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.     

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.     

Comparison of alogliptin and glipizide for composite endpoint of glycated haemoglobin reduction,no hypoglycaemia and no weight gain in type 2 diabetes mellitus

This was a post hoc analysis of a 2‐year, double‐blind study of 2639 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, which assessed achievement of a composite endpoint of sustained glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (≤7.0% at week 104 or ≥0.5% decrease from baseline) with no weight gain and no hypoglycaemic events with alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg daily or glipizide (≤20 mg daily), each added to metformin. With an HbA1c target of ≤7.0%, 24.2 and 26.9% of patients treated with alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg, respectively, achieved the composite endpoint versus 10.7% of patients treated with glipizide (both p < 0.001). With a criterion of ≥0.5% decrease in HbA1c, the composite endpoint was reached in 22.5, 25.2 and 10.4% of patients treated with alogliptin 12.5 mg, alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide, respectively. Odds ratios for achieving the composite endpoint favoured alogliptin in the primary analysis set and in all subgroups of patients. Patients with T2DM failing metformin monotherapy were more likely to achieve sustained glycaemic control with no hypoglycaemia or weight gain at 2 years with alogliptin than with glipizide.     

Pioglitazone treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus when combined with portion control diet modifies the metabolic syndrome

Background: Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) produces weight gain. Objective: To test whether a portion control diet could prevent weight gain during treatment with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Design: This 16‐week randomized, open‐label, parallel arm study compared three groups: (i) pioglitazone plus the American Diabetes Association diet (Pio + ADA); (ii) pioglitazone plus a portion control weight loss diet (Pio + PC); (iii) metformin plus the American Diabetes Association diet (Met + ADA). All participants received the same advice about calorie reduction, lifestyle change and exercise. Methods: Fifty‐one men and women with T2DM, naive to TZDs, were randomized to a 16‐week study. Pioglitazone (Pio) was titrated to a dose of 45 mg/day and metformin (Met) to a dose of 2 g/day. Fasting blood was collected for lipids, insulin and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at baseline and 16 weeks. Results: Forty‐eight of fifty‐one randomized subjects completed the study. Patients treated with Pio + ADA gained 2.15 ± 1.09 kg (mean ± SD) compared with a weight loss of 2.59 ± 1.25 kg (p < 0.05) in the Pio + PC group, and a weight loss of 3.21 ± 0.7 kg (p < 0.05) in the Met + ADA group. Waist circumference and visceral adipose tissue decreased significantly more in the Pio + PC group than in the Pio + ADA group. High‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly increased in the Pio + PC group compared with the Met + ADA group. Pioglitazone reduced insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR)) more than metformin. No significant differences between groups were seen for glucose, insulin, HbA1c or low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Conclusions: Pio + PC, prevented weight gain, reduced waist circumference and visceral fat compared with Pio + ADA diet.     

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 fixed‐dose combination therapy,alogliptin plus metformin,in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: A phase 3 trial

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 26 weeks of twice‐daily (BID) alogliptin + metformin fixed‐dose combination (FDC) therapy in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.0% after ≥2 months of diet and exercise and a 4‐week placebo run‐in were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to placebo, alogliptin 12.5 mg BID, metformin 500 mg BID or alogliptin 12.5 mg plus metformin 500 mg FDC BID. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment (Week 26). In total, 647 patients were randomized. The least‐squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 was ?0.19% with placebo, ?0.86% with alogliptin, ?1.04% with metformin and ?1.53% with alogliptin + metformin FDC. Alogliptin + metformin FDC was significantly more effective ( P < .0001) in lowering HbA1c than either alogliptin or metformin alone. The safety profile of alogliptin + metformin FDC was similar to that of the individual components alogliptin and metformin. The study demonstrated that treatment with alogliptin + metformin FDC BID resulted in better glycaemic control than either monotherapy and was well tolerated in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.     

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.     

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.     

