Dutogliptin,a selective DPP4 inhibitor,improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 12‐week,double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled,multicentre trial

Aim: To determine efficacy and tolerability of dutogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: This was a 12‐week, multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in 423 patients with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal metabolic control. Following a 2‐week single‐blind placebo run‐in, patients aged 18–75 years with a body mass index of 25–48 kg/m² and baseline HbA1c of 7.3–11.0% were randomized 2:2:1 to receive once‐daily oral therapy with either dutogliptin (400 or 200 mg) or placebo on a background medication of either metformin alone, a thiazolidinedione (TZD) alone or a combination of metformin plus a TZD. Results: Average HbA1c at baseline was 8.4%. Administration of dutogliptin 400 and 200 mg for 12 weeks decreased HbA1c by ?0.52% (p < 0.001) and ?0.35% (p = 0.006), respectively (placebo‐corrected values), with absolute changes in HbA1c for the 400 mg, 200 mg and placebo groups of ?0.82, ?0.64 and ?0.3%, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c < 7% was 27, 21 and 12% at dutogliptin doses of 400 and 200 mg or placebo, respectively (p = 0.008 for comparison of 400 mg vs. placebo). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels were significantly reduced in both active treatment groups compared to placebo: the placebo‐corrected difference was ?1.00 mmol/l (p < 0.001) for the 400 mg group and ?0.88 mmol/l (p = 0.003) for the 200 mg group. Dutogliptin caused significantly greater reductions in postprandial glucose AUC _0–2h in both the 400 and 200 mg groups (placebo corrected values ?2.58 mmol/l/h, p < 0.001 and ?1.63 mmol/l/h, p = 0.032, respectively). In general, patients tolerated the study drug well. There were minor, not clinically meaningful differences in adverse events (AEs) between dutogliptin‐treated patients and placebo controls, and 60% of all reported AEs were mild. Vital signs and body weight were stable, and routine safety laboratory parameters did not change compared with placebo. Trough ex vivo DPP4 inhibition at the end of the 12‐week treatment period was 80 and 70%, at the 400 and 200 mg doses of dutogliptin, respectively. Conclusions: Dutogliptin treatment for 12 weeks improved glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a background medication of metformin, a TZD or metformin plus a TZD. Tolerability was favourable for both doses tested. The 400 mg dose of dutogliptin resulted in larger changes of HbA1c and FPG and more subjects reached an HbA1c target of < 7% than the 200 mg dose.     

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin and voglibose in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a 12‐week,randomized, double‐blind,active‐controlled study

Aim: To confirm the efficacy of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by testing the hypothesis that glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction with vildagliptin is superior to that with voglibose after 12 weeks of treatment. Methods: In this 12‐week, randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled, parallel‐group study, the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin (50 mg bid, n = 188) was compared with that of voglibose (0.2 mg tid, n = 192) in patients with T2D who were inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Results: The characteristics of two groups were well matched at baseline. The mean age, body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c were 59.1 years, 24.9 kg/m² and 7.6%, respectively. At baseline, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2‐h postprandial glucose (PPG) were 9.01 mmol/l (162.2 mg/dl) and 13.57 mmol/l (244.3 mg/dl), respectively. The adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was ?0.95 ± 0.04% in the vildagliptin‐treated patients and ?0.38 ± 0.04% in those receiving voglibose (between‐group change = 0.57 ± 0.06%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (?0.68 to ?0.46%), p < 0.001), showing that vildagliptin was superior to voglibose. Endpoint HbA1c ≤ 6.5% was achieved in 51% vildagliptin‐treated patients compared with 24% patients who were on voglibose (p < 0.001). Vildagliptin also exhibited significantly (p < 0.001) greater reduction compared with voglibose in both FPG [1.34 vs. 0.43 mmol/l (24.1 vs. 7.8 mg/dl)] and 2‐h PPG [2.86 vs. 1.1 mmol/l (51.5 vs. 19.8 mg/dl)]. Overall adverse events (AEs) were lower in the vildagliptin‐treated patients compared with that in the voglibose‐treated patients (61.2 vs. 71.4%), with no incidence of hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events with vildagliptin. Gastrointestinal AEs were significantly lower with vildagliptin compared with that of the voglibose (18.6 vs. 32.8%; p = 0.002). Conclusions: Vildagliptin (50 mg bid) showed superior efficacy and better tolerability compared with voglibose in Japanese patients with T2D.     

