home glucose-monitoring training (during screening, prerandomization stabilization, and specified visits through week 26). Participants were then stratified based on previous antihyperglycemic therapy for 12 weeks before screening into schedule A (antihyperglycemic treatment-naïve) or B (metformin and/or insulin). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c levels from baseline at week 26. Safety was assessed as a secondary endpoint at week 52.

Overall, 152 participants (median age, 14 years; 68.9% female) were randomized (1:1) to receive either alogliptin (n = 75) or placebo (n = 77). The majority were white (58.3%), had a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2 (60.3%), and had received previous antihyperglycemic therapy (82.1%). The difference in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 26 between the alogliptin and placebo groups (least squares mean change [95% confidence interval]) was 0.10 (- 0.63, 0.83; p = 0.78). There was no difference in efficacy endpoints between alogliptin and placebo across both subgroups. No new safety concerns were observed with alogliptin treatment.

Alogliptin 25 mg QD did not significantly improve glycemic control versus placebo in pediatric patients with T2DM. Alogliptin treatment was safe and well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were observed in this study.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02856113; EudraCT: 2015-000208-25.

After a century of extensive scientific investigations, there is still no curative or disease-modifying treatment available that can provide long-lasting remission for patients diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Although T1D has historically been regarded as a classic autoimmune disorder targeting and destroying pancreatic islet β-cells, significant research has recently demonstrated that β-cells themselves also play a substantial role in the disease's progression, which could explain some of the unfavorable clinical outcomes. We offer a thorough review of scientific and clinical insights pertaining to molecular mechanisms behind pathogenesis and the different therapeutic interventions in T1D covering over 20 possible pharmaceutical intervention treatments. The interventions are categorized as immune therapies, treatments targeting islet endocrine dysfunctions, medications with dual modes of action in immune and islet endocrine cells, and combination treatments with a broader spectrum of activity. We suggest that these collective findings can provide a valuable platform to discover new combinatorial synergies in search of the curative disease-modifying intervention for T1D. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This research delves into the underlying causes of T1D and identifies critical mechanisms governing β-cell function in both healthy and diseased states. Thus, we identify specific pathways that could be manipulated by existing or new pharmacological interventions. These interventions fall into several categories: (1) immunomodifying therapies individually targeting immune cell processes, (2) interventions targeting β-cells, (3) compounds that act simultaneously on both immune cell and β-cell pathways, and (4) combinations of compounds simultaneously targeting immune and β-cell pathways.

Youth-onset type 2 diabetes is a heterogeneous disease with increasing prevalence in relation to increased rates of obesity in children. It has genetic, epigenetic, social, and environmental determinants. Youth-onset type 2 diabetes is alarming given a rapidly progressive course compared with the course of adult-onset disease, early-onset vascular complications, and long-term exposure to hyperglycemia and associated complications. It is often preceded by prediabetes, a disease phase where defects in β-cell function relative to insulin sensitivity emerge. Herein, we review the current understanding of the pathophysiology of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in youth. We describe the mechanisms underlying insulin resistance, the precipitous decline of β-cell function, and the role of other hormonal abnormalities in the pathogenesis of the disease. We discuss the critical importance of social determinants of health in the predisposition and progression of these conditions and present current management strategies and the advances in therapeutic approaches. These must adapt to meet the unique needs of the individual patient and family. Significant knowledge gaps remain that need to be addressed in future research.

Historically perceived as a disease mainly affecting adults, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among children and adolescents has been rising, mirroring the increasing rates of childhood obesity. Currently, youth-onset T2DM poses a significant public health challenge globally. Treating youth-onset T2DM poses numerous critical challenges, namely limited and inadequate therapeutic options, and difficulties with conducting therapeutic studies. As a result, current treatment guidelines are based on adult studies and expert consensus. Few prominent guidelines on the treatment of youth-onset T2DM have been published recently, i.e., by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2024, National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence United Kingdom (NICE UK) 2023, International Society Paediatric and Adolescents Diabetes (ISPAD) 2022, Australasian Paediatric Endocrine Group (APEG) 2020 and Diabetes Canada 2018. This review first explores the unique aspects of youth-onset T2DM. It then summarises the different treatment guidelines, discusses the different treatment modalities based on available evidence and identifies any gaps. The review also explores challenges in the treatment of youth-onset T2DM with potential solutions and discusses recent trials on the treatment of youth-onset T2DM. Continued research aims to optimise treatment, improve outcomes, and alleviate the burden of T2DM on youths.

