Association of Metformin With the Development of Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Importance

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness with no treatment available for early stages. Retrospective studies have shown an association between metformin and reduced risk of AMD.

Objective

To investigate the association between metformin use and age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study is a cross-sectional follow-up phase of a large multicenter randomized clinical trial, Diabetes Prevention Program (1996-2001), to investigate the association of treatment with metformin or an intensive lifestyle modification vs placebo with preventing the onset of type 2 diabetes in a population at high risk for developing diabetes. Participants with retinal imaging at a follow-up visit 16 years posttrial (2017-2019) were included. Analysis took place between October 2019 and May 2022.

Interventions

Participants were randomly distributed between 3 interventional arms: lifestyle, metformin, and placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of AMD in the treatment arms.

Results

Of 1592 participants, 514 (32.3%) were in the lifestyle arm, 549 (34.5%) were in the metformin arm, and 529 (33.2%) were in the placebo arm. All 3 arms were balanced for baseline characteristics including age (mean [SD] age at randomization, 49 [9] years), sex (1128 [71%] male), race and ethnicity (784 [49%] White), smoking habits, body mass index, and education level. AMD was identified in 479 participants (30.1%); 229 (14.4%) had early AMD, 218 (13.7%) had intermediate AMD, and 32 (2.0%) had advanced AMD. There was no significant difference in the presence of AMD between the 3 groups: 152 (29.6%) in the lifestyle arm, 165 (30.2%) in the metformin arm, and 162 (30.7%) in the placebo arm. There was also no difference in the distribution of early, intermediate, and advanced AMD between the intervention groups. Mean duration of metformin use was similar for those with and without AMD (mean [SD], 8.0 [9.3] vs 8.5 [9.3] years; P = .69). In the multivariate models, history of smoking was associated with increased risks of AMD (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05-1.61; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

These data suggest neither metformin nor lifestyle changes initiated for diabetes prevention were associated with the risk of any AMD, with similar results for AMD severity. Duration of metformin use was also not associated with AMD. This analysis does not address the association of metformin with incidence or progression of AMD.

Clinical endpoints and adaptive clinical trials in precirrhotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Facilitating development approaches for an emerging epidemic

Due to the increasing prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and its associated health burden, there is a high need to develop therapeutic strategies for patients with this disease. Unfortunately, its long and asymptomatic natural history, the uncertainties about disease progression, the fact that most patients are undiagnosed, and the requirement for sequential liver biopsies create substantial challenges for clinical development. Adaptive design methods are increasingly used in clinical research as they provide the flexibility and efficiency for identifying potential signals of clinical benefit of the test treatment under investigation and make prompt preplanned adaptations without undermining the validity or integrity of the trial. Given the high unmet medical need and the lack of validated surrogate endpoints in NASH, the use of adaptive design methods appears reasonable. Furthermore, due to the limited number of patients willing to have multiple liver biopsies and the need for long‐term exposure to assess an impact in outcomes, a continuous seamless adaptive design may reduce the overall sample size while allowing patients to continue after each one of the phases. Here, we review strategic frameworks that include potential surrogate endpoints as well as statistical and logistical approaches that could be considered for applying adaptive designs to clinical trials in NASH with the goal of facilitating drug development for this growing medical need. (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:577–585)

Structure of proof of concept studies that precede a nonalcoholic steatohepatitis development program

Surrogate endpoints for clinical proof of concept (POC) trials in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are based upon expert pathological review of liver biopsies. During early development, these long‐term POC studies (≥48 weeks) add cost and time to the “Go/No Go” decision process. However, it is possible to conduct short‐term noninvasive POC studies utilizing biomarkers and magnetic resonance imaging. Here, we discuss the use of shorter noninvasive POC studies relative to biopsy‐driven studies for drug development in NASH.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin added to the combination of sulfonylurea and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycemic control

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment generally requires multiple antihyperglycemic agents. When diet, exercise, and treatment with sulfonylurea and metformin do not achieve glycemic goals, several options are available. The present study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day added to therapy with sulfonylurea and metformin.

METHODS

Patients with HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on a sulfonylurea and metformin were randomized 1: 1 to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo for 24 weeks. At Week 24, patients in the placebo group switched to pioglitazone 30 mg/day and both groups continued treatment for another 30 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 427 patients randomized, 339 (79.4%) completed the study. At Week 24, significantly greater (P < 0.001) mean reductions from baseline were seen in the sitagliptin versus placebo group for HbA1c (-0.84% vs -0.16%, respectively), 2-h post-meal glucose (-2.0 vs -0.2 mmol/L, respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (-0.7 vs 0.3 mmol/L, respectively). At Week 54, improvements in glycemic control continued. At Week 24, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was numerically greater with sitagliptin than placebo, primarily because of a higher incidence of hypoglycemia. At Week 54, the incidence of AEs was similar in both groups, primarily because of a higher incidence of hypoglycemia and edema in the placebo/pioglitazone group after Week 24. The only meaningful change in body weight was an increase in the placebo/pioglitazone group at Week 54.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated and provided improvement in glycemic control when added to the combination of sulfonylurea and metformin in patients with T2DM.

Sitagliptin improves glycaemic excursion after a meal or after an oral glucose load in Japanese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT).

METHODS

In a double-blind, parallel-group study, 242 Japanese subjects with IGT, determined by a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at week -1, were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to placebo (n = 83), sitagliptin 25 mg (n = 82) or 50 mg (n = 77) once daily for 8 weeks. Glycaemic variables were assessed using another OGTT at week 7 and meal tolerance tests (MTTs) at weeks 0 and 8. Primary and secondary endpoints were percent change from baseline in glucose total area under the curve 0-2 h (AUC(0 -2 h)) during the MTT and OGTT, respectively.

RESULTS

Least squares mean percent change from baseline in glucose AUC(0 -2 h) during the MTT were -2.4, -9.5 and -11.5%, and during the OGTT were -3.7, -21.4 and -20.1% with placebo, sitagliptin 25 mg once daily, and 50 mg once daily, respectively (p < 0.001 for either sitagliptin dose vs placebo in both tests). Sitagliptin treatment enhanced early insulin response during the OGTT and decreased total insulin response, assessed as the total AUC(0 -2 h) during the MTT. Sitagliptin treatment also suppressed glucagon response during the MTT. The incidence of adverse events, including hypoglycaemia, was low and generally similar in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sitagliptin significantly reduced glucose excursions during both an MTT and an OGTT; this effect was associated with an increase in early insulin secretion after oral glucose loading as well as a blunted glucagon response during an MTT. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated in subjects with IGT.

Safety and Efficacy of Omarigliptin (MK-3102), a Novel Once-Weekly DPP-4 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to determine the optimal dose of omarigliptin, a once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and evaluate the long-term safety of that dose.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, dose-range finding study, 685 oral antihyperglycemic agent-naïve or washed-out subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of five once-weekly doses of omarigliptin (0.25 mg, 1 mg, 3 mg, 10 mg, or 25 mg) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in HbA1c, and secondary end points were 2-h postmeal glucose (PMG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of the study medication. Subjects who completed the base study were eligible to enter a 66-week extension study.

RESULTS

Once-weekly treatment for 12 weeks with omarigliptin provided dose-related reductions in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG. At week 12, the omarigliptin 25-mg dose provided the greatest glycemic efficacy. The placebo-adjusted least-squares mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG were -0.72% (-7.8 mmol/mol), -2.5, and -1.3 mmol/L, respectively (all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across dose groups, with a low incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and no effect on body weight. Omarigliptin was generally well-tolerated throughout the base and extension studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Omarigliptin 25 mg q.w., compared with placebo, provided significant glucose lowering and was generally well tolerated for up to 78 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

A comparison of glycaemic effects of sitagliptin and sulfonylureas in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, 45% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are elderly (≥ 65 years old). In general, use of sulfonylurea increases with patient age as does the associated risk for hypoglycaemia, and the consequences of hypoglycaemia can be more pronounced in elderly patients. Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, improves glycaemic control in adult patients of all ages with T2DM, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia when used alone or in combination with other antidiabetic agents that are not generally associated with hypoglycaemia when used independently.

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis, pooled data from elderly patients who participated in one of three double-blind studies comparing the effects of therapy with sitagliptin (100 mg/day) vs. sulfonylurea (in titrated doses) were analysed for changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight and for the incidence of reported symptomatic hypoglycaemia. In these studies, patients on diet alone or metformin were randomised to sitagliptin or glipizide for 104 weeks (studies 1 and 2) or glimepiride for 30 weeks (study 3). The analysis included 372 elderly patients who completed a trial through 25 or 30 weeks.