Metformin extended‐release versus immediate‐release: An international,randomized, double‐blind,head‐to‐head trial in pharmacotherapy‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

This international, randomized, double‐blind trial (NCT01864174) compared the efficacy and safety of metformin extended‐release (XR) and immediate‐release (IR) in patients with type 2 diabetes. After a 4‐week placebo lead‐in, pharmacotherapy‐naïve adults with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 7.0% to 9.2% were randomized (1:1) to receive once‐daily metformin XR 2000 mg or twice‐daily metformin IR 1000 mg for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints were change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), mean daily glucose (MDG) and patients (%) with HbA1c <7.0% after 24 weeks. Overall, 539 patients were randomized (metformin XR, N = 268; metformin IR, N = 271). Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c, FPG, MDG and patients (%) with HbA1c <7.0% after 24 weeks were similar for XR and IR: ?0.93% vs ?0.96%; ?21.1 vs ?20.6 mg/dL (?1.2 vs ?1.1 mmol/L); ?24.7 vs ?27.1 mg/dL (?1.4 vs ?1.5 mmol/L); and 70.9% vs 72.0%, respectively. Adverse events were similar between groups and consistent with previous studies. Overall, metformin XR demonstrated efficacy and safety similar to that of metformin IR over 24 weeks, with the advantage of once‐daily dosing.     

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.     

A long‐term comparison of pioglitazone and gliclazide in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized,double‐blind,parallel‐group comparison trial

Aims This study compared the effects of pioglitazone and gliclazide on metabolic control in drug‐naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods A total of 1270 patients with Type 2 diabetes were randomized in a parallel‐group, double‐dummy, double‐blind study. Patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes (HbA_1c 7.5–11%), despite dietary advice, received either pioglitazone up to 45 mg once daily or gliclazide up to 160 mg two times daily. Primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA_1c from baseline to the end of the study. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin and plasma lipids. At selected centres, oral glucose tolerance tests were performed and C‐peptide and pro‐insulin levels were measured. Results Mean HbA_1c values decreased by the same amount in the two treatment groups from baseline to week 52 [pioglitazone: ?1.4%; gliclazide: ?1.4%; (90% CI: ?0.18 to 0.02)]. A significantly greater mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose was observed in the pioglitazone group (2.4 mmol/l) than in the gliclazide group [2.0 mmol/l; treatment difference ?0.4 mmol/l in favour of pioglitazone; P = 0.002; (95% CI: ?0.7 to ?0.1)]. Improvements in high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) and total cholesterol/HDL‐C were greater with pioglitazone than with gliclazide (P < 0.001). The frequencies of adverse events were comparable between the two treatment groups, but more hypoglycaemic events were reported for gliclazide, whereas twice as many patients reported oedema with pioglitazone than with gliclazide. Conclusions Pioglitazone monotherapy was equivalent to gliclazide in reducing HbA_1c, with specific differences between treatments in terms of mechanism of action, plasma lipids and adverse events.     

Impact of diabetes duration on achieved reductions in glycated haemoglobin,fasting plasma glucose and body weight with liraglutide treatment for up to 28 weeks: a meta‐analysis of seven phase III trials

This meta‐analysis of seven randomized, placebo‐controlled studies (total 3222 patients) evaluated whether type 2 diabetes (T2D) duration affects the changes in blood glucose control and body weight that can be achieved with liraglutide and placebo. With liraglutide 1.2 mg, shorter diabetes duration was associated with a significantly greater, but clinically non‐relevant, difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (p < 0.05), i.e. a 0.18% (1.96 mmol/mol) reduction in HbA1c per 10 years shorter diabetes duration. With liraglutide 1.8 mg, shorter diabetes duration was associated with a small but statistically significant trend for greater fasting plasma glucose (FPG) reduction (p < 0.05), i.e. a 0.38 mmol/l reduction in FPG per 10 years shorter diabetes duration. Neither the liraglutide 1.8 mg nor placebo results showed a significant association between HbA1c and diabetes duration and neither the liraglutide 1.2 mg nor placebo results showed a significant association between FPG and diabetes duration. Likewise, neither liraglutide nor placebo showed a significant association between change in weight and diabetes duration. These results suggest diabetes duration has a clinically negligible effect on achievable blood glucose control and weight outcomes with liraglutide and placebo in patients with T2D.     