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin vs. pioglitazone when added to metformin: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind study

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin vs. pioglitazone as add‐on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. Methods: This 24‐week, multicentre, double‐blind, randomized, active‐controlled study compared vildagliptin (100 mg daily, given as equally divided doses, n = 295) and pioglitazone (30 mg daily, given as a single q.d. dose, n = 281) in patients with inadequate glycaemic control (A1C 7.5–11%) while receiving a stable metformin dose (≥1500 mg daily). The adjusted mean changes from baseline to study endpoint (AMΔ) in A1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting lipids and body weight were compared by analysis of covariance. Results: When added to a stable dose of metformin (mean dose at baseline >2000 mg/day), both vildagliptin and pioglitazone decreased A1C (AMΔ = ?0.9 ± 0.1% and ?1.0 ± 0.1%, respectively) from identical baseline values (8.4 ± 0.1%). The between‐group difference in AMΔ A1C was 0.1 ± 0.1%, and non‐inferiority of vildagliptin to pioglitazone was established at both 0.4 and 0.3% margins for upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals. Pioglitazone decreased FPG (AMΔ = ?2.1 ± 0.1 mmol/l) to a greater extent than vildagliptin (AMΔ = ?1.4 ± 0.1 mmol/l), but only pioglitazone increased body weight (AMΔ = +1.9 ± 0.2 kg: between‐group difference = ?1.6 ± 0.3 kg, p < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 60% of vildagliptin‐treated patients and by 56.4% of pioglitazone‐treated patients; serious AEs were reported by 2.0 and 4.6% of patients receiving vildagliptin and pioglitazone respectively. Mild hypoglycaemia was reported by one patient (0.3%) in the vildagliptin group and by no patients receiving pioglitazone. Conclusions: When added to metformin, the efficacy of vildagliptin is non‐inferior to that of pioglitazone. The treatments were similarly well tolerated, but only pioglitazone increased body weight.     

Lowering of postprandial lipids in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with alogliptin and/or pioglitazone: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

Aims/hypothesis  

Pharmacological augmentation of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor signalling by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibition reduced intestinal lipoprotein secretion in experimental studies, suggesting that DPP-4 inhibitors may ameliorate dyslipidaemia and thus reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effects of alogliptin (Alo) and Alo co-administered with pioglitazone (Pio) vs placebo (Pbo) on triacylglycerol (TG)-rich lipoproteins in type 2 diabetes before and following a high-fat meal.     

Long-term effects of pioglitazone and metformin on insulin sensitivity in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: Despite their comparable glycaemic effects in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), pioglitazone and metformin may have different effects on insulin sensitivity because they have different mechanisms of action. We studied the changes in insulin sensitivity, as assessed by the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), in patients with T2DM who used metformin or pioglitazone as monotherapy or in combination therapy with sulphonylurea. METHODS: Data in this report are from two multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy studies conducted in Europe (monotherapy) or in Europe and Canada (combination therapy study). Patients were randomized to 52 weeks of treatment consisting of a 12-week forced titration period and a 40-week maintenance period. HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting serum insulin (FSI) were quantified from a single blood sample at weeks 0, 8, 16, 24, 32, 42 and 52. Insulin sensitivity was assessed with QUICKI, which is calculated from FSI and fasting blood glucose (FBG) concentrations using the formula 1/(log(10) FSI + log(10) FBG). Time course effects of the treatments were compared by repeated measures analysis of covariance. RESULTS: As monotherapy, pioglitazone and metformin increased QUICKI compared with baseline (baseline vs. end point [mean +/- sem]; pioglitazone [0.303 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.321 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001] and metformin [0.304 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.315 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001]). Pioglitazone increased insulin sensitivity more than metformin from week 4 through week 52. There were significant increases in QUICKI from baseline in both combination therapy groups (baseline vs. end point; pioglitazone + sulphonylurea [0.305 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.319 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001] and metformin + sulphonylurea [0.306 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.317 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001]). Overall, pioglitazone + sulphonylurea significantly increased insulin sensitivity more than metformin + sulphonylurea. CONCLUSION: Pioglitazone differed from metformin in its effects on insulin sensitivity despite both drugs having comparable glycaemic effects.     

