Efficacy and tolerability of linagliptin added to a sulfonylurea regimen in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus: an 18-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundSome patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving monotherapy with a sulfonylurea (SU) are unable to meet recommended glycemic targets over the long term and require additional pharmacologic agents to maintain glycemic control. This study was designed to assess the utility of adjunctive therapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with SU monotherapy.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and tolerability of linagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM despite background therapy with an SU.MethodsIn this Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with inadequately controlled T2DM on SU monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 161) or placebo (n = 84) for 18 weeks. The primary end point was the mean change in hemoglobin (Hb) A_1c from baseline to week 18, evaluated using ANCOVA. Tolerability was assessed using laboratory analysis, spontaneous reporting, and physical examination and interview.ResultsMean baseline characteristics were similar in the linagliptin and placebo groups. Linagliptin treatment was associated with a placebo-corrected mean (95% CI) change in HbA_1c from baseline (8.6%) to 18 weeks of ?0.47% (?0.70 to ?0.24; P < 0.0001). Patients in the linagliptin group were more likely compared with placebo to achieve the HbA_1c target level of <7.0% after 18 weeks of treatment (15.2% vs 3.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 6.5; 95% CI, 1.7–24.8; P = 0.007). Similarly, patients in the linagliptin group were more likely to achieve an HbA_1c reduction of ≥0.5% compared with those in the placebo group (57.6% vs 22.0%; OR = 5.1, 95% CI 2.7–9.6; P < 0.0001). The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between the linagliptin and placebo groups (42.2% vs 42.9%). The incidences of hypoglycemic events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (5.6% vs 4.8%), and none of the hypoglycemic episodes were assessed as severe by the investigator. The difference in the changes in mean body weight was not significant (+0.43 vs ?0.01 kg; P = 0.12).ConclusionsThe addition of linagliptin to SU therapy for 18 weeks in these patients with T2DM was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA_1c compared with placebo. The overall tolerability of linagliptin was similar to that of placebo, with a low risk for hypoglycemia and no significant weight gain. These findings support the use of linagliptin as adjunctive therapy in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on SU monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00819091.     

A 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with rosiglitazone and sulfonylurea in African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sulfonylurea monotherapy