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycaemia*

Aim: This study was conducted to assess efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin in drug‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycaemia. Methods: Multicentre, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study of 52‐week treatment with vildagliptin (50 mg q.d.) in 306 drug‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (A1C = 6.2–7.5%). A1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and measures of prandial glucose control and beta‐cell function determined during standard meal tests were assessed. Results: Baseline A1C and FPG averaged 6.7% and 7.1 mmol/l, respectively, in patients randomized to vildagliptin (n = 156) and 6.8% and 7.2 mmol/l in those randomized to placebo (n = 150). A1C decreased modestly in vildagliptin‐treated patients (Δ = ?0.2 ± 0.1%) and increased in patients receiving placebo (Δ = 0.1 ± 0.1%). The between‐group difference (vildagliptin ? placebo) in adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in A1C was ?0.3 ± 0.1% (p < 0.001). FPG increased in patients receiving placebo (Δ = 0.5 ± 0.1 mmol/l) and to a significantly lesser extent in vildagliptin‐treated patients (between‐group difference in AMΔ FPG = ?0.4 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p = 0.032). Relative to placebo, 2‐h postprandial glucose (PPG) decreased (?0.9 ± 0.4 mmol/l, p = 0.012), and insulin secretory rate (ISR) relative to glucose [ISR area under the curve (AUC)_{0–2 h}/glucose AUC_{0–2 h}] increased (+5.0 ± 1.2 pmol/min/m²/mM, p < 0.001). Mean body weight decreased by 0.5 ± 0.3 kg in vildagliptin‐treated patients and by 0.2 ± 0.3 kg in patients receiving placebo. The side‐effect profile of vildagliptin was similar to that of placebo, and one hypoglycaemic episode occurred in one patient receiving placebo. Conclusions: In drug‐naïve patients with mild hyperglycaemia, relative to placebo, 52‐week treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg q.d. significantly decreases A1C, FPG and PPG and improves beta‐cell function without weight gain or hypoglycaemia.     

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin,a novel dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor,in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 24‐week multicentre,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled phase III trial

We assessed the 24‐week efficacy and safety of teneligliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor, in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. The present study was designed as a multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, phase III study. Patients (n = 142) were randomized 2 : 1 into two different treatment groups as follows: 99 received teneligliptin (20 mg) and 43 received placebo. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 24. Teneligliptin significantly reduced the HbA1c level from baseline compared with placebo after 24 weeks. At week 24, the differences between changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FBG) in the teneligliptin and placebo groups were ?0.94% [least‐squares (LS) mean ?1.22, ?0.65] and ?1.21 mmol/l (?1.72, ?0.70), respectively (all p < 0.001). The incidence of hypoglycaemia and adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups. This phase III, randomized, placebo‐controlled study provides evidence of the safety and efficacy of 24 weeks of treatment with teneligliptin as a monotherapy in Korean patients with T2DM.     

The impact of pioglitazone on glycemic control and atherogenic dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the glycemic control, lipid effects, and safety of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 197) with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > or = 8.0%, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > 7.7 mmol/l (140 mg/dl), and C-peptide > 0.331 nmol/l (1 ng/ml) were enrolled in this 23-week multi-center (27 sites), double-blind clinical trial and randomized to receive either a placebo or pioglitazone HCl 30 mg (pioglitazone), administered once daily, as monotherapy. Patients were required to discontinue all anti-diabetic medications 6 weeks before receiving study treatment. Efficacy parameters included HbA1c fasting plasma glucose (FPG), serum C-peptide, insulin, triglycerides (Tg), and cholesterol (total cholesterol [TC], high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C], low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C]). Adverse event rates, serum chemistry, and physical examinations were recorded. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, pioglitazone significantly (P= 0.0001) reduced HbA1c (-1.37% points), FPG (-3.19 mmol/l; -57.5 mg/dl), fasting C-peptide (-0.076+/-0.022 nmol/l), and fasting insulin (-11.88+/-4.70 pmol/l). Pioglitazone significantly (P < 0.001) decreased insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; -12.4+/-7.46%) and improved beta-cell function (Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA-BCF); +47.7+/-11.58%). Compared with placebo, fasting serum Tg concentrations decreased (-16.6%; P = 0.0178) and HDL-C concentrations increased (+12.6%; P= 0.0065) with pioglitazone as monotherapy. Total cholesterol and LDL-C changes were not different from placebo. The overall adverse event profile of pioglitazone was similar to that of placebo, with no evidence of drug-induced elevations of serum alanine transaminase (ALT) concentrations or hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone improved insulin resistance and glycemic control, as well as Tg and HDL-C - which suggests that pioglitazone may reduce cardiovascular risk for patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Saxagliptin add‐on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin with or without metformin: Results from the SUPER study,a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