This review explores the emerging evidence regarding pathogenesis, future trajectories, treatment options, and phenotypes of youth-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Youth-onset T2D is increasing in incidence and prevalence worldwide, disproportionately affecting First Nations communities, socioeconomically disadvantaged youth, and people of colour. Youth-onset T2D differs in pathogenesis to later-onset T2D and progresses more rapidly. It is associated with more complications, and these occur earlier. While there are limited licensed treatment options available, the available medications also appear to have a poorer response in youth with T2D. Multiple interacting factors likely contribute to this rising prevalence, as well as the increased severity of the condition, including structural inequities, increasing obesity and sedentary lifestyles, and intergenerational transmission from in-utero exposure to maternal hyperglycemia and obesity. Youth-onset T2D is also associated with stigma and poorer mental health, and these impact clinical management. There is an urgent need to develop effective interventions to prevent youth-onset T2D and enhance engagement of affected youth. It is also critical to better understand the differing phenotypes of youth-onset T2D, to effectively target treatments, and to address intergenerational transmission in high-risk populations.

Over the past 20 years, the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in children and adolescents have increased, particularly in racial and ethnic minorities. Despite the rise in T2DM in children and adolescents, the pathophysiology and progression of disease in this population are not clearly understood. Youth-onset T2DM has a more adverse clinical course than is seen in those who develop T2DM in adulthood or those with T1DM. Furthermore, the available therapeutic options are more limited for children and adolescents with T2DM compared to adult patients, mostly due to the challenges of implementing clinical trials. A better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the de-velopment and aggressive disease phenotype of T2DM in youth is important to finding effective prevention and management strategies. This review highlights the key evidence about T2DM in children and adolescents and its current burden and challenges both in clinical care and research activities.

Childhood-onset obesity has emerged as a major public healthcare challenge across the globe, fueled by an obesogenic environment and influenced by both genetic and epigenetic predispositions. This has led to an exponential rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in children and adolescents. The looming wave of diabetes-related complications in early adulthood is anticipated to strain the healthcare budgets in most countries. Unless there is a collective global effort to curb the devastation caused by the situation, the impact is poised to be pro-found. A multifaceted research effort, governmental legislation, and effective social action are crucial in attaining this goal. This article delves into the current epidemiological landscape, explores evidence concerning potential risks and consequences, delves into the pathobiology of childhood obesity, and discusses the latest evidence-based management strategies for diabesity.

Type 2 diabetes is no longer an adult-only disease but, sadly, has become an established entity in youth. Globally, an estimated 41,600 youth are newly diagnosed every year.1 Underrepresented groups, migrants, and youth of lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected. While incidence rates are rising steeply in almost all populations, annual increases in several non-White racial populations now surpass those of type 1 diabetes.1.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents is increasing, but treatment options are limited. METHODS: This was a 26-week, phase 3 trial with a 26-week extension among patients (10 to 17 years of age) with uncontrolled T2D (A1C 6.5 to 10.5%) receiving metformin, insulin, or both. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to 5 mg of dapagliflozin (N=81), 2.5 mg of saxagliptin (N=88), or placebo (N=76). Patients in active treatment groups with A1C ≥7% at week 12 were further randomly assigned 1:1 at week 14 to continue the dose or up-titrate to a higher dose (10 mg of dapagliflozin or 5 mg of saxagliptin). The primary end point was change in A1C at week 26. Safety was assessed over 52 weeks. RESULTS: At week 26, the difference versus placebo in adjusted mean change in A1C was −1.03 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], −1.57 to −0.49; P<0.001) for dapagliflozin and −0.44 percentage points (95% CI, −0.93 to 0.05; P=0.078) for saxagliptin. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs occurred in 72.8% and 8.6% of patients receiving dapagliflozin, 69.3% and 8.0% of patients receiving saxagliptin, and 71.1% and 6.6% of patients receiving placebo. Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 4.9%, 4.5%, and 7.9% of patients in each group, respectively. Over 52 weeks, the most common AE was headache (dapagliflozin 14.8%; placebo 5.3%). Most events were mild and none was considered serious or resulted in discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin, but not saxagliptin, showed significant improvement in A1C compared with placebo. Nonserious headaches were more common in participants treated with dapagliflozin than in those receiving placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03199053.)

