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.     

A 52‐week extension study of switching from gemigliptin vs sitagliptin to gemigliptin only as add‐on therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin alone

We investigated the long‐term efficacy and safety of gemigliptin and the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin treatment after once‐daily treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg, in patients with type 2 diabetes. This was a 28‐week extension of a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, parallel study of gemigliptin or sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin therapy. After randomization to sitagliptin 100 mg qd (S), gemigliptin 25 mg bid (G1) or gemigliptin 50 mg qd (G2) and after completing 24 weeks of treatment, 118 patients switched from gemigliptin 25 mg bid to 50 mg qd (G1/G2), 111 patients continued gemigliptin 50 mg qd (G2/G2) and 106 patients switched from sitagliptin 100 mg qd to gemigliptin 50 mg qd (S/G2). All 3 treatments reduced glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (S/G2,?0.99% [95% CI ?1.25%, ?0.73%]; G1/G2, ?1.11% [95% CI ?1.33%, ?0.89%]; G2/G2, ?1.06% [95% CI ?1.28%, ?0.85%]). The percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5% was 27.6% in the G1/G2 group at both Week 24 and Week 52, and ranged from 27.3% to 32.7% in the G2/G2 group (difference in proportions, 5% [95% CI ?6%, 17%]), while it increased from 6.8% to 27.3% from Week 24 to Week 52 in the S/G2 group (difference in proportions, 20% [95% CI 7%, 34%]). Addition of gemigliptin 50 mg qd to metformin was shown to be efficacious for 52 weeks. Switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to gemigliptin 50 mg showed consistent glyacemic control over the previous treatment.     

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.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to canagliflozin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicentre,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,parallel‐group comparative study

Dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors and sodium glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are frequently used in combination for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We examined the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin (a DPP‐4 inhibitor) added to canagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor) monotherapy in Japanese patients with poorly controlled T2DM as part of the development of a fixed‐dose combination of teneligliptin and canagliflozin. Japanese patients treated with canagliflozin (100 mg) for ≥12 weeks were randomized to receive add‐on teneligliptin (20 mg; C + T group) or placebo (C + P group) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 24. The between‐group differences in reductions from baseline to Week 24 were significantly greater in the C + T group for HbA1c (?0.94%; P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups (55.8% and 49.4% in the C + T and C + P groups, respectively). No episodes of hypoglycaemia were reported. Teneligliptin added to ongoing canagliflozin monotherapy improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with inadequately controlled T2DM.     

Empagliflozin as add‐on to linagliptin in a fixed‐dose combination in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Glycaemic efficacy and safety profile in a 52‐week,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Aims

This double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02453555) evaluated the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin (Empa) 10 or 25 mg as add‐on to linagliptin (Lina) 5 mg (fixed‐dose combination, Empa/Lina 10/5 or 25/5) in insufficiently controlled Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Methods

The trial (40 sites; May 2015‐March 2017) involved screening 433 adults (≥20 years) who were treatment‐naive or were using one oral antidiabetic drug for ≥12 weeks, which was discontinued at enrolment. Patients with HbA1c 7.5%‐10.0% after ≥16 weeks of using Lina (pre‐enrolment or during a 16‐week, open‐label period) and 2 weeks of using placebo (Plc) for Empa/Lina 10/5, plus Lina, were randomized (2:1) to once‐daily Empa/Lina 10/5 (n = 182) or Plc/Lina 10/5 (n = 93) for 24 weeks. Patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% at Week 24 received Empa/Lina up‐titrated to 25/5 (n = 126) or the corresponding placebo (n = 80), per randomization, from Week 28; 172 Empa/Lina and 84 Plc/Lina patients completed 52 weeks.

Results

Change from baseline in HbA1c was greater (P < .0001) with Empa/Lina than with Plc/Lina at Week 24 (primary outcome, ?0.93% vs 0.21%; adjusted mean difference, ?1.14%) and Week 52 (?1.16% vs 0.06%; adjusted mean difference, ?1.22%). More patients with HbA1c < 7.0% and greater decreases in fasting plasma glucose, body weight and systolic blood pressure were seen in the Empa/Lina group than in the Plc/Lina group. Empa/Lina was well tolerated. The adverse events that were more frequent with Empa/Lina were known empagliflozin‐associated events (eg, increased urination, increased blood ketones). There were no adjudication‐confirmed diabetic ketoacidosis events or lower limb amputations.

Conclusions

These results support the notion that empagliflozin‐linagliptin in fixed‐dose combination is a therapeutic option for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Alogliptin as a third oral antidiabetic drug in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and pioglitazone: a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of adding alogliptin versus uptitrating pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and pioglitazone. Methods: In this randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled, parallel‐group study, patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.0% on metformin (≥1500 mg or maximum tolerated dose; Met) and pioglitazone 30 mg (Pio30) received alogliptin 25 mg (Alo25; n = 404) or pioglitazone 15 mg (n = 399) added to Met+Pio30 for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in A1c at weeks 26 and 52, with sequential testing for non‐inferiority of Met+Pio30+Alo25 at weeks 26 and 52 and then for superiority at week 52. Results: Met+Pio30+Alo25 showed superior glycaemic control versus Met+Pio45 at week 52 [least squares (LS) mean CFB in A1c, ?0.70 vs. ?0.29%; p < 0.001]. At week 52, Met+Pio30+Alo25 resulted in greater CFB in A1c regardless of baseline A1c (p < 0.001); higher proportions of patients achieving A1c ≤7.0 (33.2 vs. 21.3%) and ≤6.5% (8.7 vs. 4.3%; p < 0.001); greater CFB in fasting plasma glucose (FPG; LS mean CFB, ?0.8 vs. ?0.2 mmol/L; p < 0.001); and greater improvements in measures of β‐cell function (p < 0.001). Hypoglycaemia incidence was low (Met+Pio30+Alo25, 4.5%; Met+Pio45, 1.5%), mostly mild to moderate, but with two severe events in the Met+Pio30+Alo25 group. No meaningful differences in incidences of individual adverse events were observed between treatments. Conclusions: Adding alogliptin to an existing metformin–pioglitazone regimen provided superior glycaemic control and potentially improved β‐cell function versus uptitrating pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes, with no clinically important differences in safety.     

Safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin,saxagliptin and metformin in combination: Post‐hoc analysis of concomitant add‐on versus sequential add‐on to metformin and of triple versus dual therapy with metformin

The safety of triple oral therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin plus metformin versus dual therapy with dapagliflozin or saxagliptin plus metformin was compared in a post‐hoc analysis of 3 randomized trials of sequential or concomitant add‐on of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin to metformin. In the concomitant add‐on trial, patients with type 2 diabetes on stable metformin received dapagliflozin 10 mg/d plus saxagliptin 5 mg/d. In sequential add‐on trials, patients on metformin plus either saxagliptin 5 mg/d or dapagliflozin 10 mg/d received dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or saxagliptin 5 mg/d, respectively, as add‐on therapy. After 24 weeks, incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between triple and dual therapy and between concomitant and sequential add‐on regimens. Urinary tract infections were more common with sequential than with concomitant add‐on therapy; genital infections were reported only with sequential add‐on of dapagliflozin to saxagliptin plus metformin. Hypoglycaemia incidence was <2.0% across all analysis groups. In conclusion, the safety and tolerability of triple therapy with dapagliflozin, saxagliptin and metformin, as either concomitant or sequential add‐on, were similar to dual therapy with either agent added to metformin.     

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.