Effect of once weekly dulaglutide by baseline beta‐cell function in people with type 2 diabetes in the AWARD programme

Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists lower blood glucose in type 2 diabetes (T2D) partially through glucose‐dependent stimulation of insulin secretion. The aim of this study was to investigate whether beta‐cell function (as measured by HOMA2‐%B) at baseline affects the glycaemic response to dulaglutide. Dulaglutide‐treated patients from AWARD‐1, AWARD‐3 and AWARD‐6 clinical studies were categorised based on their homeostatic model assessment of beta‐cell function (HOMA2‐%B) tertiles. Changes in glycaemic measures in response to treatment with once‐weekly dulaglutide were evaluated in each HOMA2‐%B tertile. Patients with low HOMA2‐%B had higher baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial blood glucose, and longer duration of diabetes (P < .001, all) (mean low, middle and high tertiles with dulaglutide 1.5 mg: HOMAB‐2%B, 31%, 58%, 109%; HbA1c, 8.7%, 7.7%, 7.3%, respectively). At 26 weeks, the low tertile experienced larger reductions in HbA1c compared to the high tertile with dulaglutide 1.5 mg (mean; ?1.55% vs. ?0.98% [?16.94 vs. ?10.71 mmol/mol]). Differences between low and high tertiles disappeared when adjusted for baseline HbA1c (LSM; ?1.00 vs. ?1.18% [?10.93 vs. ?12.90 mmol/mol]). Greater decreases in fasting blood glucose and greater increases in fasting C‐peptide were observed in the low tertile. Similar increases in HOMA2‐%B were observed in all tertiles. Dulaglutide demonstrated clinically relevant HbA1c reduction irrespective of estimated baseline beta‐cell function.     

Efficacy and safety of the addition of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sitagliptin: The VERTIS SITA2 placebo‐controlled randomized study

Aims

To assess ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled by metformin and sitagliptin.

Materials and Methods

In this double‐blind randomized study ( Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02036515), patients (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0% to 10.5% [53‐91 mmol/mol] receiving metformin ≥1500 mg/d and sitagliptin 100 mg/d; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²) were randomized to ertugliflozin 5 mg once‐daily, 15 mg once‐daily or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26; treatment was continued until Week 52.

Results

A total of 464 patients were randomized (mean baseline HbA1c, 8.0% [64.3 mmol/mol]; eGFR, 87.9 mL/min/1.73 m²). After 26 weeks, placebo‐adjusted least squares (LS) mean changes in HbA1c from baseline were ?0.7% (?7.5 mmol/mol) and ?0.8% (?8.3 mmol/mol) for ertugliflozin 5 and 15 mg, respectively (both P < .001); 17.0%, 32.1% and 39.9% of patients receiving placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg or ertugliflozin 15 mg, respectively, had HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were observed with ertugliflozin relative to placebo. The positive effects of ertugliflozin on glycaemic control, BW and SBP were maintained through Week 52. A higher incidence of genital mycotic infections was observed in male and female patients receiving ertugliflozin (3.7%‐14.1%) vs placebo (0%‐1.9%) through Week 52. The incidence of urinary tract infections, symptomatic hypoglycaemia and hypovolaemia adverse events were not meaningfully different across groups.

Conclusions

Ertugliflozin added to metformin and sitagliptin was well‐tolerated, and provided clinically meaningful, durable glycaemic control, BW and SBP reductions vs placebo over 52 weeks.     

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in the early control of fasting serum glucose and HbA1c

AimsTo determine the early benefit:risk balance of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThis post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, open-label study (AWARD-2; modified intention-to-treat group) in which suboptimally controlled metformin + glimepiride-treated patients received dulaglutide 1.5 mg (n = 273) or insulin glargine (n = 262). Two composite endpoints were used: for weeks 2–20, fasting serum glucose (FSG) <130 mg/dL (<7.2 mmol/L) without hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L] or severe hypoglycemia); at week 26, patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (<53.0 mmol/mol) or reduction from baseline ≥1.0% (≥10.9 mmol/mol), no hypoglycemia (as defined above) and no weight gain. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated using logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe probability of reaching the FSG target without hypoglycemia was higher with dulaglutide than with insulin glargine at weeks 4 (OR 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–2.60) and 8 (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.15–2.48). The proportion of patients achieving the 26-week endpoint was higher with dulaglutide (37.4% vs. 10.3%; OR 5.28; 95% CI 3.28–8.48).ConclusionsDulaglutide's balanced efficacy-to-safety profile compares favorably with that of insulin glargine and is apparent soon after treatment initiation and after 6 months of therapy.     