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glyburide monotherapy

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, a potent and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor, in combination with glyburide in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by sulphonylurea monotherapy. Methods: After a 2‐week screening period, adult patients 18–80 years of age entered a 4‐week run‐in/stabilization period in which they were switched from their own sulphonylurea medication to an equivalent dose of glyburide (open label) plus placebo (single blind). After the run‐in period, patients were randomly assigned to double‐blind treatment with alogliptin 12.5 mg (n = 203), alogliptin 25 mg (n = 198), or placebo (n = 99) for 26 weeks. The primary end‐point was change from baseline to week 26 in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary end‐points included clinical response rates and changes in fasting plasma glucose, β‐cell function (fasting proinsulin, insulin, proinsulin/insulin ratio, and C‐peptide, and homeostasis model assessment β‐cell function), body weight, and safety end‐points [adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs and electrocardiographic readings]. Results: The study population had a mean age of 57 years and a mean disease duration of 8 years; it was well balanced for gender (52% women) and was mainly white (71%). The mean baseline HbA1c was approximately 8.1% in each group. Significantly greater least squares (LS) mean reductions in HbA1c were seen at week 26 with alogliptin 12.5 mg (?0.38%) and 25 mg (?0.52%) vs. placebo (+0.01%; p < 0.001), and more patients in the alogliptin 25‐mg group had HbA1c levels ≤7.0% at week 26 (34.8%, p = 0.002) vs. placebo (18.2%). Proportionately more patients in the alogliptin 12.5 mg (47.3%) and 25 mg (50.5%) groups had an HbA1c reduction ≥0.5% from baseline compared with patients in the placebo group (26.3%; p < 0.001). Minor improvements in individual markers of β‐cell function were seen with alogliptin, but no significant treatment group differences were noted relative to placebo. Minor LS mean changes in body weight were noted across groups (placebo, ?0.20 kg; alogliptin 12.5 mg, +0.60 kg; alogliptin 25 mg, +0.68 kg). AEs were reported for 63–64% of patients receiving alogliptin and 54% of patients receiving placebo. Few AEs were treatment limiting (2.0–2.5% across groups), and serious AEs (2.0–5.6%) were infrequent, similar across groups, and generally considered not related to treatment. The incidences of hypoglycaemia for placebo, alogliptin 12.5 mg and alogliptin 25 mg groups were 11.1, 15.8 and 9.6% respectively. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glyburide monotherapy, the addition of alogliptin resulted in clinically significant reductions in HbA1c without increased incidence of hypoglycaemia.     

Initial combination therapy with saxagliptin and metformin provides sustained glycaemic control and is well tolerated for up to 76 weeks

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin + metformin initial combination therapy compared with saxagliptin or metformin alone over 76 weeks (24‐week short‐term + 52‐week long‐term extension) in treatment‐naÏve type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with inadequate glycaemic control. Methods: In this phase 3, parallel‐group, double‐blind, active‐controlled study, 1306 patients 18–77 years of age (HbA1c 8.0–12.0%) were randomized to saxagliptin 5 mg + 500 mg metformin, saxagliptin 10 mg + 500 mg metformin, saxagliptin 10 mg + placebo or 500 mg metformin + placebo. Blinded metformin was titrated during weeks 1–5 of the short‐term treatment period in 500 mg/day increments to 2000 mg/day maximum in the metformin‐based treatment groups. No titration of metformin was permitted during the long‐term treatment period. A total of 888 patients completed the study (76 weeks), 613 without being rescued. Changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, 120‐min postprandial glucose (PPG) and PPG‐area under the curve (AUC) from baseline to week 76 were analysed using a repeated‐measures model. Results: At 76 weeks, adjusted mean changes from baseline HbA1c (95% CI) for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin, saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin, saxagliptin 10 mg and metformin were ?2.31 (?2.44, ?2.18), ?2.33 (?2.46, ?2.20), ?1.55 (?1.70, ?1.40) and ?1.79% (?1.93, ?1.65), respectively (post hoc and nominal p < 0.0001 vs. metformin and saxagliptin monotherapies for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin and saxagliptin 10 mg + metformin). The proportions of patients requiring rescue or discontinuation for insufficient glycaemic control were lower for saxagliptin + metformin than for either monotherapy. Little or no attenuation in PPG‐AUC or 120‐min PPG was observed between weeks 24 and 76 for saxagliptin + metformin, indicating persistent efficacy. Adverse event rates were similar across groups; hypoglycaemic events occurred at a low frequency. Conclusion: Saxagliptin + metformin initial combination therapy was well tolerated and produced sustained glycaemic control for up to 76 weeks, with greater improvements in glycaemic parameters compared with either drug alone.     