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is twice as prevalent in African Americans and Hispanic Americans as in non-Hispanic whites. However, the effectiveness and safety profile of rosiglitazone maleate used as combination therapy with sulfonylureas in the management of diabetes and its effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) biomarkers/parameters have not been studied in these populations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of the addition of rosiglitazone to a regimen of glyburide once daily in African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes previously inadequately controlled with sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 38 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged < or =21 years, had type 2 diabetes, a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level > or =140 mg/dL, and a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) value > or =7.5%, and had been treated with sulfonylurea monotherapy for at least 2 months before screening. Patients were assigned to receive treatment with glyburide 10 or 20 mg/d plus rosiglitazone 8 mg (GLY+RSG) or placebo (GLY+PBO) PO (tablets) QD for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in HbA(1c) after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included change in FPG; proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) targets (<7.0% and <6.5%); and changes in biomarkers for CVD risk, including C-reactive protein (CRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-I activity, fibrinogen, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) antigen, von Willebrand factor (vWF), soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A 2 activity, and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, including vital-sign measurement, clinical laboratory tests, and adverse event (AE) reports collected at each study visit. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients (101 African American and 144 Hispanic American) were enrolled. Demographic characteristics were comparable between the GLY+RSG and GLY+PBO groups: mean (SD) age (52 [11.9] vs 53 [10.4] years), HbA(1c) (9.2% [1.3%] vs 9.4% [1.4%]), sex (men/women, 45.3%/54.7% vs 48.3%/51.7%), race (African American/Hispanic American, 43.6%/56.4% vs 37.9%/62.1%), and mean (SD) weight (86.3 [18.8] vs 88.3 [19.4] kg). In the overall study population, treatment with GLY+RSG was associated with a significantly greater mean (95% CI) reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) compared with GLY+PBO (between-group Delta, -1.4% [-1.7% to -1.1%]; P < 0.001). When assessed by ethnicity, HbA(1c) values were significantly reduced with GLY+RSG compared with GLY+PBO in African American patients (between-group Delta, -1.4%) and in Hispanic American patients (between-group Delta, -1.5%) (both, P < 0.001), as were FPG levels (between-group Deltas, -3.1 mmol/L [57 mg/dL] and -3.8 mmol/L [-69 mg/dL], respectively; both, P < 0.001). With GLY+RSG, 9151 (17.6%) African American patients and 17/66 (25.8%) Hispanic American patients achieved HbA(1c) <7%, compared with 2/44 (4.5%) and 1/72 (1.4%) patients, respectively, who achieved this goal with GLY+PBO. Homeostasis model assessment estimates of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function were significantly improved with GLY+RSG compared with GIX+PBO (between-group Deltas, 29.3% and 78.4%, respectively; both, P < 0.001). With regard to CVD biomarkers, there were potentially deleterious changes compared with baseline in the GLY+PBO group for CRP (+29.4%; P = 0.042), PAI-1 activity (+27.0%; P = 0.006), fibrinogen (+15.7%; P = 0.007), and sVCAM (+7.0%; P = 0.035), whereas there were no significant increases in these factors in the GLY+RSG group. In the GLY+RSG group, there were significant improvements in tPA (-17.8%; P < 0.001), vWF (-11.3%; P = 0.019), and UACR (-17.2%; P = 0.028) over 24 weeks' treatment, whereas there were no significant changes in any of these factors in the GLY+PBO group. As a result, significant treatment effects were observed for CRP (-29.2%; P = 0.019), tPA (-18.4%; P < 0.001), vWF (-12.9%; P < 0.015), and UACR (-26.7%; P = 0.006) with GLY+RSG compared with GLY+PBO. The most frequently reported AEs with GLY+RSG were edema and weight increase (both 121121 [9.9%] patients) and with GLY+PBO were upper respiratory tract infection (18/124 [14.5%] patients). AEs were reported in 83/121 (68.6%) patients in the GLY+RSG group, of which 6/121 (5.0%) were assessed as severe, compared with 70/124 ( 56.5 % ) patients who received GLY+PBO, of which 31124 (2.4%) were assessed as severe. CONCLUSION: Add-on rosiglitazone administered for 24 weeks was effective and well tolerated in these African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes previously inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea monotherapy.     

Manidipine versus enalapril monotherapy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure reduction is associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular events and death, particularly in patients with both hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and effect on metabolic risk factors of manidipine, a new dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, and enalapril, a widely used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind trial compared manidipine and enalapril in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-104 mm Hg, systolic blood pressure [SBP] < or =190 mm Hg). Following a 3-week, single-blind placebo run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to receive either manidipine 10 mg or enalapril 10 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The dose was doubled after 3 weeks in patients who had not responded to treatment (DBP > or =90 mm Hg). The primary efficacy end point was change in DBP from baseline to the end of the study. Secondary outcomes were the responder rate (DBP <90 mm Hg and/or a DBP reduction of > or =10 mm Hg) at the end of the study. Other secondary measures were changes from baseline to the end of the study in heart rate and in the following measures obtained by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM): 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean DBP and SBP, and the trough:peak ratio. Blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, and creatinine were measured at the end of the placebo run-in period and the end of treatment. The study had 80% power to detect a between-treatment difference in mean sitting DBP of >3 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study. After the placebo run-in period, 13 patients were excluded from the study: 4 for DBP values outside the specified limits, 7 at their request, and 2 for adverse events. Thus, 111 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to treatment (53 manidipine, 58 enalapril). The population consisted of 61 men and 50 women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (11) years and a body mass index of 28.2 (2.4) kg/m2. Among patients who completed the study, drug doses were doubled in 67.6% (25/37) of patients in the manidipine group and 60.0% (24/40) of patients in the enalapril group (P = NS). Similar reductions in blood pressure were observed in both groups, from a mean (SD) of 164 (12)/97.5 (5) mm Hg at baseline to 141 (12)/84.5 (6) mm Hg at the end of the study in the manidipine group (P < 0.01), and from 159 (12)/98 (4) mm Hg to 139 (12)/86 (8) mm Hg in the enalapril group (P < 0.01). The proportion of responders was 66.7% (32/48) in the manidipine group and 60.0% (30/50) in the enalapril group; the difference between groups was not significant. Twenty-four-hour ABPM revealed significant (P < 0.01) and similar reductions in blood pressure in both groups, with a trough:peak ratio of approximately -50%. Neither drug affected heart rate. Among the statistically significant changes in metabolic parameters, significant reductions in HbA(1c) (from 6.7% [1.4%] to 6.2% [1.1%]) and blood glucose concentrations (from 152 [44] to 143 [44] mg/dL) were observed only in the manidipine group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, manidipine was as metabolically neutral and as effective as enalapril in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, providing a sustained 24-hour antihypertensive effect.     