This prospective, multicentre, phase III study (NCT02104804) evaluated the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin add‐on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin ± metformin. Patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.5% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL) on stable insulin therapy (20‐150 U/d) were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin 5 mg once daily (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230) for 24 weeks, stratified by metformin use. The primary efficacy measure was change in HbA1c. Saxagliptin treatment resulted in a greater adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 than placebo (?0.58%; P < .001), irrespective of metformin use, and a greater mean change in FPG (0.9 mmol/L [?15.9 mg/dL]; P < .001). More patients achieved HbA1c <7% with saxagliptin (11.4%) than with placebo (3.5%, P = .002). Adverse events and incidence of hypoglycaemia were similar in both groups. Overall, add‐on saxagliptin 5 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk and was well tolerated in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin (± metformin).     

Orlistat 120 mg improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with or without concurrent weight loss

Background: Both obesity and type 2 diabetes are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Published data suggest that orlistat 120 mg, a lipase inhibitor used to treat obesity, may improve glycaemic parameters through weight loss–independent effects. Aim: To investigate the effect of orlistat 120 mg on weight loss, and assess whether changes in glycaemic parameters [fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c)] are independent of weight loss. Methods: This retrospective analysis of pooled data from seven multicentre, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies involved overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes (aged 18–70 years). Patients were required to have a body mass index of 27–43 kg/m², HbA_1c of 6.5 to <13%, and stable weight for ≥3 months. Subjects received orlistat 120 mg tid or placebo for 6 or 12 months. Results: A total of 2550 overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes were enrolled and randomized to treatment with orlistat 120 mg tid (n = 1279) or placebo (n = 1271). For the whole population, patients treated with orlistat 120 mg had significantly greater mean decreases in FPG compared with placebo‐treated patients (?1.39 mmol/l vs. ?0.47 mmol/l; p < 0.0001). In addition, orlistat 120 mg provided significantly larger mean decreases in HbA_1c compared with placebo (?0.74% vs. ?0.31%; p < 0.0001). For patients with minimal weight loss (≤1% of baseline body weight), orlistat 120 mg still provided a significantly greater decrease in the least squares mean value for both FPG (?0.83 mmol/l vs. ±0.02 mmol/l; p = 0.0052) and HbA_1c?0.29% vs. ±0.14%; p = 0.0008). This suggested that the improvement of glycaemic control with orlistat 120 mg was independent of weight loss. Using linear regression analysis, improvement in glycaemic control (FPG and HbA_1c) with orlistat 120 mg was less strongly correlated with weight loss than for placebo. Conclusion: Orlistat 120 mg appears to improve glycaemic control more than would be predicted by weight loss alone in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Postulated mechanisms underlying this effect include an improvement of insulin sensitivity, a slower and incomplete digestion of dietary fat, reduction of postprandial plasma non‐esterified fatty acids, decreased visceral adipose tissue, and stimulation of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 secretion in the lower small intestine.     

Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in insulin‐treated individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk: The ODYSSEY DM‐INSULIN randomized trial

Aims

To investigate the efficacy and safety of alirocumab in participants with type 2 (T2D) or type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin who have elevated LDL cholesterol levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Methods

Participants at high cardiovascular risk with T2D (n = 441) or T1D (n = 76) and LDL cholesterol levels ≥1.8 mmol/L (≥70 mg/dL) were randomized 2:1 to alirocumab:placebo administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, for 24 weeks' double‐blind treatment. Alirocumab‐treated participants received 75 mg every 2 weeks, with blinded dose increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks at week 12 if week 8 LDL cholesterol levels were ≥1.8 mmol/L. Primary endpoints were percentage change in calculated LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24, and safety assessments.