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy alone or in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: After a 2 week placebo run‐in period, eligible patients inadequately controlled on long‐acting, intermediate‐acting or premixed insulin (HbA1c ≥ 7.5% and ≤ 11%), were randomised 1:1 to the addition of once‐daily sitagliptin 100 mg or matching placebo over a 24‐week study period. The study capped the proportion of randomised patients on insulin plus metformin at 75%. Further, the study capped the proportion of randomised patients on premixed insulin at 25%. The metformin dose and the insulin dose were to remain stable throughout the study. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline at week 24. Results: Mean baseline characteristics were similar between the sitagliptin (n = 322) and placebo (n = 319) groups, including HbA1c (8.7 vs. 8.6%), diabetes duration (13 vs. 12 years), body mass index (31.4 vs. 31.4 kg/m²), and total daily insulin dose (51 vs. 52 IU), respectively. At 24 weeks, the addition of sitagliptin significantly (p < 0.001) reduced HbA1c by 0.6% compared with placebo (0.0%). A greater proportion of patients achieved an HbA1c level < 7% while randomised to sitagliptin as compared with placebo (13 vs. 5% respectively; p < 0.001). Similar HbA1c reductions were observed in the patient strata defined by insulin type (long‐acting and intermediate‐acting insulins or premixed insulins) and by baseline metformin treatment. The addition of sitagliptin significantly (p < 0.001) reduced fasting plasma glucose by 15.0 mg/dl (0.8 mmol/l) and 2‐h postmeal glucose by 36.1 mg/dl (2.0 mmol/l) relative to placebo. A higher incidence of adverse experiences was reported with sitagliptin (52%) compared with placebo (43%), due mainly to the increased incidence of hypoglycaemia (sitagliptin, 16% vs. placebo, 8%). The number of hypoglycaemic events meeting the protocol‐specified criteria for severity was low with sitagliptin (n = 2) and placebo (n = 1). No significant change from baseline in body weight was observed in either group. Conclusion: In this 24‐week study, the addition of sitagliptin to ongoing, stable‐dose insulin therapy with or without concomitant metformin improved glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Sustained effects of pioglitazone vs. glibenclamide on insulin sensitivity, glycaemic control, and lipid profiles in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: This study compared the effects of 52 weeks' treatment with pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance, and glibenclamide, on insulin sensitivity, glycaemic control, and lipids in patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive either pioglitazone (initially 30 mg QD, n = 91) or micronized glibenclamide (initially 1.75 mg QD, n = 109) as monotherapy. Doses were titrated (to 45 mg for pioglitazone and 10.5 mg for glibenclamide) to achieve glycaemic targets during the next 12 weeks: fasting blood glucose of < or = 7 mmol/l and 1-h postprandial blood glucose of < or = 10 mmol/l. Patients were maintained on the titrated dose for 40 weeks. RESULTS: Pioglitazone significantly increased insulin sensitivity compared with glibenclamide, as assessed by homeostasis model assessment (17.0% vs. -13.0%; P < 0.001), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (0.011 vs. -0.007; P < 0.001) and fasting serum insulin (-1.3 pmol/l vs. 23.8 pmol/l; P = 0.007). The glibenclamide group had significantly lower HbA1c than the pioglitazone group after 12 weeks of therapy (7.8% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.015), but significantly higher HbA1c after 52 weeks of therapy (7.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.001). Pioglitazone significantly (vs. glibenclamide) increased mean HDL-C (P < 0.001), decreased mean triglycerides (P = 0.019), and decreased mean atherogenic index of plasma (AIP; P = 0.001) and mean total cholesterol/HDL-C (P = 0.004), without significantly elevating mean total cholesterol or mean LDL-C compared with glibenclamide. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that the effects of pioglitazone are more sustained than those of glibenclamide for improving insulin sensitivity in patients with Type 2 diabetes, and that 52 weeks' treatment with pioglitazone has favourable effects on glycaemic control and lipoprotein profile.     