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in East‐Asian patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicentre,double‐blind,randomized, parallel‐arm,active comparator,phase III trial

Aims

To compare the efficacy and safety of once‐weekly glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg with glimepiride in East‐Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Materials and methods

In this phase III, multinational, multicentre, double‐blind, randomized, parallel‐arm, 26‐week study, patients with inadequate glycaemic control were randomized 1:1:1 to once‐weekly dulaglutide 1.5 or 0.75 mg or daily glimepiride (1‐3 mg/d). The primary endpoint was assessment of the non‐inferiority of dulaglutide (1.5 mg), as measured by change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), compared with glimepiride using a 0.4% non‐inferiority margin.

Results

A total of 737 patients were randomized (dulaglutide 1.5 mg, n = 244; dulaglutide 0.75 mg, n = 248; glimepiride, n = 245). At week 26, both doses of dulaglutide were non‐inferior and also superior to glimepiride for HbA1c reduction from baseline with a least squares mean difference of ?6.34 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] ?8.31, ?4.26) or ‐0.58% (95% CI ?0.76, ?0.39) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg and ?3.50 mmol/mol (95% CI ?5.47, ?1.42) or ?0.32% (95% CI ?0.50, ?0.13) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg (P < .001). A greater proportion of patients in the dulaglutide 1.5 mg group achieved the HbA1c target of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) compared with the glimepiride group (74.1% vs 57.4%; P < .001). The mean body weight decreased (P < .005) and total hypoglycaemia rates were lower (P < .001) in the dulaglutide groups compared with the glimepiride group. The most common drug‐related adverse events in both dulaglutide groups (≥5% of patients) included diarrhoea, nausea, increased lipase, decreased appetite, abdominal distension and vomiting.

Conclusions

Dulaglutide (both doses) demonstrated superior glycaemic control vs glimepiride, with a favourable tolerability and safety profile in East‐Asian patients with T2D.     

Effect of once‐weekly dulaglutide on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose in patient subpopulations by gender,duration of diabetes and baseline HbA1c

Aims

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes by subgroups of gender, duration of diabetes and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the dulaglutide clinical development programme (AWARD‐1 to ‐6 and ‐8 clinical trials).

Methods

Change in HbA1c was analysed by gender, duration of diabetes (<5, ≥5 years and <10, ≥10 years), and baseline HbA1c (<8.5%, ≥8.5%) in pooled and individual studies. Changes from baseline in weight, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were evaluated for individual trials.

Results

In the pooled analysis of patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg at 6 months, the reductions in HbA1c from baseline were similar across gender (men: least squares [LS] mean ?1.26% [95% confidence interval {CI} ?1.36, ?1.16]; women: LS mean ?1.33% [95% CI ?1.43, ?1.24]) and among duration of diabetes subgroups (<5 years: LS mean ?1.32% [95% CI ?1.43, ?1.22]; ≥5 and <10 years: LS mean ?1.33% [95% CI ?1.43, ?1.22]; ≥10 years: ?1.24% [95% CI ?1.35, ?1.14]). Patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% had greater HbA1c reductions than patients with baseline HbA1c <8.5%, (≥8.5%: LS mean ?1.86% [95% CI ?1.97, ?1.75]; <8.5%: LS mean ?1.02% [95% CI ?1.12, ?0.93]). Reductions in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were consistent with HbA1c changes. Similar results were observed with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. In general, body weight changes were similar among duration of diabetes and in baseline HbA1c subgroups, respectively; women had a numerically greater weight loss or less weight gain than men with both dulaglutide doses. There was no clinically meaningful difference in hypoglycaemia trends by gender or duration of diabetes. Hypoglycaemia incidence and rate were generally lower in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% than in those with <8.5%, except for the AWARD‐4 study (combination with mealtime insulin).