RESULTS

Both HbA1c and FPG decreased from baseline with each treatment, with no statistically significant differences between treatments. A significantly lower incidence of reported hypoglycaemia was observed with sitagliptin compared with sulfonylurea (6.2% vs. 27.8%; p < 0.001). Body weight decreased significantly with sitagliptin but not with sulfonylurea. Significantly more patients on sitagliptin than on sulfonylureas achieved a composite end-point of >0.5% HbA1c reduction with no reported hypoglycaemia or increase in body weight (44.1% vs. 16.0%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of elderly patients with T2DM, compared with sulfonylurea, sitagliptin provided similar glycaemic efficacy with less hypoglycaemia and with body weight loss.

Long-term efficacy of sitagliptin as either monotherapy or add-on therapy to metformin: improvement in glycemic control over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of once daily sitagliptin 100 mg as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 2 years of treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The monotherapy analysis used pooled 104 week data from 64 patients in two randomized, double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin monotherapy. Data used were from patients who were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day, were not on an antihyperglycemic agent at the screening visit, had baseline A1C of 7.0%-10.0%, and had Week 104 A1C measurements. The add-on to metformin analysis used pooled data from 347 patients in two randomized double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin + metformin combination therapy. Data used were from patients who were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day + metformin ≥1500 mg/day, had baseline A1C of 7%-10%, and had Week 104 A1C measurements. Excluded from either analysis were patients who discontinued prior to 2 years (e.g., due to lack of efficacy, a need for rescue medications, or adverse experiences). Analysis endpoints were A1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HOMA-β, proinsulin/insulin (P/I) ratio, and for monotherapy, 2 hour post-meal plasma glucose (PMG).

RESULTS

For the pooled monotherapy cohort, after 2 years of treatment, mean A1C, FPG, and 2 hour PMG decreased from baseline values of 7.9%, 156 mg/dL, and 223 mg/dL to 6.9%, 143 mg/dL, and 191 mg/dL, respectively, while HOMA-β increased from 67% to 85% and P/I ratio improved from 0.57 to 0.28. For the pooled add-on to metformin cohort, after 2 years of treatment, mean A1C and FPG decreased from baseline values of 7.7% and 160 mg/dL to 6.9% and 140 mg/dL, respectively, while HOMA-β increased from 50% to 62% and P/I ratio improved from 0.33 to 0.28. These analyses are limited in that only patients who were able to complete 104 weeks of study were included.

CONCLUSION

In the subset of patients with T2DM who maintained and completed treatment for 2 years with sitagliptin as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin, improvements in glycemic control and measures of β-cell function were observed over the course of treatment.

Comparison of treatment with sitagliptin or sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild renal impairment: a post hoc analysis of clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Impaired renal function is a major complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Mild renal impairment is present in 38% of patients with T2DM and may impact choice of antihyperglycemic agent. Sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are commonly used to treat hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM and renal impairment. Although in general sulfonylurea use is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain, while DPP-4 inhibitor use is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and is weight neutral, the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents in patients with mild renal impairment has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis, data from 1,211 subjects with T2DM and mild renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rates of 60 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), who completed 25 or 30 weeks of one of three double-blind clinical trials comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin 100 mg/day with sulfonylureas in titrated doses, were pooled. The analysis compared change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and the percentages of subjects meeting a composite endpoint of HbA1c decrease >0.5% without symptomatic hypoglycemia or body weight gain between sitagliptin and sulfonylurea treatment groups.

RESULTS

HbA1c and FPG decreased similarly with sitagliptin or sulfonylurea. A lower incidence of hypoglycemia was observed with sitagliptin. Body weight decreased with sitagliptin but increased with sulfonylurea. A greater percentage of subjects treated with sitagliptin (41.1%) than treated with sulfonylurea (16.9%) achieved the composite endpoint of >0.5% HbA1c reduction with no symptomatic hypoglycemia or body weight gain.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of subjects with T2DM and mild renal impairment, treatment with sitagliptin provided glycemic efficacy similar to sulfonylurea, with less hypoglycemia and with body weight loss compared to body weight gain seen with sulfonylurea.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00482079, #NCT00094770, #NCT00701090.

Safety of sitagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of 25 clinical studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A post hoc pooled analysis of 25 randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical studies with results available as of 1 December 2011.

SETTING

Multicenter, international clinical trials.

SUBJECTS

Patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 1,261) or a comparator (n = 1,185) for 12 weeks to 2 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In each study, investigators reported serious and non-serious adverse events that occurred during the study, and serious adverse events occurring within 14 days following the last dose of study drug. This analysis used patient-level data from each study to assess the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of specific adverse events that occurred following initiation of study drug.

RESULTS

Summary measures of adverse events overall were similar between the sitagliptin and non-exposed (active comparator or placebo) groups, except for higher incidences of deaths and drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were generally similar between the two groups, with the exception of hypoglycemia. A lower incidence rate of hypoglycemia was observed in the sitagliptin group compared with the non-exposed group [7.0 vs. 14.3 per 100 patient-years; difference -7.6 (95 % CI -11.2 to -4.3]), primarily due to greater use of sulfonylureas in the non-exposed group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled safety analysis of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated for up to 2 years.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination treatment with sitagliptin and pioglitazone--a factorial study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy of sitagliptin 100 mg/day coadministered with all marketed doses of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Patients with A1c ≥7.5 and ≤11.0% were randomized among seven arms that received, once daily, 100 mg sitagliptin alone; 15, 30 or 45 mg pioglitazone alone, or 100 mg sitagliptin plus 15, 30 or 45 mg pioglitazone for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c at week 24. Protocol-specified analyses compared combination therapies with monotherapies at respective dose-strengths and combination of sitagliptin plus pioglitazone 30 mg with pioglitazone 45 mg monotherapy. Post-hoc analyses compared sitagliptin plus pioglitazone 15 mg with pioglitazone monotherapy at the two higher doses.

RESULTS

Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone provided significantly greater reductions in A1c (0.4-0.7% differences) and other glycaemic endpoints than either monotherapy at the same doses. Combining sitagliptin with low-dose pioglitazone generally produced greater glycaemic improvements than higher doses of pioglitazone monotherapy (0.3-0.4% differences in A1c). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated; adverse events (AEs) of hypoglycaemia were reported with similar incidence (7.8-11.1%) in all treatment groups over the 54 weeks of study; oedema was reported in 0.5% of patients in the sitagliptin monotherapy group and 2.7-5.3% among pioglitazone-treated groups. Significant weight gain was observed in all combination-treated groups compared with the sitagliptin monotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone provided better glycaemic control than either monotherapy and was generally well tolerated.

Sitagliptin and pioglitazone provide complementary effects on postprandial glucose and pancreatic islet cell function

AIMS

The effects of sitagliptin and pioglitazone, alone and in combination, on α- and β-cell function were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Following a 6-week diet/exercise period, 211 patients with HbA1c of 6.5-9.0% and fasting plasma glucose of 7.2-14.4 mmol/l were randomized (1 :1 :1 : 1) to sitagliptin, pioglitazone, sitagliptin + pioglitazone or placebo. At baseline and after 12 weeks, patients were given a mixed meal followed by frequent blood sampling for measurements of glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, 5-h glucose total area under the curve (AUC) decreased in all active treatments versus placebo; reduction with sitagliptin + pioglitazone was greater versus either monotherapy. The 5-h insulin total AUC increased with sitagliptin versus all other treatments and increased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus pioglitazone. The 3-h glucagon AUC decreased with sitagliptin versus placebo and decreased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus pioglitazone or placebo. Φ(s), a measure of dynamic β-cell responsiveness to above-basal glucose concentrations, increased with either monotherapy versus placebo and increased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus either monotherapy. The insulin sensitivity index (ISI), a composite index of insulin sensitivity, improved with pioglitazone and sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus placebo. The disposition index, a measure of the relationship between β-cell function and insulin sensitivity, improved with all active treatments versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Sitagliptin and pioglitazone enhanced β-cell function (increasing postmeal Φ(s)), and sitagliptin improved α-cell function (decreasing postmeal glucagon) after 12 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes. Through these complementary mechanisms of action, the combination of sitagliptin and pioglitazone reduced postmeal glucose more than either treatment alone.