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).     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on glimepiride alone or on glimepiride and metformin

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of a 24-week treatment with sitagliptin, a highly selective once-daily oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control [glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) >or=7.5% and or=4 mg/day) monotherapy and 229 were on glimepiride (>or=4 mg/day) plus metformin (>or=1,500 mg/day) combination therapy. Patients exceeding pre-specified glycaemic thresholds during the double-blind treatment period were provided open-label rescue therapy (pioglitazone) until study end. The primary efficacy analysis evaluated the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to Week 24. Secondary efficacy endpoints included fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h post-meal glucose and lipid measurements. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) was 8.34% in the sitagliptin and placebo groups. After 24 weeks, sitagliptin reduced HbA(1c) by 0.74% (p < 0.001) relative to placebo. In the subset of patients on glimepiride plus metformin, sitagliptin reduced HbA(1c) by 0.89% relative to placebo, compared with a reduction of 0.57% in the subset of patients on glimepiride alone. The addition of sitagliptin reduced FPG by 20.1 mg/dl (p < 0.001) and increased homeostasis model assessment-beta, a marker of beta-cell function, by 12% (p < 0.05) relative to placebo. In patients who underwent a meal tolerance test (n = 134), sitagliptin decreased 2-h post-prandial glucose (PPG) by 36.1 mg/dl (p < 0.001) relative to placebo. The addition of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, although there was a higher incidence of overall (60 vs. 47%) and drug-related adverse experiences (AEs) (15 vs. 7%) in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group. This was largely because of a higher incidence of hypoglycaemia AEs (12 vs. 2%, respectively) in the sitagliptin group compared with the placebo group. Body weight modestly increased with sitagliptin relative to placebo (+0.8 vs. -0.4 kg; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin 100 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control and beta-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control with glimepiride or glimepiride plus metformin therapy. The addition of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with a modest increase in hypoglycaemia and body weight, consistent with glimepiride therapy and the observed degree of glycaemic improvement.     

Long-term therapy with addition of pioglitazone to metformin compared with the addition of gliclazide to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, comparative study

BACKGROUND: This 52-week, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of metformin plus pioglitazone with the established combination of metformin plus gliclazide in type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > or = 7.5% to < or =11.0%) received either pioglitazone 15 mg o.d. (titrated up to 45 mg; n = 317) or gliclazide 80 mg o.d. (titrated up to 320 mg; n = 313) and metformin at the pre-study dose. HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, lipids and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio were measured. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in HbA1c (1% decrease in both groups) and FPG between groups. There was a decrease in fasting insulin in the pioglitazone group compared to an increase in the gliclazide group (p < 0.001). There were significantly greater improvements in triglycerides and HDL-cholesterol in the metformin plus pioglitazone group compared to the metformin plus gliclazide group (p < 0.001). Mean LDL-cholesterol decreased with metformin plus gliclazide and increased with metformin plus pioglitazone (p < 0.001); however, this increase was considerably less marked than that in HDL-cholesterol. The mean urinary albumin/creatinine ratio was reduced by 10% in the metformin plus pioglitazone group compared to an increase of 6% in the metformin plus gliclazide group (p = 0.027). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups and both combinations were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the established combination of metformin plus gliclazide, this study indicates potential benefits of addition of pioglitazone to metformin in terms of improvements in microalbuminuria and specific abnormalities associated with diabetic dyslipidemia.     

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin versus linagliptin or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In this 24‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, Phase III trial, 791 patients were randomized to one of six treatment arms. Two free combination therapy arms received linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) + either low (500 mg) or high (1000 mg) dose metformin bid. Four monotherapy arms received linagliptin 5 mg once daily, metformin 500 mg or 1000 mg bid or placebo. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥11.0% were not eligible for randomization and received open‐label linagliptin + high‐dose metformin. Results: The placebo‐corrected mean (95% confidence interval) change in HbA1c from baseline (8.7%) to week 24 was ?1.7% (?2.0, ?1.4) for linagliptin + high‐dose metformin, ?1.3% (?1.6, ?1.1) for linagliptin + low‐dose metformin, ?1.2% (?1.5, ?0.9) for high‐dose metformin, ?0.8% (?1.0, ?0.5) for low‐dose metformin and ?0.6 (?0.9, ?0.3) for linagliptin (all p < 0.0001). In the open‐label arm, the mean change in HbA1c from baseline (11.8%) was ?3.7%. Hypoglycaemia occurred at a similar low rate with linagliptin + metformin (1.7%) as with metformin alone (2.4%). Adverse event rates were comparable across treatment arms. No clinically significant changes in body weight were noted. Conclusions: Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin was superior to metformin monotherapy in improving glycaemic control, with a similar safety and tolerability profile, no weight gain and a low risk of hypoglycaemia.