Conclusions

Across the AWARD studies, dulaglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control irrespective of gender, duration of diabetes, or baseline HbA1c, with greater HbA1c and FBG reductions in patients with a higher baseline HbA1c. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists.     

Effect of once-weekly dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes and different baseline glycaemic patterns: A post hoc analysis of the AWARD-2 clinical trial

The long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide acts by stimulating insulin secretion and reducing glucagon levels in a glucose-dependent manner both in the fasting and postprandial states, resulting in reductions of both fasting glucose (FG) and postprandial glucose (PPG). In contrast, the main mechanism of action of basal insulin is to reduce elevated FG by inhibiting hepatic glucose production. The aim of the present post hoc analysis of the phase 3 AWARD-2 trial was to investigate whether specific baseline glycaemic patterns respond differentially to dulaglutide compared to insulin glargine (glargine). We categorized participants into four subgroups based on prespecified glucose thresholds and their baseline FG and daily 2-hour mean PPG: low FG/low PPG; low FG/high PPG; high FG/low PPG; and high FG/high PPG. Changes in glycaemic measures in response to treatment with dulaglutide or glargine were evaluated in each subgroup. At 52 weeks, significant reductions from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were observed in all subgroups with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and with glargine (all P < .05), except in patients with low FG/low PPG who received glargine. Greater HbA1c reductions were observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg compared to glargine in all subgroups (all P ≤ .05), except in the low FG/high PPG subgroup.     

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin monotherapy compared with voglibose in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized,double‐blind trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor) and voglibose (an α‐glucosidase inhibitor) monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥6.5% and <10.0%) on diet and exercise. Methods: In a multi‐center, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group study, 319 patients were randomized (1:1) to 12‐week treatment with sitagliptin 50 mg once daily or voglibose 0.2 mg thrice daily before meals. The primary analysis assessed whether sitagliptin was non‐inferior to voglibose in lowering HbA1c. Results: After 12 weeks, sitagliptin was non‐inferior to voglibose for HbA1c‐lowering efficacy. Furthermore, sitagliptin was superior to voglibose, providing significantly greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline [least squares mean changes in HbA1c [95% confidence intervals (CI)] = ?0.7% (?0.8 to ?0.6) and ?0.3% (?0.4 to ?0.2), respectively; between‐group difference = ?0.4% (?0.5 to ?0.3), p < 0.001]. Sitagliptin was also superior to voglibose on other key efficacy endpoints, including change from baseline in 2‐h postmeal glucose (?2.8 mmol/l vs. ?1.8 mmol/l, p < 0.001) and fasting plasma glucose (?1.1 mmol/l vs. ?0.5 mmol/l, p < 0.001). After 12 weeks, the incidences of clinical adverse experiences (AEs), drug‐related AEs and gastrointestinal AEs in the sitagliptin group (48.5, 10.4 and 18.4%, respectively) were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those in the voglibose group (64.7, 26.3 and 34.6%, respectively). The incidences of hypoglycaemia, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were low and similar in both groups. Conclusions: In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, once‐daily sitagliptin monotherapy showed greater efficacy and better tolerability than thrice‐daily voglibose over 12 weeks.     

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.     

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.     

Adding saxagliptin to extended-release metformin vs. uptitrating metformin dosage

Aim: To investigate whether patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have improved glycaemic control without compromising tolerability by adding an agent with a complementary mechanism of action vs. uptitrating metformin. Methods: Adults with T2DM and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between 7.0 and 10.5% receiving metformin extended release (XR) 1500 mg/day for ≥8 weeks were randomized to receive saxagliptin 5 mg added to metformin XR 1500 mg (n = 138) or metformin XR uptitrated to 2000 mg/day (n = 144). Endpoints were change from baseline to week 18 in HbA1c (primary), 120‐min postprandial glucose (PPG), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7%. Results: At week 18, the adjusted mean reduction from baseline HbA1c was ?0.88% for saxagliptin + metformin XR and ?0.35% for uptitrated metformin XR (difference, ?0.52%; p < 0.0001). For 120‐min PPG and FPG, differences in adjusted mean change from baseline between saxagliptin + metformin XR and uptitrated metformin XR were ?1.3 mmol/l (?23.32 mg/dl) (p = 0.0013) and ?0.73 mmol/l (?13.18 mg/dl) (p = 0.0030), respectively. More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with saxagliptin + metformin XR than with uptitrated metformin XR (37.2 vs. 26.1%; p = 0.0459). The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse events (AEs) were generally similar between groups; neither group showed any notable difference in hypoglycaemia or gastrointestinal AEs. Conclusion: Adding saxagliptin to metformin XR provided superior glycaemic control compared with uptitrating metformin XR without the emergence of additional safety concerns (Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT00960076).     

Efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly dulaglutide to basal insulin for inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Chinese patients (AWARD-CHN3): A randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled,phase III trial

Aim

To determine the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide added to basal insulin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with inadequate glycaemic control.

Materials and Methods

In the phase III, double-blind AWARD-CHN3 study, Chinese patients with T2DM (N = 291) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0% and ≤11.0% receiving stable doses of basal insulin glargine with metformin and/or acarbose were randomized (1:1) to receive add-on dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo once weekly. The primary endpoint was the superiority of dulaglutide/glargine to placebo/glargine for change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 28.

Results

The least squares (LS) mean ± standard error change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 28 was −2.0 ± 0.08% with dulaglutide/glargine and −1.1 ± 0.07% with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: −1.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] –1.1 to −0.8; P < 0.001), and more patients receiving dulaglutide/glargine achieved HbA1c levels <7.0% (75.9% vs. 33.8%; P < 0.001 vs. placebo/glargine). Body weight decreased with dulaglutide/glargine and increased with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: −1.2 kg, 95% CI –1.8 to – 0.6; P < 0.001). Reductions in fasting serum glucose were greater with dulaglutide/glargine than with placebo/glargine (LS mean difference: −0.8 mmol/L, 95% CI –1.1 to – 0.5; P < 0.001). The incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar with dulaglutide/glargine and placebo/glargine (29.2% vs. 31.3%; P = 0.704); no patient in either group had severe hypoglycaemia. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with dulaglutide/glargine were decreased appetite (22.2%), diarrhoea (13.2%) and nausea (10.4%).

Conclusions

Dulaglutide added to basal insulin was efficacious and well tolerated in Chinese patients with T2DM.     

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aim: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add‐on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin. Methods: This was a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Patients with T2DM (N = 438) with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.0–10.0% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/l (<270 mg/dl) were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to vildagliptin 50 mg bid, vildagliptin 50 mg qd or placebo in addition to metformin. Results: The treatment groups were well balanced at baseline [mean HbA1c, 8.0%, FPG, 8.8 mmol/l (158 mg/dl); body mass index, 25.5 kg/m²]. The adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA1c at endpoint was ?1.05 ± 0.08%, ?0.92 ± 0.08% and ?0.54 ± 0.08% in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg bid, 50 mg qd and placebo, respectively. The between‐treatment difference (vildagliptin 50 mg bid–placebo) was ?0.51 ± 0.11%, p < 0.001. A greater proportion of vildagliptin‐treated patients met at least one responder criterion (82.1 and 70.7%) compared to placebo‐treated patients (60.4%). The AMΔ at endpoint for FPG with vildagliptin 50 mg bid, ?0.95 mmol/l (?17.1 mg/dl); 50 mg qd, ?0.84 mmol/l (?15.1 mg/dl) was significantly different compared with the placebo ?0.26 mmol/l (?4.68 mg/dl) (p ≤ 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) were reported as 34.2, 36.5 and 37.5% for patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg bid, 50 mg qd or placebo, respectively. Two patients in the vildagliptin 50 mg qd and one in the placebo group reported serious AEs, which were not considered to be related to the study drug; one incidence of hypoglycaemic event was reported in the vildagliptin 50 mg bid group. Conclusion: Vildagliptin as add‐on therapy to metformin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated in Chinese patients who were inadequately controlled by metformin only.     