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes: pooled analysis of 25 clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

In a previous pooled analysis of 19 double-blind clinical studies conducted by Merck, which included data available as of July 2009 on 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), treatment with sitagliptin was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As the sitagliptin clinical development program continues, additional studies with sitagliptin have been completed. The present analysis updates the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by examining pooled data from 25 double-blind clinical studies.

METHODS

The present analysis included data from 14,611 patients in 25 studies with T2DM who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 7,726; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (n = 6,885; non-exposed group). These studies represent all randomized, double-blind trials conducted by Merck that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years, and for which results were available as of December 2011. These studies assessed sitagliptin, versus comparator agents, taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or metformin + pioglitazone or rosiglitazone). Patient-level data from each study were used to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Overall incidence rates of AEs and drug-related AEs were higher in the non-exposed group compared with the sitagliptin group. Incidence rates of specific AEs were generally similar between the two groups, except for higher incidence rates of hypoglycemia related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea and diarrhea related to the greater use of metformin in the non-exposed group, and of constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancy, or pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 14,611 patients with T2DM, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin versus glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency

OBJECTIVE

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease have an increased risk of micro- and macrovascular disease, but limited options for antihyperglycemic therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with glipizide in patients with T2DM and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency and inadequate glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients (n = 426) were randomized 1:1 to sitagliptin (50 mg every day [q.d.] for moderate renal insufficiency and 25 mg q.d. for severe renal insufficiency) or glipizide (2.5 mg q.d., adjusted based on glycemic control to a 10-mg twice a day maximum dose). Randomization was stratified by: 1) renal status (moderate or severe renal insufficiency); 2) history of cardiovascular disease; and 3) history of heart failure.

RESULTS

At week 54, treatment with sitagliptin was noninferior to treatment with glipizide in A1C change from baseline (-0.8 vs. -0.6%; between-group difference -0.11%; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.06) because the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%. There was a lower incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia adverse events (AEs) with sitagliptin versus glipizide (6.2 and 17.0%, respectively; P = 0.001) and a decrease in body weight with sitagliptin (-0.6 kg) versus an increase (1.2 kg) with glipizide (difference, -1.8 kg; P < 0.001). The incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was low with both treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM and chronic renal insufficiency, sitagliptin and glipizide provided similar A1C-lowering efficacy. Sitagliptin was generally well-tolerated, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia and weight loss versus weight gain, relative to glipizide.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in a randomized placebo-controlled 54-week trial in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

New therapeutic approaches are needed to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a progressive disorder that often requires combination therapy. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin and rosiglitazone in patients with T2D.

METHODS

The present study was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group 54-week study conducted at 41 sites across North and South America, Europe, and Asia in 278 patients with HbA1c ranging from ≥7.5% to ≤11.0% despite ongoing combination therapy with metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and rosiglitazone (≥4 mg/day). Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive sitagliptin 100 mg or placebo once daily. The main outcome measure was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 18.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c was 8.8%. The mean placebo-adjusted change from baseline in HbA1c with sitagliptin treatment was -0.7% (P < 0.001) at Week 18 and -0.8% (P < 0.001) at Week 54. There were also significant (P < 0.001) reductions in 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose compared with placebo at Weeks 18 and 54. Significantly higher proportions of sitagliptin- than placebo-treated patients had HbA1c<7.0% at Weeks 18 (22% vs 9%; P = 0.003) and 54 (26% vs 14%; P = 0.015). Changes in body weight and the rates of adverse events overall, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and placebo groups during the 54-week study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D, the addition of sitagliptin for 54 weeks to ongoing therapy with metformin and rosiglitazone improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated compared with placebo.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin and pioglitazone combination therapy in a randomized, placebo-controlled, 26-week trial in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To assess efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in combination therapy with metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and pioglitazone (≥30 mg/day) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with inadequate glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≥7.5% and ≤11%).

METHODS

This placebo-controlled, double-blind study included 313 patients, mean baseline HbA1c=8.7%, who were randomized to receive sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo for 26 weeks.

RESULTS

The addition of sitagliptin led to significant (P<.001) mean changes from baseline relative to placebo in HbA1c (-0.7%), fasting plasma glucose (-1.0 mmol/L), and 2-h post-meal glucose (-2.2 mmol/L). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0%, mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -1.6% and -0.8% for the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (between-group difference -0.8%; P<.001). The incidences of reported adverse events were generally similar between the treatment groups. Incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 7/157 [4.5%] and 6/156 [3.8%] in the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (P=.786). Two patients, both in the placebo group, experienced an episode of hypoglycemia that required non-medical assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 26-week study, addition of sitagliptin to combination therapy with metformin and pioglitazone improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD receiving dialysis: a 54-week randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment with oral antihyperglycemic agents has not been well characterized in patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and glipizide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD on dialysis therapy were assessed in this study.

STUDY DESIGN

54-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

From 31 clinical sites in 12 countries, 129 patients 30 years or older with type 2 diabetes and ESRD who were on dialysis therapy and had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7%-9% were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment.

INTERVENTION

Monotherapy with sitagliptin, 25 mg daily or glipizide (initiated with 2.5 mg daily and titrated up to a potential maximum dose of 10 mg twice daily or down to avoid hypoglycemia).

OUTCOMES

Primary end points were 54-week change in HbA1c level from baseline and tolerability with sitagliptin. A secondary end point was the comparison of sitagliptin versus glipizide on the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Of 129 patients randomly assigned, 64 were in the sitagliptin group (mean baseline age, 61 years; HbA1c, 7.9%) and 65 were in the glipizide group (mean baseline age, 59 years; HbA1c, 7.8%). After 54 weeks, the least squares mean change from baseline in HbA1c level was -0.72% (95% CI, -0.95% to -0.48%) with sitagliptin and -0.87% (95% CI, -1.11% to -0.63%) with glipizide, for a difference of 0.15% (95% CI, -0.18% to 0.49%). The incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were 6.3% versus 10.8% (between-group difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -15.7% to 5.6%]) and 0% versus 7.7% (between-group difference, -7.8% [95% CI, -17.1% to -1.9%]) in the sitagliptin and glipizide groups, respectively. Higher incidences (ie, 95% CI around between-treatment difference excluded 0) of cellulitis and headache were found with sitagliptin compared to glipizide (6.3% vs 0%, respectively, for both).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size limits between-group comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sitagliptin or glipizide monotherapy was effective and well tolerated over 54 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD who were receiving dialysis.

Cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis

Objective

To compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sitagliptin or non-sitagliptin comparators.

Methods

A post hoc assessment of cardiovascular safety in 14,611 patients was performed by pooling data from 25 double-blind studies, which randomised patients at baseline to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or a non-sitagliptin comparator (i.e., non-exposed). Included studies were limited to those at least 12 weeks in duration (range: 12 to 104 weeks). Patient-level data were used in this analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including ischaemic events and cardiovascular deaths. Analyses were performed in three cohorts: the entire 25-study cohort, the cohort from placebo-controlled portions of studies (n=19), and the cohort from studies comparing sitagliptin to a sulphonylurea (n=3).

Results

In the entire cohort analysis, 78 patients had at least 1 reported MACE-related event, with 40 in the sitagliptin group and 38 in the non-exposed group. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.65 per 100 patient-years in the sitagliptin group and 0.74 in the non-exposed group (incidence rate ratio = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53, 1.30]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to placebo, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.80 per 100-patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.76 with placebo (incidence rate ratio = 1.01 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.86]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to sulphonylurea, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.00 per 100 patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.86 with sulphonylurea (incidence rate ratio = 0.00 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.31]).

Conclusion

A pooled analysis of 25 randomised clinical trials does not indicate that treatment with sitagliptin increases cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In a subanalysis, a higher rate of cardiovascular-related events was associated with sulphonylurea relative to sitagliptin.

Impact of diabetes duration and chronic pancreatitis on the association between type 2 diabetes and pancreatic cancer risk

AIM

To examine the impact of diabetes duration, chronic pancreatitis and other factors on pancreatic cancer risk.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study using the UK General Practice Research Database compared pancreatic cancer incidence and risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) versus patients without diabetes. Multivariate Cox regression adjusting for age, sex, history of chronic pancreatitis, gallbladder disease, obesity, smoking and alcohol use and Charlson comorbidity index was used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval, CI]. Analyses were repeated using various time windows for diabetes duration.