Results

Alirocumab reduced LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24 by a mean ± standard error of 49.0% ± 2.7% and 47.8% ± 6.5% vs placebo (both P < .0001) in participants with T2D and T1D, respectively. Significant reductions were observed in non‐HDL cholesterol (P < .0001), apolipoprotein B (P < .0001) and lipoprotein (a) (P ≤ .0039). At week 24, 76.4% and 70.2% of the alirocumab group achieved LDL cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L in the T2D and T1D populations (P < .0001), respectively. Glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose levels remained stable for the study duration. Treatment‐emergent adverse events were observed in 64.5% of alirocumab‐ vs 64.1% of placebo‐treated individuals (overall population).

Conclusions

Alirocumab produced significant LDL cholesterol reductions in participants with insulin‐treated diabetes regardless of diabetes type, and was generally well tolerated. Concomitant administration of alirocumab and insulin did not raise any safety concerns (NCT02585778).     

The dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor linagliptin lowers postprandial glucose and improves measures of β‐cell function in type 2 diabetes

Progressive deterioration of pancreatic β‐cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) contributes to worsening of hyperglycaemia. To investigate the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor linagliptin on β‐cell function parameters, a pooled analysis of six randomized, 24‐week, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trials of 5 mg of linagliptin daily was performed in 2701 patients with T2DM (linagliptin, n = 1905; placebo, n = 796). At week 24, observed improvements in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and 2‐h postprandial glucose were significantly greater for linagliptin than placebo (all p < 0.0001). Homeostasis model assessment (HOMA)‐%β, as a surrogate marker of fasting β‐cell function, was significantly improved with linagliptin, and did not change with placebo (placebo‐adjusted mean ± s.e. change for linagliptin: 16.5 ± 4.6 (mU/l)/(mmol/l); p = 0.0003). Further study is required to determine if the significant improvement in HOMA‐%β with linagliptin will translate into long‐term improvements in β‐cell function.     

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.     

A placebo-controlled trial of exenatide twice-daily added to thiazolidinediones alone or in combination with metformin

Aim: To test the hypothesis that glycaemic control with exenatide added to thiazolidinediones (TZDs) with or without metformin was superior to placebo. Methods: A 26‐week, multi‐country (Canada, Mexico, Romania, South Africa and the USA), randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study compared exenatide twice‐daily vs. placebo in 165 subjects suboptimally controlled with TZDs with or without metformin [HbA_1c 8.2% (s.d. 0.9), fasting serum glucose 9.1 (2.6) mmol/l, body weight 93.9 (17.8) kg, diabetes duration 6.4 (4.3) years]. After a 2‐week, single‐blind, lead‐in period, subjects were randomly assigned (2 : 1) to add exenatide or placebo to current regimens. The primary endpoint was HbA_1c change at endpoint (Week 26 or last‐observation‐carried‐forward). Results: Only 8 subjects were treated with concomitant TZD alone. Exenatide reduced HbA_1c significantly more than placebo [?0.84% (s.e. 0.20) vs. ?0.10% (0.23), treatment difference ?0.74% (0.16), p < 0.001)]. Mean reductions in body weight were similar in both treatments at endpoint [exenatide, ?1.4 (s.e. 0.6) kg vs. placebo, ?0.8 (0.7) kg, p = 0.176)]. Nearly 71% of subjects had both a reduction in HbA_1c and body weight with exenatide compared with 54% with placebo. The most common adverse events (exenatide vs. placebo) were nausea (12% vs. 2%, p = 0.037), vomiting (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.031) and headache (4% vs. 4%). Confirmed (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/l) minor hypoglycaemia was experienced by 4 and 2% of subjects treated with exenatide and placebo, respectively. Incidence of hypoglycaemia was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Exenatide added to TZDs alone or in combination with metformin significantly improved glycaemic control as determined by significant improvement in HbA_1c without associated hypoglycaemia.     

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.     