Safety and efficacy of linagliptin as add‐on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor linagliptin administered as add‐on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control. Methods: This 24‐week, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, parallel‐group study was carried out in 82 centres in 10 countries. Patients with HbA1c levels of 7.0–10.0% on metformin and a maximum of one additional antidiabetes medication, which was discontinued at screening, continued on metformin ≥1500 mg/day for 6 weeks, including a placebo run‐in period of 2 weeks, before being randomized to linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 524) or placebo (n = 177) add‐on. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment, evaluated with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results: Mean baseline HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were 8.1% and 9.4 mmol/l, respectively. Linagliptin showed significant reductions vs. placebo in adjusted mean changes from baseline of HbA1c (?0.49 vs. 0.15%), FPG (?0.59 vs. 0.58 mmol/l) and 2hPPG (?2.7 vs. 1.0 mmol/l); all p < 0.0001. Hypoglycaemia was rare, occurring in three patients (0.6%) treated with linagliptin and five patients (2.8%) in the placebo group. Body weight did not change significantly from baseline in both groups (?0.5 kg placebo, ?0.4 kg linagliptin). Conclusions: The addition of linagliptin 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control without weight gain or increased risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Ertugliflozin plus sitagliptin versus either individual agent over 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: The VERTIS FACTORIAL randomized trial

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin and sitagliptin co‐administration vs the individual agents in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin.

Methods

In this study ( Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02099110), patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% and ≤11.0% (≥58 and ≤97 mmol/mol) with metformin ≥1500 mg/d (n = 1233) were randomized to ertugliflozin 5 (E5) or 15 (E15) mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d (S100) or to co‐administration of E5/S100 or E15/S100. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26.

Results

At Week 26, least squares mean HbA1c reductions from baseline were greater with E5/S100 (?1.5%) and E15/S100 (?1.5%) than with individual agents (?1.0%, ?1.1% and ?1.1% for E5, E15 and S100, respectively; P < .001 for all comparisons). HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) was achieved by 26.4%, 31.9%, 32.8%, 52.3% and 49.2% of patients in the E5, E15, S100, E5/S100 and E15/S100 groups, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose reductions were significantly greater with E5/S100 and E15/S100 compared with individual agents. Body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly decreased with E5/S100 and E15/S100 vs S100 alone. Glycaemic control, body weight and SBP effects of ertugliflozin were maintained to Week 52. Genital mycotic infections were more common among ertugliflozin‐treated patients compared with those treated with S100. Incidences of symptomatic hypoglycaemia and adverse events related to hypovolaemia or urinary tract infection were similar among groups.

Conclusions

In patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes while using metformin, co‐administration of ertugliflozin and sitagliptin provided more effective glycaemic control through 52 weeks compared with the individual agents.     

Saxagliptin given in combination with metformin as initial therapy improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with either monotherapy: a randomized controlled trial

Aim: The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with saxagliptin + metformin vs. saxagliptin or metformin monotherapy in treatment‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycaemic control. Methods: In this multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled phase 3 trial, 1306 treatment‐naïve patients with T2D ≥18 to ≤77 years, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥8 to ≤12%, fasting C‐peptide concentration ≥1.0 ng/ml, body mass index ≤40 kg/m² were randomized to receive saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 500 mg, saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin 500 mg, saxagliptin 10 mg + placebo or metformin 500 mg + placebo for 24 weeks. From weeks 1–5, metformin was uptitrated in 500‐mg/day increments to 2000 mg/day maximum in the saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin, saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin and metformin + placebo treatment groups. The main outcome measure was HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Selected secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 24 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% and postprandial glucose area under the curve (PPG‐AUC). Results: At 24 weeks, saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin and saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin demonstrated statistically significant adjusted mean decreases vs. saxagliptin 10 mg and metformin monotherapies in HbA1c (?2.5 and ?2.5% vs. ?1.7 and ?2.0%, all p < 0.0001 vs. monotherapy) and FPG (?60 and ?62 mg/dl vs. ?31 and ?47 mg/dl, both p < 0.0001 vs. saxagliptin 10 mg; p = 0.0002 saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin vs. metformin; p < 0.0001 saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin vs. metformin). Proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c <7% was 60.3 and 59.7%, respectively, for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin and saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin (all p < 0.0001 vs. monotherapy). PPG‐AUC was significantly reduced [?21 080 mg·min/dl (saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin) and ?21 336 mg·min/dl (saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin) vs. ?16 054 mg·min/dl (saxagliptin 10 mg) and ?15 005 mg·min/dl (metformin), all p < 0.0001 vs. monotherapy]. Adverse event occurrence was similar across all groups. Hypoglycaemic events were infrequent. Conclusion: Saxagliptin + metformin as initial therapy led to statistically significant improvements compared with either treatment alone across key glycaemic parameters with a tolerability profile similar to the monotherapy components.     