RESULTS

A total of 1903 incident pancreatic cancers were identified, 436 in patients with T2DM (78.76 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI: 71.54, 86.51]) and 1467 in patients without diabetes (11.46 per 100 000 person-years [10.88, 12.06]). Pancreatic cancer risk was significant for T2DM (adjusted HR 1.80 [1.52, 2.14]), increasing age, history of chronic pancreatitis and tobacco use. For patients with chronic pancreatitis and T2DM, the adjusted HR was 12.12 [6.02, 24.40]. Incidence was highest in patients with ≥5 year duration of T2DM. In patient populations with duration of T2DM ranging from ≥1 to ≥5 years, adjusted HRs remained significant but point estimates attenuated slightly with longer duration of T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T2DM had an 80% increased risk of pancreatic cancer versus patients without diabetes. Patients with T2DM and chronic pancreatitis were 12 times more likely to develop pancreatic cancer.

The addition of sitagliptin to ongoing metformin therapy significantly improves glycemic control in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

  The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who failed to achieve adequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

  After a metformin titration/stabilization period and a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 395 Chinese patients with T2DM aged 25-77 years (baseline HbA1c 8.5%) were randomized (1:1) to double-blind placebo or sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. added to ongoing open-label metformin (1000 or 1700 mg/day) for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

  Significant (P < 0.001) changes from baseline in HbA1c (-0.9%), fasting plasma glucose (-1.2 mmol/L), and 2-h post-meal plasma glucose (-1.9 mmol/L) were seen with sitagliptin compared with placebo. There were no significant differences between sitagliptin and placebo in the incidence of hypoglycemia or gastrointestinal adverse events. A small decrease from baseline body weight was observed in the placebo group compared with no change in the sitagliptin group (between-group difference 0.5kg; P=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

  The addition of sitagliptin 100 mg to ongoing metformin therapy significantly improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated in Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control on metformin alone.

Lower risk of hypoglycemia with sitagliptin compared to glipizide when either is added to metformin therapy: a pre-specified analysis adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value

BACKGROUND

In a previously-published study, adding sitagliptin or glipizide to ongoing metformin therapy provided similar HbA(1c) improvement (both groups, -0.7%) after 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Significantly fewer patients experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia with sitagliptin (5% of 588 patients) compared to glipizide (32% of 584 patients). Glycemic efficacy and patient characteristics may influence hypoglycemic events. The present analysis evaluated the risk of hypoglycemia with sitagliptin or glipizide after adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value.

METHODS

Data for this analysis were from the aforementioned 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. The primary endpoint was confirmed hypoglycemia (i.e., symptomatic hypoglycemia confirmed with a concurrent fingerstick glucose ≤70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]); the secondary endpoint was severe hypoglycemia (requiring medical or non-medical assistance or symptoms of neuroglycopenia). Complementary log-log regression random effects models with terms for treatment, most recently measured HbA(1c) value, time (i.e., days since randomization), gender, and age (< or ≥65 years) were used to assess adjusted subject-specific treatment effects.

RESULTS

Over the full range of HbA(1c) levels and follow-up time, the risk of confirmed hypoglycemic events was lower with sitagliptin compared with glipizide (31 vs. 448 events; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.05 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.09], p < 0.001). The risk was also lower with sitagliptin in the younger (HR = 0.06 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.12], p < 0.001) and older (HR = 0.02 [0.01, 0.08], p < 0.001) age groups compared with glipizide. For severe hypoglycemia events (2 vs. 22), the risk was lower with sitagliptin (HR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.47]; p = 0.005).

LIMITATIONS

The actual time between the HbA(1c) measurement and the hypoglycemic event was variable and not controlled for in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

In pre-specified analyses adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value, there was a substantial reduction in risk for confirmed hypoglycemia with sitagliptin compared to glipizide when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with T2DM. The risk of confirmed hypoglycemia was very low in younger and older patients treated with sitagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 54-week study

AIM

To assess the 54-week efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone, compared with pioglitazone monotherapy, and to assess safety in these groups during the 30 weeks after the dosage of pioglitazone was increased from 30 to 45 mg/day, in drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8-12%].

METHODS

Following a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study (Sitagliptin Protocol 064, Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00397631; Yoon KH, Shockey GR, Teng R et al. Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and pioglitazone on glycaemic control and measures of beta-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract 2011; 65: 154-164) in which patients were treated with the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg/day and pioglitazone 30 mg/day or monotherapy with pioglitazone 30 mg/day, patients entered a 30-week extension study. In the extension study, the pioglitazone dose was increased from 30 to 45 mg/day in both groups. Depending upon treatment allocation, patients took one tablet of sitagliptin 100 mg or matching placebo daily. Pioglitazone was administered in an open-label fashion as a single 45-mg tablet taken once daily. Patients not meeting specific glycaemic goals in the extension study were rescued with metformin therapy. Efficacy and safety results for the extension study excluded data after initiation of rescue therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 520 patients initially randomized, 446 completed the base study and, of these, 317 entered the extension. In this extension study cohort, the mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at the end of the base study (week 24) were -2.5% and -62.1 mg/dl with the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg and pioglitazone 30 mg versus -1.9% and -48.7 mg/dl with pioglitazone monotherapy. At the end of the extension study (week 54), the mean reduction in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -2.4% with the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg and pioglitazone 45 mg versus -1.9% with pioglitazone monotherapy [between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.5% (-0.8, -0.3)] and the mean reduction in FPG was -61.3 mg/dl versus -52.8 mg/dl, respectively [between-group difference (95% CI) = -8.5 mg/dl (-16.3, -0.7)]. Safety and tolerability of initial treatment with the combination of sitagliptin and pioglitazone and pioglitazone monotherapy were similar. As expected, increases in body weight from baseline were observed in both treatment groups at week 54: 4.8 and 4.1 kg in the combination and monotherapy groups, respectively [between-group difference (95% CI) = 0.7 kg (-0.7, 2.1)].

CONCLUSION

In this study, initial combination therapy with sitagliptin 100 mg and pioglitazone 30 mg increased to 45 mg after 24 weeks led to a substantial and durable incremental improvement in glycaemic control compared with initial treatment with pioglitazone monotherapy during a 54-week treatment period. Both initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone and pioglitazone monotherapy were generally well tolerated (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01028391).

Initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin results in greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with pioglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial therapy with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin and metformin compared with pioglitazone in drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7.5-12% and not on antihyperglycaemic agent therapy were randomized in a double-blind manner to initial treatment with a FDC of sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg twice daily (N = 261) or pioglitazone 30 mg per day (N = 256). Sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone were up-titrated over 4 weeks to doses of 50/1000 mg twice daily and 45 mg per day, respectively. Both treatments were then continued for an additional 28 weeks.

RESULTS

From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.9% in both groups, least squares (LS) mean changes in HbA1c at week 32 were -1.9 and -1.4% for sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone, respectively (between-group difference = -0.5%; p < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients had an HbA1c of <7% at week 32 with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone (57% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared with pioglitazone, sitagliptin/metformin treatment resulted in greater LS mean reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) [-56.0 mg/dl (-3.11 mmol/l) vs. -44.0 mg/dl (-2.45 mmol/l), p < 0.001] and in 2-h post-meal glucose [-102.2 mg/dl (-5.68 mmol/l) vs. -82.0 mg/dl (-4.56 mmol/l), p < 0.001] at week 32. A substantially greater reduction in FPG [-40.5 mg/dl (-2.25 mmol/l) vs. -13.0 mg/dl (-0.72 mmol/l), p < 0.001] was observed at week 1 with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone. A greater reduction in the fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio and a greater increase in homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β) were observed with sitagliptin/metformin than with pioglitazone, while greater decreases in fasting insulin and HOMA of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and a greater increase in quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) were observed with pioglitazone than with sitagliptin/metformin. Both sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone were generally well tolerated. Sitagliptin/metformin led to weight loss (-1.4 kg), while pioglitazone led to weight gain (3.0 kg) (p < 0.001 for the between-group difference). Higher incidences of diarrhoea (15.3% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001), nausea (4.6% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.02) and vomiting (1.9% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026), and a lower incidence of oedema (1.1% vs. 7.0%, p < 0.001), were observed with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone. The between-group difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia did not reach statistical significance (8.4 and 4.3% with sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone, respectively; p = 0.055).