This mini-review aims to briefly summarize the pathophysiology of childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in children and adolescents. Recent data on efficacy of lifestyle interventions, medications, and metabolic surgery for obesity, T2DM, and CVD risk factors are also reviewed. We conducted a PubMed search of English-language original and review articles relevant to childhood obesity, T2DM, and CVD risk factors, and biomarkers in children with an emphasis on recent publications. Childhood obesity arises from an intricate interaction between genetic, physiologic, environmental, and socioeconomic factors. The rise in the prevalence of childhood obesity is associated with the development of comorbidities including T2DM and CVD at an early age. A multipronged approach is central to the detection, monitoring, and management of childhood obesity and associated adverse metabolic consequences.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) in youth is a global health concern characterized by an increasing incidence and prevalence, especially among disadvantaged socioeconomic subgroups. Moreover, youth-onset T2D is more aggressive and causes earlier, more severe long-term cardio-renal complications compared with T2D in adults. The therapeutic options available are limited and often inadequate, partially due to the numerous challenges in implementing clinical trials for this vulnerable patient population. Over the last few years, a significant effort has been made to develop new effective drugs for children and adolescents with T2D. Specifically, a number of studies are currently generating new data to address the urgent unmet medical need for optimal management of this disease. This review describes the central features of youth-onset T2D and summarizes the available treatments and ongoing studies in pediatric patients.

The incidence of type 2 diabetes in young people is increasing, but treatments remain limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of an empagliflozin dosing regimen versus placebo and linagliptin versus placebo on glycaemic control in young people with type 2 diabetes.

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 108 centres in 15 countries, participants with type 2 diabetes (aged 10-17 years; HbA1c 6·5-10·5% [48-91 mmol/mol]) who had been previously treated with metformin or insulin were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to oral empagliflozin 10 mg, oral linagliptin 5 mg, or placebo. Participants in the empagliflozin group who did not have HbA1c below 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) by week 12 underwent a second double-blinded randomisation (1:1) at week 14, either remaining on 10 mg or increasing to 25 mg. Participants in the placebo group were randomly reassigned (1:1:1) in a double-blinded manner at week 26 to linagliptin 5 mg or one of the empagliflozin doses (10 mg or 25 mg). Investigators were masked throughout the trial and received assignments of blinded medication kits through interactive response technology for all participants at the initial randomisation and for the re-randomisations at weeks 14 and 26. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HbA1c at 26 weeks. For empagliflozin, results were based on a pooled analysis for all participants on empagliflozin. Safety was assessed until week 52. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03429543.

Between April 26, 2018, and May 26, 2022, of 262 screened participants, 158 (60%) were randomly assigned to treatment (53 [34%] to placebo, 52 [33%] to empagliflozin 10 mg, and 53 [34%] to linagliptin). For the primary outcome, the adjusted mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 26 was -0·84% [-9·2 mmol/mol] in the empagliflozin pooled group versus placebo (95% CI -1·50 to -0·19 [-16·4 to -2·1]; p=0·012); the corresponding change from baseline for linagliptin versus placebo was -0·34% [-3·8 mmol/mol; 95% CI -0·99 to 0·30 [-10·8 to 3·3]; p=0·29). Adverse events occurred in 34 (64%) participants in the placebo group, 40 (77%) in the empagliflozin pooled group, and 37 (71%) in the linagliptin group, up to week 26. Of these, severe adverse events were reported in two (4%) participants in the placebo group, one (2%) in the empagliflozin pooled group, and one (2%) in the linagliptin group. Hypoglycaemia was the most frequently reported adverse event with higher rates for those on active drug treatment compared with placebo. No severe hypoglycaemia cases were reported.

Empagliflozin provided clinically relevant placebo-corrected reductions in HbA1c, whereas linagliptin did not, and might offer a new treatment option for young people with type 2 diabetes.

The Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Alliance.

