Cited by 45Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes and associated disorders

Randomized 52-week phase 2 trial of albiglutide versus placebo in adult patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes

Open access
Pozzilli, Paolo, Bosi, Emanuele, Cirkel, Deborah, Harris, Julia, Leech, Nicola, Tinahones, Francisco J, Vantyghem, Marie-Christine, Vlasakakis, Georgios +2 more·2020·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

Context: GLP-1 receptor agonists are an established therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes; however, their role in type 1 diabetes remains to be determined. Objective: Determine efficacy and safety of once-weekly albiglutide 30 mg (up-titration to 50 mg at week 6) versus placebo together with insulin in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes and residual insulin production. Design: 52-week, randomized, phase 2 study (NCT02284009). Methods: A prespecified Bayesian approach, incorporating placebo data from a prior study, allowed for 3:1 (albiglutide:placebo) randomization. The primary endpoint was 52-week change from baseline in mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) stimulated 2-h plasma C-peptide area under the curve (AUC). Secondary endpoints included metabolic measures and pharmacokinetics of albiglutide. Results: 12/17 (70.6%, placebo) and 40/50 (80.0%, albiglutide) patients completed the study. Within our study, mean (standard deviation) change from baseline to week 52 in MMTT-stimulated 2-h plasma C-peptide AUC was −0.16 nmol/L (0.366) with placebo and −0.13 nmol/L (0.244) with albiglutide. For the primary Bayesian analysis (including prior study data) the posterior treatment difference (95% credible interval) was estimated at 0.12 nmol/L (0–0.24); the probability of a difference ≥0.2 nmol/L between treatments was low (0.097). A transient significant difference in maximum C-peptide was seen at week 28. Otherwise, no significant secondary endpoint differences were noted. On-therapy adverse events were reported in 82.0% (albiglutide) and 76.5% (placebo) of patients. Conclusion: In newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, albiglutide 30 to 50 mg weekly for 1 year had no appreciable effect on preserving residual β-cell function versus placebo.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/clinem/dgaa149

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Vlasakakis G, Shaddinger B, Young MA. Population PK of albiglutide in type 2 diabetic Japanese and in healthy volunteers; a comparison with data derived from a generic population of type 2 diabetics [Abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103 Suppl (1):S91 (Abs PII-137). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/105/6/e2192/5812593 by guest on 04 January 2026
  2. Ryan EA, Paty BW, Senior PA, Lakey JR, Bigam D, Shapiro AM. Beta-score: an assessment of beta-cell function after islet trans- plantation. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(2):343-347.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pozzilli, P., Bosi, E., Cirkel, D., Harris, J., Leech, N., Tinahones, F. J., Vantyghem, M.-C., Vlasakakis, G., Ziegler, A.-G., & Janmohamed, S.
Affiliations
  • Università Campus Bio-Medico (IT)
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
Corresponding author
Pozzilli, Paolo
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2020-03-27
Volume
105
Issue
6
Pages
e2192-e2206
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W3013558293
Cited by
45
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion)
Funders
GlaxoSmithKline
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
albiglutide, type 1 diabetes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, residual beta-cell function, C-peptide, newly diagnosed diabetes, insulin therapy, pharmacokinetics, adverse events
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1, Incretins, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review