CONCLUSION

Compared with pioglitazone, initial therapy with a FDC of sitagliptin and metformin led to significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control as well as a higher incidence of prespecified gastrointestinal adverse events, a lower incidence of oedema and weight loss vs. weight gain.

Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin on β-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To examine the effect of sitagliptin and metformin, alone and in combination, on modelled parameters of β-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The data used in the present analyses are from a 104-week study, which included a 24-week, placebo- and active controlled phase followed by a 30-week, active controlled, continuation phase and an additional 50-week, active controlled extension phase. Patients were randomised to one of six blinded treatments: sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d., sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., metformin 1000 mg b.i.d., metformin 500 mg b.i.d., sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. or placebo. Patients on placebo were switched in a blinded manner to metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. at week 24. Subsets of patients volunteered to undergo frequently sampled meal tolerance tests at baseline and at weeks 24, 54 and 104. β-cell responsivity was assessed with the C-peptide minimal model. The static component (Φ(s)) estimates the rate of insulin secretion related to above-basal glucose concentration. The dynamic component (Φ(d)) is related to the rate of change in glucose. The total index (Φ(total)) represents the overall response to a glycaemic stimulus and is calculated as a function of Φ(s) and Φ(d). Insulin sensitivity was estimated with the Matsuda index (ISI). The disposition index, which assesses insulin secretion relative to the prevailing insulin sensitivity, was calculated based on the Φ(total) and ISI.

RESULTS

At week 24, substantial reductions in postmeal glucose were observed with all active treatment groups relative to the placebo group. Φ(s), Φ(total) and the disposition index were significantly improved from baseline at week 24 with all active treatments relative to placebo. Generally larger effects were observed with the initial combination of sitagliptin and metformin relative to the monotherapy groups. When expressed as median percent change from baseline, Φ(s) increased from baseline by 137 and 177% in the low- and high-dose combination groups and by 85, 54, 73 and -9% in the high-dose metformin, low-dose metformin, sitagliptin monotherapy and placebo groups, respectively. At weeks 54 and 104, the combination treatment groups continued to demonstrate greater improvements in β-cell function relative to their respective monotherapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After 24 weeks of therapy, relative to placebo, initial treatment with sitagliptin or metformin monotherapy improved β-cell function; moreover, initial combination therapy demonstrated larger improvements than the individual monotherapies. Improvements in β-cell function were found with treatments for up to 2 years.

Effects of MK-0941, a novel glucokinase activator, on glycemic control in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of MK-0941, a glucokinase activator (GKA), when added to stable-dose insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this double-blind study, 587 patients taking stable-dose insulin glargine (±metformin ≥1,500 mg/day) were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to MK-0941 10, 20, 30, or 40 mg or matching placebo t.i.d. before meals (a.c.). This study included an initial 14-week, dose-ranging phase followed by a 40-week treatment phase during which patients were to be uptitrated as tolerated to 40 mg (or placebo) t.i.d. a.c. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in A1C at Week 14.

RESULTS

At Week 14, A1C and 2-h postmeal glucose (PMG) improved significantly versus placebo with all MK-0941 doses. Maximal placebo-adjusted least squares mean changes from baseline in A1C (baseline A1C 9.0%) and 2-h PMG were -0.8% and -37 mg/dL (-2 mmol/L), respectively. No significant effects on fasting plasma glucose were observed at any dose versus placebo. By 30 weeks, the initial glycemic responses noted at 14 weeks were not sustained. MK-0941 at one or more doses was associated with significant increases in the incidence of hypoglycemia, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, and proportion of patients meeting criteria for predefined limits of change for increased diastolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving stable-dose insulin glargine, the GKA MK-0941 led to improvements in glycemic control that were not sustained. MK-0941 was associated with an increased incidence of hypoglycemia and elevations in triglycerides and blood pressure.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin vs. pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin (SITA) monotherapy and SITA/metformin (MET) vs. pioglitazone (PIO) were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe hyperglycaemia (A1C = 7.5-12.0%).

METHODS

In an initial 12-week phase (Phase A), 492 patients were randomised 1 : 1 in a double-blind fashion to SITA (100 mg qd) or PIO (15 mg qd, up-titrated to 30 mg after 6 weeks). In Phase B (28 additional weeks), the SITA group was switched to SITA/MET (up-titrated to 50/1000 mg bid over 4 weeks) and the PIO group was up-titrated to 45 mg qd

RESULTS

At the end of Phase A, mean changes from baseline were -1.0% and -0.9% for A1C; -26.6 mg/dl and -28.0 mg/dl for fasting plasma glucose; and -52.8 mg/dl and -50.1 mg/dl for 2-h post-meal glucose for SITA and PIO, respectively. At the end of Phase B, improvements in glycaemic parameters were greater with SITA/MET vs. PIO: -1.7% vs. -1.4% for A1C (p = 0.002); -45.8 mg/dl vs. -37.6 mg/dl for fasting plasma glucose (p = 0.03); -90.3 mg/dl vs. -69.1 mg/dl for 2-h postmeal glucose (p = 0.001); and 55.0% vs. 40.5% for patients with A1C < 7% (p = 0.004). A numerically higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a significantly lower incidence of oedema were observed with SITA/MET vs. PIO. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was similarly low in both groups. Body weight decreased with SITA/MET and increased with PIO (-1.1 kg vs. 3.4 kg; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Improvements in glycaemic control were greater with SITA/MET vs. PIO, with weight loss vs. weight gain. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

A treatment strategy implementing combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin results in superior glycaemic control versus metformin monotherapy due to a low rate of addition of antihyperglycaemic agents

AIMS

Combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin has shown superior efficacy compared with metformin monotherapy. In this study, we compare two strategies: initial combination therapy with sitagliptin/metformin as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) and initial metformin monotherapy, with the option to add additional antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) in either treatment arm during the second phase of the study in order to reach adequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

We evaluated the sitagliptin and metformin FDC compared with metformin monotherapy over 44 weeks in 1250 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a two-part, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The initial 18-week portion (Phase A) of this study in which additional AHAs were only allowed based on prespecified glycaemic criteria, has been previously reported. Here, we present results from the 26-week Phase B portion of the study during which double-blind study medication continued; however, unlike Phase A, during Phase B investigators were unmasked to results for haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and directed to manage glycaemic control by adding incremental AHA(s) as deemed clinically appropriate.

RESULTS

There were 1250 patients randomized in the study with 965 completing Phase A and continuing in Phase B. Among patients receiving sitagliptin/metformin FDC or metformin monotherapy, 8.8% and 16.7% received additional AHA therapy, respectively. Although glycaemic therapy in both groups was to have been managed to optimize HbA1c reductions with the option for investigators to supplement with additional AHAs during Phase B, patients randomized to initial therapy with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had larger reductions of HbA1c from baseline compared with patients randomized to initial metformin monotherapy [least squares (LS) mean change: -2.3% and -1.8% (p < 0.001 for difference) for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and metformin monotherapy groups, respectively]. A significantly larger reduction in FPG from baseline was observed in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group compared with the metformin monotherapy group (p = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group had an HbA1c of less than 7.0% or less than 6.5% compared with those on metformin monotherapy. Both treatment strategies were generally well tolerated, with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia in both groups and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group compared with the metformin monotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy initially implementing combination therapy with sitagliptin/metformin FDC was superior to a strategy initially implementing metformin monotherapy, even when accounting for the later addition of supplemental AHAs. Sitagliptin/metformin FDC was generally well tolerated.

The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This double-blind study (18-week Phase A and 26-week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein.

RESULTS

At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was -2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and -1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (-3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (-3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

Sitagliptin more effectively achieves a composite endpoint for A1C reduction, lack of hypoglycemia and no body weight gain compared with glipizide

Sitagliptin and glipizide added to metformin provided similar degrees of glycemic efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy at 1 year; however, significantly more patients in the sitagliptin group achieved an A1C reduction of >0.5% without hypoglycemia and without an increase in body weight.

Efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin monotherapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Type 2 diabetes in the elderly is an important and insufficiently studied public health problem. This study evaluated sitagliptin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥ 65 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study conducted at 52 sites in the United States. Patients were treated with once-daily sitagliptin (100 or 50 mg, depending on renal function) or placebo for 24 weeks. Key endpoints included change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), 2-hour post-meal glucose (2-h PMG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at week 24, and average blood glucose on treatment days 3 and 7.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00305604.