Glycaemic efficacy of an expanded dose range of dulaglutide according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) subgroup: Post hoc analysis of AWARD-11

The AWARD-11 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. This post hoc analysis examined the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% at weeks 36 and 52 with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across clinically relevant baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%). Mean reductions in HbA1c were observed across all baseline HbA1c subgroups at 36 weeks (range of HbA1c change: 1.5 mg: −1.0% to −2.2%; 3.0 mg: −1.2% to −2.5%; and 4.5 mg: −1.2% to −3.2%). More patients randomized to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg (vs. 1.5 mg) achieved HbA1c <7% at 36 weeks regardless of baseline HbA1c; the difference in proportions was greater at higher baseline HbA1c (P-interaction = 0.096). Similar patterns in glycaemic improvement and proportions achieving HbA1c <7% were observed at 52 weeks. Hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar among the HbA1c subgroups. Glycaemic control was improved with dulaglutide dose escalation from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%).     

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin added to pioglitazone in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label long-term extension study

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of alogliptin added to pioglitazone versus pioglitazone monotherapy, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who achieved inadequate glycaemic control on pioglitazone plus diet/exercise. Methods: Patients were stabilized on pioglitazone 15 or 30 mg/day plus diet/exercise during a 16‐week screening period. Patients with HbA1c of 6.9–10.4% were randomized to 12 weeks' double‐blind treatment with alogliptin 12.5 or 25 mg once daily or placebo, added to their stable pioglitazone regimen. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12. Patients had an option to continue in a 40‐week, open‐label extension study, with those originally randomized to alogliptin remaining on the same dosage regimen while patients treated with placebo were randomly allocated to alogliptin 12.5 or 25 mg (added to their stable pioglitazone). Results: The change from baseline in HbA1c after 12 weeks was significantly greater with alogliptin 12.5 mg added to pioglitazone and alogliptin 25 mg added to pioglitazone than with placebo added to pioglitazone (?0.91 and ?0.97% vs. ?0.19%; p < 0.0001). Responder rates (HbA1c <6.9% and HbA1c <6.2%) and changes in fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels showed a similar positive trend in terms of glycaemic control. The benefits seen with alogliptin were sustained during the 40‐week extension period. Alogliptin added to pioglitazone was generally well tolerated; hypoglycaemia was infrequent and increases in body weight were minor. Conclusions: Once‐daily alogliptin was effective and generally well tolerated when given as add‐on therapy to pioglitazone in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who achieved inadequate glycaemic control on pioglitazone plus lifestyle measures. Clinical benefits were maintained for 52 weeks.     

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin and pioglitazone in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Aims: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of linagliptin or placebo administered for 24 weeks in combination with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) exhibiting insufficient glycaemic control (HbA1c 7.5–11.0%). Methods: Patients were randomized to receive the initial combination of 30 mg pioglitazone plus 5 mg linagliptin (n = 259) or pioglitazone plus placebo (n = 130), all once daily. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment, adjusted for baseline HbA1c and prior antidiabetes medication. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the adjusted mean change (±s.e.) in HbA1c with the initial combination of linagliptin plus pioglitazone was ?1.06% (±0.06), compared with ?0.56% (±0.09) for placebo plus pioglitazone. The difference in adjusted mean HbA1c in the linagliptin group compared with placebo was ?0.51% (95% confidence interval [CI] ?0.71, ?0.30; p < 0.0001). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were significantly greater for linagliptin plus pioglitazone than with placebo plus pioglitazone; ?1.8 and ?1.0 mmol/l, respectively, equating to a treatment difference of ?0.8 mmol/l (95% CI ?1.2, ?0.4; p < 0.0001). Patients taking linagliptin plus pioglitazone, compared with those receiving placebo plus pioglitazone, were more likely to achieve HbA1c of <7.0% (42.9 vs. 30.5%, respectively; p = 0.0051) and reduction in HbA1c of ≥0.5% (75.0 vs. 50.8%, respectively; p < 0.0001). β‐cell function, exemplified by the ratio of relative change in adjusted mean HOMA‐IR and disposition index, improved. The proportion of patients that experienced at least one adverse event was similar for both groups. Hypoglycaemic episodes (all mild) occurred in 1.2% of the linagliptin plus pioglitazone patients and none in the placebo plus pioglitazone group. Conclusion: Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus pioglitazone was well tolerated and produced significant and clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control. This combination may offer a valuable additive initial treatment option for T2DM, particularly where metformin either is not well tolerated or is contraindicated, such as in patients with renal impairment.     