Earlier triple therapy with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes

Aims: This study assessed the efficacy of add‐on pioglitazone vs. placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by metformin and a sulphonylurea or a glinide. Methods: This multicentre, double‐blind, parallel‐group study randomized 299 patients with type 2 diabetes to receive 30 mg/day pioglitazone or placebo for 3 months. After this time, patients continued with pioglitazone, either 30 mg [if glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c) ≤6.5%] or titrated up to 45 mg (if HbA_1c >6.5%), or placebo for a further 4 months. The primary efficacy end‐point was improvement in HbA_1c (per cent change). Secondary end‐points included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, C‐peptide, proinsulin and lipids. The proinsulin/insulin ratio and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR) and homeostasis model assessment of β‐cell function (HOMA‐B) were calculated. Results: Pioglitazone add‐on therapy to failing metformin and sulphonylurea or glinide combination therapy showed statistically more significant glycaemic control than placebo addition. The between‐group difference after 7 months of triple therapy was 1.18% in HbA_1c and ?2.56 mmol/l for FPG (p < 0.001). Almost half (44.4%) of the patients in the pioglitazone group who had a baseline HbA_1c level of <8.5% achieved the HbA_1c target of < 7.0% by final visit compared with 4.9% in the placebo group. When the baseline HbA_1c level was ≥ 8.5%, 13% achieved the HbA_1c target of < 7.0% in the pioglitazone group and none in the placebo group. HOMA‐IR, insulin, proinsulin and C‐peptide decreased and HOMA‐B increased in the pioglitazone group relative to the placebo group. Conclusions: In patients who were not well controlled with dual combination therapy, the early addition of pioglitazone improved HbA_1c, FPG and surrogate measures of β‐cell function. Patients were more likely to reach target HbA_1c levels (< 7.0%) with pioglitazone treatment if their baseline HbA_1c levels were < 8.5%, highlighting the importance of early triple therapy.     

Potential benefits of early addition of rosiglitazone in combination with glimepiride in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Aim: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of early combination therapy with rosiglitazone (RSG) and glimepiride (GLIM) vs. GLIM monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Strategies for the addition of RSG in combination with GLIM were evaluated with data from two randomized, double‐blind, placebo (PBO)‐controlled studies. Study A – addition of RSG (4 or 8 mg) or PBO to continued GLIM 3 mg once daily; study B – addition of low‐dose RSG (4 mg) prior to uptitration of GLIM (from 2 to 4 mg) vs. continued uptitration of GLIM (from 2 to 8 mg). Results: Study A reported significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 26 with the addition of both 4 and 8 mg RSG to GLIM 3 mg [?21 mg/dl (?1.2 mmol/l), p = 0.0019 and ?43 mg/dl (?2.4 mmol/l), p < 0.0001, respectively] and in haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) (?0.63%, p = 0.00015 and ?1.17%, p < 0.0001, respectively) from a baseline of 8.2 and 8.1%, respectively. At the end of the study, target HbA_1c <7.0% was achieved in 43 and 68% of patients in the RSG 4 mg + GLIM and RSG 8 mg + GLIM groups, respectively, compared with 32% in the PBO + GLIM (GLIM alone) group. In study B, addition of RSG to GLIM reduced mean FPG and HbA_1c levels at week 24 from baseline [?28 mg/dl (?1.5 mmol/l), p < 0.0001, and ?0.68%, p < 0.0001, respectively]. There were no significant changes with GLIM monotherapy in either study. Favourable effects of RSG + GLIM on insulin sensitivity, β‐cell function and cardiovascular disease biomarkers were also observed. All treatments were similarly well tolerated. Conclusions: Early addition of RSG to GLIM is an effective and well‐tolerated treatment option to improve glycaemic control in sulphonylurea‐treated patients with T2DM.     

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.     

Sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor luseogliflozin improves glycaemic control,assessed by continuous glucose monitoring,even on a low‐carbohydrate diet

This randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover study was the first to determine the effects of luseogliflozin in combination with a low‐carbohydrate diet (LCD) on 24‐h glucose variability, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). A total of 18 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized into two groups, in which patients first received luseogliflozin 2.5 mg once daily then placebo for 8 days each, or vice versa. Patients took luseogliflozin or placebo with a normal‐carbohydrate diet (NCD) on day 7 and with the LCD on day 8. CGM was performed on both days. Luseogliflozin significantly reduced glucose exposure in terms of the area under the curve over the course of 24 h when administered with the NCD (difference vs placebo: ?555.6 mg/dl·h [1 mg/dl = 0.0556 mmol/l]; p < 0.001) or with the LCD (?660.7 mg/dl·h; p < 0.001). No hypoglycaemia was observed over 24 h with either diet. Although glucose levels were lower with the LCD than with the NCD in the placebo treatment period, luseogliflozin with the LCD improved glycaemic control throughout the day to nearly the same extent as luseogliflozin with the NCD, without inducing hypoglycaemia.