RESULTS

Among randomized patients (N = 206), mean age was 72 years and mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.8%. At week 24, HbA(1c) decreased by 0.7%, 2-h PMG by 61 mg/dL, and FPG by 27 mg/dL in sitagliptin-treated patients compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). On day 3 of treatment, mean average blood glucose was decreased from baseline by 20.4 mg/dL in sitagliptin-treated patients compared with placebo (p < 0.001). In subgroups defined by baseline HbA(1c) <8.0% (n = 132), ≥ 8.0% to <9.0% (n = 42), and ≥ 9.0% (n = 18), the placebo-adjusted reductions in HbA(1c) with sitagliptin treatment were 0.5%, 0.9%, and 1.6%, respectively. Patients in the sitagliptin and placebo groups had similar rates of adverse events overall (46.1% and 52.9%, respectively); serious adverse events were reported in 6.9% and 13.5%, respectively. No adverse events of hypoglycemia were reported. Potential study limitations include a relatively small number of patients with more severe hyperglycemia (HbA(1c) ≥ 9.0%) and the exclusion of patients with severe renal insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

In this study, sitagliptin treatment significantly and rapidly improved glycemic measures and was well tolerated in patients aged ≥ 65 years with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with sitagliptin or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

AIM

to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sitagliptin or glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

patients with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) of 6.5-9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥ 1500 mg/day) combined with diet and exercise for at least 12 weeks were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either sitagliptin 100 mg daily (N = 516) or glimepiride (starting dose 1 mg/day and up-titrated, based upon patient's self-monitoring of blood glucose results, to a maximum dose of up to 6 mg/day) (N = 519) for 30 weeks. The primary analysis assessed whether sitagliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA(1c) at week 30 (based on the criterion of having an upper bound of the 95% CI less than the prespecified non-inferiority bound of 0.4%).

RESULTS

the mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.5% in both the sitagliptin group (n = 443) and the glimepiride group (n = 436). After 30 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA(1c) from baseline was -0.47% with sitagliptin and -0.54% with glimepiride, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.07% (-0.03, 0.16). This result met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The percentages of patients with an HbA(1c) < 7.0% at week 30 were 52 and 60% in the sitagliptin and glimepiride groups, respectively. The LS mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (95% CI) was -0.8 mmol/l (-1.0, -0.6) with sitagliptin and -1.0 mmol/l (-1.2, -0.8) with glimepiride, for a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.2 mmol/l (-0.1, 0.4). The percentages of patients for whom hypoglycaemia was reported were 7% in the sitagliptin group and 22% in the glimepiride group (percentage-point difference = -15, p < 0.001). Relative to baseline, sitagliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.8 kg), whereas glimepiride was associated with a mean weight gain (1.2 kg), yielding a between-group difference of -2.0 kg (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy, the addition of sitagliptin or glimepiride led to similar improvement in glycaemic control after 30 weeks. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated. Compared to treatment with glimepiride, treatment with sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and with weight loss versus weight gain (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00701090).

Sitagliptin: review of preclinical and clinical data regarding incidence of pancreatitis

Recent case reports of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with incretin-based therapies have triggered interest regarding the possibility of a mechanism-based association between pancreatitis and glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetics or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The objective of this review was to describe the controlled preclinical and clinical trial data regarding the incidence of pancreatitis with sitagliptin, the first DPP-4 inhibitor approved for use in patients with T2DM. Tissue samples from multiple animal species treated with sitagliptin for up to 2 years at plasma exposures substantially in excess of human exposure were evaluated to determine whether any potential gross or histomorphological changes suggestive of pancreatitis occurred. Sections were prepared by routine methods, stained with haematoxylin and eosin and examined microscopically. A pooled analysis of 19 controlled clinical trials, comprising 10,246 patients with T2DM treated for up to 2 years, was performed using patient-level data from each study for the evaluation of clinical and laboratory adverse events. Adverse events were encoded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 12.0 system. Incidences of adverse events were adjusted for patient exposure. Tissue samples from preclinical studies in multiple animal species did not reveal any evidence of treatment-related pancreatitis. The pooled analysis of controlled clinical trials revealed similar incidence rates of pancreatitis in patients treated with sitagliptin compared with those not treated with sitagliptin (0.08 events per 100 patient-years vs. 0.10 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). Preclinical and clinical trial data with sitagliptin to date do not indicate an increased risk of pancreatitis in patients with T2DM treated with sitagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To assess the 104-week efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA(1c) 7.5-11%) on diet and exercise.

METHODS

This study was a 50-week, double-blind extension of a 54-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial study of the initial combination of sitagliptin and metformin, metformin monotherapy and sitagliptin monotherapy (104 weeks total duration). Patients assigned to active therapy in the 54-week base study remained on those treatments in the extension study: sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (higher dose combination), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (lower dose combination), metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (higher dose), metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (lower dose) and sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. Patients randomized to receive the sequence of placebo/metformin were switched, in a blinded manner, from placebo to metformin monotherapy uptitrated to 1000 mg b.i.d. beginning at week 24 and remained on higher dose metformin through the extension.

RESULTS

Amongst patients who entered the extension study without having initiated glycaemic rescue therapy, least-squares mean changes in HbA(1c) from baseline at week 104 were -1.7% (higher dose combination), -1.4% (lower dose combination), -1.3% (higher dose), -1.1% (lower dose) and -1.2% (sitagliptin). The proportions of patients with an HbA(1c) <7% at week 104 were 60% (higher dose combination), 45% (lower dose combination), 45% (higher dose), 28% (lower dose) and 32% (sitagliptin). Fasting and postmeal measures of glycaemic control and beta-cell function improved in all groups, with glycaemic responses generally maintained over the 104-week treatment period. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was low across all groups. The incidences of gastrointestinal adverse experiences were generally lower in the sitagliptin group and similar between the metformin monotherapy and combination groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin and monotherapy with either drug alone provided substantial and sustained glycaemic improvements and were well tolerated over 104 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in clinical studies: a pooled analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

In a previous pooled analysis of 12 double-blind clinical studies that included data on 6,139 patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As clinical development of sitagliptin continues, additional studies have been completed, and more patients have been exposed to sitagliptin. The purpose of the present analysis is to update the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by pooling data from 19 double-blind clinical studies.

METHODS

The present analysis included data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 5,429; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 4,817; non-exposed group). The 19 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized studies that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years and for which results were available as of July 2009. These 19 studies assessed sitagliptin taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea +/- metformin, insulin +/- metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea +/- metformin, insulin +/- metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin. The analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events.

RESULTS

Summary measures of overall adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups, except for an increased incidence of drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were also generally similar between the two groups, except for increased incidence rates of hypoglycemia, related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea, and diarrhea, related to the greater use of metformin, in the non-exposed group and constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in clinical studies: a pooled analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

In a previous pooled analysis of 12 double-blind clinical studies that included data on 6,139 patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As clinical development of sitagliptin continues, additional studies have been completed, and more patients have been exposed to sitagliptin. The purpose of the present analysis is to update the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by pooling data from 19 double-blind clinical studies.

METHODS

The present analysis included data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 5,429; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 4,817; non-exposed group). The 19 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized studies that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years and for which results were available as of July 2009. These 19 studies assessed sitagliptin taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea +/- metformin, insulin +/- metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea +/- metformin, insulin +/- metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin. The analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events.

RESULTS

Summary measures of overall adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups, except for an increased incidence of drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were also generally similar between the two groups, except for increased incidence rates of hypoglycemia, related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea, and diarrhea, related to the greater use of metformin, in the non-exposed group and constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.