A low carbohydrate Mediterranean diet improves cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes control among overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 1‐year prospective randomized intervention study

Background: The appropriate dietary intervention for overweight persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is unclear. Trials comparing the effectiveness of diets are frequently limited by short follow‐up times and high dropout rates. Aim: The effects of a low carbohydrate Mediterranean (LCM), a traditional Mediterranean (TM), and the 2003 American Diabetic Association (ADA) diet were compared, on health parameters during a 12‐month period. Methods: In this 12‐month trial, 259 overweight diabetic patients (mean age 55 years, mean body mass index 31.4 kg/m²) were randomly assigned to one of the three diets. The primary end‐points were reduction of fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c and triglyceride (TG) levels. Results: 194 patients out of 259 (74.9%) completed follow‐up. After 12 months, the mean weight loss for all patients was 8.3 kg: 7.7 kg for ADA, 7.4 kg for TM and 10.1 kg for LCM diets. The reduction in HbA1c was significantly greater in the LCM diet than in the ADA diet (?2.0 and ?1.6%, respectively, p < 0.022). HDL cholesterol increased (0.1 mmol/l ± 0.02) only on the LCM (p < 0.002). The reduction in serum TG was greater in the LCM (?1.3 mmol/l) and TM (?1.5 mmol/l) than in the ADA (?0.7 mmol/l), p = 0.001. Conclusions: An intensive 12‐month dietary intervention in a community‐based setting was effective in improving most modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in all the dietary groups. Only the LCM improved HDL levels and was superior to both the ADA and TM in improving glycaemic control.     

Effects of exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin,exenatide once weekly alone,or dapagliflozin alone added to metformin monotherapy in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes in the DURATION‐8 randomized controlled trial

This analysis assessed whether responses with exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin (n = 231), exenatide once weekly alone (n = 230), or dapagliflozin alone (n = 233) differed in key patient subpopulations of the DURATION‐8 trial. Potential treatment‐by‐subgroup interactions for changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight after 28 weeks were evaluated among subgroups determined by baseline HbA1c, age, sex, body mass index, type 2 diabetes duration, race, ethnicity and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin reduced HbA1c and body weight across all subgroups: least‐squares mean reductions ranged from ?8.4 to ?26.1 mmol/mol (?0.77% to ?2.39%) for HbA1c and from ?2.07 to ?4.55 kg for body weight. Potential treatment‐by‐subgroup interactions (P < .10) were found for HbA1c change by age (P = .016) and eGFR (P = .097). Age subgroup analysis findings were not consistent with expected mechanistic effects, with the small number of patients aged ≥65 years (n = 74 vs n = 499 for patients aged <65 years) limiting the interpretability of the interaction term. In the exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin groups, but not the exenatide once weekly group, HbA1c reductions were greater among patients with eGFR ≥90 vs ≥60 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m² (least‐squares mean reductions of ?23.6 vs ?19.0 mmol/mol [?2.16% vs ?1.74%], ?17.3 vs ?12.0 mmol/mol [?1.58% vs ?1.10%], and ?17.7 vs ?16.9 mmol/mol [?1.62% vs ?1.55%] for the respective treatments); this was consistent with the mechanism of action of dapagliflozin. A potential treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction was observed for change in body weight by sex (P = .099), with greater weight loss for women vs men across all treatments (range ?2.56 to ?3.98 kg vs ?0.56 to ?2.99 kg). In conclusion, treatment with exenatide once weekly plus dapagliflozin reduced HbA1c and body weight across all patient subgroups and was more effective than exenatide once weekly or dapagliflozin alone in all adequately sized subgroups.