The aim of this meta-analysis is to synthesize and critically evaluate the available evidence on the comparison of the efficacy and safety of metformin-based combination therapy versus metformin alone in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We performed the present meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies were identified using electronic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrial.gov from inception to 31 January 2023. The outcomes examined in this meta-analysis included change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) (%), fasting plasma sugar (FPG) (mg/dl), and the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. Three studies met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The reduction of HbA1C was significantly higher in metformin-based combination therapy (MD: -1.19, 95% CI: -2.05, -0.33, p-value: 0.007). No significant difference was reported between patients randomized in metformin-based combination therapy and metformin alone (MD: -18.67, 95% CI: -50.17, 12.84, p-value: 0.25). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis found that the reduction in HbA1C was significantly higher in patients receiving metformin-based combination therapy compared to metformin alone. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from the baseline. In relation to safety, no significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between the two groups.

The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population.

A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations.

The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: -3.73; 95% CI: -5.42, -2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: -0.66; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: -3.17; 95% CI: -3.84, -2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments.

In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional healthcare team providing diabetes care in the USA and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the healthcare system and physical activity behaviours including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional health care team providing diabetes care in the U.S. and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the health care system, and physical activity behaviors, including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.

The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing among youths. Once-weekly treatment with dulaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, may have efficacy with regard to glycemic control in youths with type 2 diabetes.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 26-week trial, we randomly assigned participants (10 to <18 years of age; body-mass index [BMI], >85th percentile) being treated with lifestyle modifications alone or with metformin, with or without basal insulin, in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo, dulaglutide at a dose of 0.75 mg, or dulaglutide at a dose of 1.5 mg. Participants were then included in a 26-week open-label extension study in which those who had received placebo began receiving dulaglutide at a weekly dose of 0.75 mg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level at 26 weeks. Secondary end points included a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% and changes from baseline in the fasting glucose concentration and BMI. Safety was also assessed.

A total of 154 participants underwent randomization. At 26 weeks, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had increased in the placebo group (0.6 percentage points) and had decreased in the dulaglutide groups (-0.6 percentage points in the 0.75-mg group and -0.9 percentage points in the 1.5-mg group, P<0.001 for both comparisons vs. placebo). At 26 weeks, a higher percentage of participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% (51% vs. 14%, P<0.001). The fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (17.1 mg per deciliter) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (-18.9 mg per deciliter, P<0.001), and there were no between-group differences in the change in BMI. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher with dulaglutide therapy than with placebo. The safety profile of dulaglutide was consistent with that reported in adults.

Treatment with dulaglutide at a once-weekly dose of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg was superior to placebo in improving glycemic control through 26 weeks among youths with type 2 diabetes who were being treated with or without metformin or basal insulin, without an effect on BMI. (Funded by Eli Lilly; AWARD-PEDS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02963766.).

Type 2 diabetes is more common in adults, but is becoming the major concern in children and adolescent recently. This study aimed to provide additional pharmaceutical management for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes by assessing the efficacy and safety of several glucose-lowering drugs.

Searches were performed in PubMed, Medline, Ovid, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov that reported the efficacy and safety of drugs for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes. Pooled effects were calculated by frequentist fixed effects network meta-analyses and additive network meta-analyses.

A total of 12 trials assessing eight glucose-lowering drugs were included, which compose of seven trials with monotherapy and five trials with combination therapies. Network meta-analysis results showed compared to placebo, saxagliptin+metformin (mean difference (MD) -1.91% [-2.85%, -0.97%]), liraglutide+metformin (MD -1.45% [-1.65%, -1.26%]), and liraglutide (MD -0.90% [-1.35%, -0.45%]) were the top 3 drugs that significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Sitagliptin+metformin, dapagliflozin, exenatide-2mcg, linagliptin-5mg, metformin, exenatide-5/10mcg, glimepiride, and sitagliptin also showed significant reduction in HbA1c. There were no significant differences between treatments in the incidence of adverse events, except that liraglutide+metformin had significant adverse effect such as abdominal pain. In addition, dapagliflozin, sitagliptin+metformin, and saxagliptin+metformin showed better efficacy compared with FDA-approved drugs.

The top 10 treatments of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents aged 10-17 years were saxagliptin+metformin, liraglutide+metformin, liraglutide, dapagliflozin, exenatide-2 mcg, sitagliptin+metformin, linagliptin-5 mg, linagliptin-1 mg, metformin, and exenatide-5/10 mcg.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=284897, identifier CRD42021284897.