Sitagliptin: review of preclinical and clinical data regarding incidence of pancreatitis

Recent case reports of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with incretin-based therapies have triggered interest regarding the possibility of a mechanism-based association between pancreatitis and glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetics or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The objective of this review was to describe the controlled preclinical and clinical trial data regarding the incidence of pancreatitis with sitagliptin, the first DPP-4 inhibitor approved for use in patients with T2DM. Tissue samples from multiple animal species treated with sitagliptin for up to 2 years at plasma exposures substantially in excess of human exposure were evaluated to determine whether any potential gross or histomorphological changes suggestive of pancreatitis occurred. Sections were prepared by routine methods, stained with haematoxylin and eosin and examined microscopically. A pooled analysis of 19 controlled clinical trials, comprising 10,246 patients with T2DM treated for up to 2 years, was performed using patient-level data from each study for the evaluation of clinical and laboratory adverse events. Adverse events were encoded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 12.0 system. Incidences of adverse events were adjusted for patient exposure. Tissue samples from preclinical studies in multiple animal species did not reveal any evidence of treatment-related pancreatitis. The pooled analysis of controlled clinical trials revealed similar incidence rates of pancreatitis in patients treated with sitagliptin compared with those not treated with sitagliptin (0.08 events per 100 patient-years vs. 0.10 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). Preclinical and clinical trial data with sitagliptin to date do not indicate an increased risk of pancreatitis in patients with T2DM treated with sitagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of monotherapy of sitagliptin compared with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sitagliptin and metformin in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In a double-blind study, 1050 treatment-naïve patients (i.e. not taking an antihyperglycaemic agent for > or =16 weeks prior to study entry) with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) 6.5-9% were randomized (1:1) to treatment with once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 528) or twice-daily metformin 1000 mg (N = 522) for 24 weeks. Metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 2000 mg per day (or maximum tolerated daily dose > or =1000 mg) over a period of 5 weeks. The primary analysis used a per-protocol (PP) approach to assess whether sitagliptin was non-inferior to metformin based on HbA(1c) change from baseline at week 24. Non-inferiority was to be declared if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference in this endpoint was <0.40%.

RESULTS

From a mean baseline HbA(1c) of 7.2% in the PP population, HbA(1c) change from baseline was -0.43% with sitagliptin (n = 455) and -0.57% with metformin (n = 439). The between-group difference (95% CI) was 0.14% (0.06, 0.21), thus confirming non-inferiority. Baseline HbA(1c) influenced treatment response, with larger reductions in HbA(1c) observed in patients with baseline HbA(1c)> or =8% in the sitagliptin (-1.13%; n = 74) and metformin (-1.24%; n = 73) groups. The proportions of patients at week 24 with HbA(1c) values at the goals of <7 or <6.5% were 69 and 34% with sitagliptin and 76 and 39% with metformin, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose changes from baseline were -11.5 mg/dL (-0.6 mmol/l) and -19.4 mg/dl (-1.1 mmol/l) with sitagliptin and metformin, respectively (difference in LS mean change from baseline [95% CI] = 8.0 mg /dl [4.5,11.4]). Both treatments led to similar improvements from baseline in measures of homeostasis model assessment-beta cell function (HOMA-beta) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). The incidence of hypoglycaemia was 1.7% with sitagliptin and 3.3% with metformin (p = 0.116). The incidence of gastrointestinal-related adverse experiences was substantially lower with sitagliptin (11.6%) compared with metformin (20.7%) (difference in incidence [95% CI] = -9.1% [-13.6,-4.7]), primarily because of significantly decreased incidences of diarrhoea (3.6 vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001) and nausea (1.1 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.032). Body weight was reduced from baseline with both sitagliptin (LS mean change [95% CI] = -0.6 kg [-0.9,-0.4]) and metformin (-1.9 kg [-2.2, -1.7]) (p < 0.001 for sitagliptin vs. metformin).

CONCLUSIONS

In this 24-week monotherapy study, sitagliptin was non-inferior to metformin in improving HbA(1c) in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Although both treatments were generally well tolerated, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal-related adverse experiences was observed with sitagliptin.

Sitagliptin 100 mg daily effect on DPP-4 inhibition and compound-specific glycemic improvement

OBJECTIVE

In clinical trials, the degree of glucose lowering with sitagliptin has been correlated with the magnitude of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition over 24 h. Previous studies evaluating sitagliptin doses ranging from 25 to 200 mg/day demonstrated that the daily dose of 100 mg provided maximal glucose-lowering efficacy for this compound in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, sitagliptin 200 mg once daily provided numerically greater percent plasma DPP-4 inhibition compared with 100 mg once daily. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether sitagliptin 200 mg once daily provides greater improvement in glycemic efficacy as assessed by weighted mean glucose (WMG) over 24 h relative to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily and to relate the percent DPP-4 inhibition achieved with these doses to any between-treatment differences in glycemic efficacy.

METHODS

In a double-blind crossover study, patients with type 2 diabetes (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 130-250 mg/dL) were randomized to one of six treatment sequences over three treatment periods (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, or sitagliptin 200 mg once daily). Each of the treatment periods was 7 days in duration, with 28-day washout periods between treatments. After each treatment period, patients underwent blood sampling at various time points over 24 h to determine 24-h WMG. Plasma DPP-4 activity was assessed at trough, 24 h following dosing on day 7; percent DPP-4 inhibition was corrected for sample assay dilution.

RESULTS

The 103 randomized patients had a baseline mean FPG of 172 mg/dL. Following a planned interim analysis, the study was stopped because the 24-h WMG values were not different between the sitagliptin doses. Furthermore, a significant carryover effect across periods was observed for FPG; thus, efficacy results from period 1 are presented herein. The 24-h WMG values were significantly (p < 0.01) lower with sitagliptin relative to placebo, but the difference between sitagliptin doses was not significant (p = 0.365). Corrected percent plasma DPP-4 inhibition at trough was not significantly (p = 0.791) different with sitagliptin 200 mg (LS mean [95% CI] 96.9% [90.0, 100.0]) compared with sitagliptin 100 mg (95.6% [88.4, 100.0]). The early termination and the carryover effect described above are limitations to this study.

CONCLUSION

Across sitagliptin doses in this study, the similarity of the 24-h WMG concentrations and the similarity of the corrected DPP-4 inhibition values support prior findings that the maximal glucose-lowering efficacy of sitagliptin is achieved with once-daily dosing of 100 mg. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00541229.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 54-week study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the 54-week efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (HbA(1c) 7.5-11%) on diet and exercise.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was multinational study conducted at 140 clinical sites in 18 countries. Following an initial 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, patients entered a double-blind continuation period for an additional 30 weeks. Following the week 24 evaluation, patients remained on their previously assigned active, oral treatments: sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (S100 + M2000), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (S100 + M1000), metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (M2000), metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (M1000), and sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. (S100). Patients initially randomized to placebo were switched to M2000 (designated PBO/M2000) at week 24. This report summarizes the overall safety and tolerability data for the 54-week study and presents efficacy results for patients randomized to continuous treatments who entered the 30-week continuation period.

RESULTS

Of the 1091 randomized patients, 906 completed the 24-week placebo-controlled phase and 885 patients continued into the 30-week continuation period (S100 + M2000 n = 161, S100+M1000 n = 160, M2000 n = 153, M1000 n = 147, S100 n = 141, PBO/M2000 n = 123). At baseline, patients included in the efficacy analysis had mean age of 54 years, mean BMI of 32 kg/m(2), mean HbA(1c) of 8.7% (8.5-8.8% across groups), and mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 4 years. At week 54, in the all-patients-treated analysis of continuing patients, least-squares (LS) mean changes in HbA(1c) from baseline were -1.8% (S100 + M2000), -1.4% (S100 + M1000), -1.3% (M2000), -1.0% (M1000), and -0.8% (S100). The proportions of continuing patients with an HbA(1c) < 7% at week 54 were 67% (S100 + M2000), 48% (S100 + M1000), 44% (M2000), 25% (M1000), and 23% (S100). For the patients completing treatment through week 54, LS mean changes in HbA(1c) from baseline were -1.9% (S100 + M2000), -1.7% (S100 + M1000), -1.6% (M2000), -1.2% (M1000), and -1.4% (S100). Glycemic response was generally durable over time across treatments. All treatments improved measures of beta-cell function (e.g., HOMA-beta, proinsulin/insulin ratio). Mean body weight decreased from baseline in the combination and metformin monotherapy groups and was unchanged from baseline in the sitagliptin monotherapy group. The incidence of hypoglycemia was low (1-3%) across treatment groups. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse experiences with the co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin was similar to that observed with metformin alone.

LIMITATIONS

The patient population evaluated in the 54-week efficacy analysis was a population of patients who entered the continuation period without receiving glycemic rescue therapy in the 24-week placebo-controlled period. Because the baseline HbA(1c) inclusion criteria ranged from 7.5 to 11% and the glycemic rescue criterion was an HbA(1c) > 8% after week 24, there was a greater likelihood of glycemic rescue in the monotherapy groups; this led to more missing data in the continuation all-patients-treated population(CAPT) analysis and fewer patients contributing to the completers analysis in the monotherapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, initial treatment with sitagliptin, metformin, or the combination therapy of sitagliptin and metformin provided substantial and durable glycemic control, improved markers of beta-cell function, and was generally well-tolerated over 54 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AMP-activated protein kinase deficiency enhances myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury but has minimal effect on the antioxidant/antinitrative protection of adiponectin

BACKGROUND

Diabetes increases the morbidity/mortality of ischemic heart disease, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. Deficiency of both AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and adiponectin occurs in diabetes, but whether AMPK is cardioprotective or a central mediator of adiponectin cardioprotection in vivo remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Male adult mice with cardiomyocyte-specific overexpression of a mutant AMPKalpha2 subunit (AMPK-DN) or wild-type (WT) littermates were subjected to in vivo myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (MI/R) and treated with vehicle or adiponectin. In comparison to WT, AMPK-DN mice subjected to MI/R endured greater cardiac injury (larger infarct size, more apoptosis, and poorer cardiac function) likely as a result of increased oxidative stress in these animals. Treatment of AMPK-DN mice with adiponectin failed to phosphorylate cardiac acetyl-CoA carboxylase as it did in WT mouse heart. However, a significant portion of the cardioprotection of adiponectin against MI/R injury was retained in AMPK-DN mice. Furthermore, treatment of AMPK-DN mice with adiponectin reduced MI/R-induced cardiac oxidative and nitrative stress to the same degree as that seen in WT mice. Finally, treating AMPK-DN cardiomyocytes with adiponectin reduced simulated MI/R-induced oxidative/nitrative stress and decreased cell death (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, our results demonstrated that AMPK deficiency significantly increases MI/R injury in vivo but has minimal effect on the antioxidative/antinitrative protection of adiponectin.

The association of ENPP1 K121Q with diabetes incidence is abolished by lifestyle modification in the diabetes prevention program

CONTEXT

Insulin resistance is an important feature of type 2 diabetes. Ectoenzyme nucleotide pyrophosphatase phosphodiesterase 1 (ENPP1) inhibits insulin signaling, and a recent meta-analysis reported a nominal association between the Q allele in the K121Q (rs1044498) single nucleotide polymorphism in its gene ENPP1 and type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE AND INTERVENTION: We examined the impact of this polymorphism on diabetes incidence as well as insulin secretion and sensitivity at baseline and after treatment with a lifestyle intervention or metformin vs. placebo in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND OUTCOME: We genotyped ENPP1 K121Q in 3548 DPP participants and performed Cox regression analyses using genotype, intervention, and interactions as predictors of diabetes incidence.

RESULTS

Fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin were higher in QQ homozygotes at baseline (P < 0.001 for both). There was a significant interaction between genotype at rs1044498 and intervention under the dominant model (P = 0.03). In analyses stratified by treatment arm, a positive association with diabetes incidence was found in Q allele carriers compared to KK homozygotes [hazard ratio (HR), 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.76; P = 0.009] in the placebo arm (n = 996). Lifestyle modification eliminated this increased risk. These findings persisted after adjustment for body mass index and race/ethnicity. Association of ENPP1 K121Q genotype with diabetes incidence under the additive and recessive genetic models showed consistent trends [HR, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.99-1.23), P = 0.08; and HR, 1.16 (95% CI, 0.92-1.45), P = 0.20, respectively] but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

ENPP1 K121Q is associated with increased diabetes incidence; the DPP lifestyle intervention eliminates this increased risk.

Protective vascular and myocardial effects of adiponectin

Adiponectin is an abundant plasma protein secreted from adipocytes that elicits protective effects in the vasculature and myocardium. In obesity and insulin-resistant states, adiponectin levels are reduced and loss of its protective effects might contribute to the excess cardiovascular risk observed in these conditions. Adiponectin ameliorates the progression of macrovascular disease in rodent models, consistent with its correlation with improved vascular outcomes in epidemiological studies. The mechanisms of adiponectin signaling are multiple and vary among its cellular sites of action. In endothelial cells, adiponectin enhances production of nitric oxide, suppresses production of reactive oxygen species, and protects cells from inflammation that results from exposure to high glucose levels or tumor necrosis factor, through activation of AMP-activated protein kinase and cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase (also known as protein kinase A) signaling cascades. In the myocardium, adiponectin-mediated protection from ischemia-reperfusion injury is linked to cyclo-oxygenase-2-mediated suppression of tumor necrosis factor signaling, inhibition of apoptosis by AMP-activated protein kinase, and inhibition of excess peroxynitrite-induced oxidative and nitrative stress. In this Review, we provide an update of studies of the signaling effects of adiponectin in endothelial cells and cardiomyocytes.

Rottlerin activates AMPK possibly through LKB1 in vascular cells and tissues

AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is a cellular energy sensor involved in multiple cell signaling pathways that has become an attractive therapeutic target for vascular diseases. It is not clear whether rottlerin, an inhibitor of protein kinase Cdelta, activates AMPK in vascular cells and tissues. In the present study, we have examined the effect of rottlerin on AMPK in vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) and isolated rabbit aorta. Rottlerin reduced cellular ATP and activated AMPK in VSMCs and rabbit aorta; however, inhibition of PKCdelta by three different methods did not activate AMPK. Both VSMCs and rabbit aorta expressed the upstream AMPK kinase LKB1 protein, and rottlerin-induced AMPK activation was decreased in VSMCs by overexpression of dominant-negative LKB1, suggesting that LKB1 is involved in the upstream regulation of AMPK stimulated by rottlerin. These data suggest for the first time that LKB1 mediates rottlerin-induced activation of AMPK in vascular cells and tissues.

Initial treatment with fixed-dose combination rosiglitazone/glimepiride in patients with previously untreated type 2 diabetes

AIM

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of two different dosing regimens of fixed-dose combination (FDC) rosiglitazone (RSG) plus glimepiride (GLIM) compared with RSG or GLIM monotherapy in drug-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Drug-naive subjects (n = 901) were enrolled into this 28-week, double-blind, parallel-group study if their glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) was >7.5% but <or=12%. Subjects were randomized to receive either GLIM [4 mg once daily (OD) maximal], RSG (8 mg OD maximal) or RSG/GLIM FDC regimen A (4 mg/4 mg OD maximal) or RSG/GLIM FDC regimen B (8 mg/4 mg OD maximal). Patients were assessed for efficacy and safety every 4 weeks for the first 12 weeks of the study, and at weeks 20 and 28. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline. Key secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving recommended HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) targets; change from baseline in FPG, insulin, C-reactive protein (CRP), adiponectin, free fatty acids and lipids; and percentage change in homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function. Safety evaluations included adverse-event (AE) monitoring and clinical laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

At week 28, both RSG/GLIM FDC regimens significantly reduced HbA(1c) (mean +/- s.d.: -2.4 +/- 1.4% FDC regimen A; -2.5 +/- 1.4% FDC regimen B) to a greater extent than RSG (-1.8 +/- 1.5%) or GLIM (-1.7 +/- 1.4%) monotherapy (model-adjusted mean treatment difference, p < 0.0001 vs. both RSG and GLIM). Significantly more subjects achieved HbA(1c) target levels of <or=6.5 and <7% with either RSG/GLIM FDC regimen compared with RSG or GLIM alone (model-adjusted odds ratio, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Similarly, a significantly greater reduction in FPG levels was observed in subjects treated with the RSG/GLIM FDC [mean +/- s.d. (mg/dl): -69.5 +/- 57.5 FDC regimen A; -79.9 +/- 56.8 FDC regimen B) compared with RSG (-56.6 +/- 58.1) or GLIM (-42.2 +/- 66.1) monotherapy (model-adjusted mean treatment difference, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Improvement in CRP was also observed in subjects who were treated with a RSG/GLIM FDC or RSG monotherapy compared with GLIM monotherapy. RSG/GLIM FDC was generally well tolerated, with no new safety or tolerability issues identified from its monotherapy components, and a similar AE profile was observed across FDC regimens. The most commonly reported AE was hypoglycaemia, and the incidence of confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia (3.6-5.5%) was comparable among subjects treated with an RSG/GLIM FDC and GLIM monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with RSG or GLIM monotherapy, the RSG/GLIM FDC improved glycaemic control with no significant increased risk of hypoglycaemia. RSG/GLIM FDC provides an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for drug-naive individuals with T2DM.