Comparison of vildagliptin and rosiglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin and rosiglitazone during a 24-week treatment in drug-na?ve patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of 24-week treatment with vildagliptin (100 mg daily, given as equally divided doses; n = 519) or rosiglitazone (8 mg daily, given as a once-daily dose; n = 267). RESULTS: Monotherapy with vildagliptin and rosiglitazone decreased A1C (baseline = 8.7%) to a similar extent during the 24-week treatment, with most of the A1C reduction achieved by weeks 12 and 16, respectively. At end point, vildagliptin was as effective as rosiglitazone, improving A1C by -1.1 +/- 0.1% (P < 0.001) and -1.3 +/- 0.1% (P < 0.001), respectively, meeting the statistical criterion for noninferiority (upper-limit 95% CI for between-treatment difference < or =0.4%). Fasting plasma glucose decreased more with rosiglitazone (-2.3 mmol/l) than with vildagliptin (-1.3 mmol/l). Body weight did not change in vildagliptin-treated patients (-0.3 +/- 0.2 kg) but increased in rosiglitazone-treated patients (+1.6 +/- 0.3 kg, P < 0.001 vs. vildagliptin). Relative to rosiglitazone, vildagliptin significantly decreased triglycerides, total cholesterol, and LDL, non-HDL, and total-to-HDL cholesterol (-9 to -16%, all P < or = 0.01) but produced a smaller increase in HDL cholesterol (+4 vs. +9%, P = 0.003). The proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event was 61.4 vs. 64.0% in patients receiving vildagliptin and rosiglitazone, respectively. Only one mild hypoglycemic episode was experienced by one patient in each treatment group, while the incidence of edema was greater with rosiglitazone (4.1%) than vildagliptin (2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in patients with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating similar glycemic reductions as rosiglitazone but without weight gain.     

Rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination compared with uptitrated metformin alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) that involves uptitration of monotherapy to the maximum dose has been associated with delays in achieving glycemic control and an increased number of adverse events (AEs). Studies have reported the benefits of adding a thiazolidinedione to metformin (MET), but none has compared the effect of adding a thiazolidinedione to MET versus increasing the daily dose of MET to 3 g. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the benefits of fixed-dose combination rosiglitazone and MET (RSG/MET) compared with high-dose MET monotherapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients previously treated with MET entered a 4-week, single-blind, run-in period with MET 2 g/d and were then randomized to RSG/MET 4 mg/2 g per day or MET 2.5 g/d. At week 8, medication was escalated to RSG/MET 8 mg/2 g per day or MET 3 g/d. The primary efficacy end point was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at week 24. Tolerability was assessed, including the frequency and severity of AEs. RESULTS: A total of 568 patients comprised the safety population (MET, 280; RSG/MET, 288) and 551 formed the intent-to-treat group (MET, 272; RSG/MET, 279). Baseline characteristics of the safety population were comparable in the 2 groups; body mass index (mean [SD]) was 32.2 (4.8) kg/m(2) and 32.1 (4.9) kg/m(2) in the RSG/MET and MET groups, respectively. RSG/MET reduced HbA(1c) (mean [SD]) from 7.4% (1.0%) to 7.1% (1.1%) at week 24, compared with a reduction from 7.5% (1.0%) to 7.4% (1.1%) with MET (treatment difference, -0.22%; P = 0.001). Fasting plasma glucose (mean [SD]) was reduced from 166.2 (29) to 144.1 (33) mg/dL with RSG/MET and from 169.3 (33) to 164.0 (37) mg/dL with MET (treatment difference, -18.3 mg/dL; P < 0.001). In addition, 54% of patients treated with RSG/MET achieved HbA(1c) levels <7.0%, compared with 36% with MET (odds ratio, 2.42; P < 0.001). RSG/MET increased homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) estimates of insulin sensitivity by 34.4% versus 6.5% with MET (treatment difference, 24.8%; P < 0.001). HOMA beta-cell function increased by 15.9% with RSG/MET versus 2.5% with MET (treatment difference, 14.0%; P < 0.001). RSG/MET decreased C-reactive protein by a mean of 39.4% versus 16.0% with MET (treatment difference, -33.8%; P < 0.001). RSG/MET was generally well tolerated, with the majority of AEs mild to moderate in nature. Serious AEs were reported in 3% of patients receiving RSG/MET and 2% with MET. Overall rates of gastrointestinal AEs were 23% with RSG/MET and 26% with MET; however, there was an increased incidence of diarrhea (14% vs 6%) and abdominal pain (9% vs 6%) with MET. There was a mean (SE) increase in weight with RSG/MET (1.3 [0.22] kg) and a mean decrease (-0.9 [0.26] kg) with MET. Patients receiving RSG/MET reported improvements in treatment satisfaction compared with MET. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the RSG/MET fixed-dose combination (8 mg/2 g per day) was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for type 2 DM and enabled more patients to reach glycemic targets than high-dose MET (3 g/d).     

Optimal dose of candesartan for renoprotection in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy: a double-blind randomized cross-over study

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the optimal dose of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist candesartan cilexetil for renoprotection as reflected by short-term changes in albuminuria in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 23 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy were enrolled in this double-blind randomized cross-over trial with four treatment periods, each lasting 2 months. Each patient received placebo and candesartan: 8, 16, and 32 mg daily in random order. Antihypertensive medication was discontinued before enrollment, except for long-acting furosemide, which all patients received throughout the study in median (range) doses of 40 (30-160) mg daily. End points were albuminuria (turbidimetry), 24-h blood pressure (BP) (Takeda-TM2420), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (51Cr-labeled EDTA plasma clearance technique). RESULTS: Values obtained during placebo treatment: albuminuria [geometric mean (95% CI)] 700 (486-1,007) mg/24-h, 24-h BP (mean +/- SE) 147 +/- 4/78 +/- 2 mmHg, and GFR 84 +/- 6 ml/min/1.73 m2. All three doses of candesartan significantly reduced albuminuria and 24-h BP compared with placebo. Mean (95% CI) reductions in albuminuria were 33% (21-43), 59% (52-65), and 52% (44-59) with increasing doses of candesartan. Albuminuria was reduced significantly more by the two highest doses than by the lowest dose (P < 0.01); 24-h systolic BP was reduced by 9 (2-16), 9 (2-16), and 13 (6-20) mmHg and 24-h diastolic BP was reduced by 5 (2-8), 4 (1-7), and 6 (3-9) mmHg with increasing doses of candesartan. There were no significant differences in the reductions in BP between the three doses. GFR was decreased by approximately 6 ml/min/1.73 m2 by all three doses of candesartan (P < 0.05 versus placebo). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal dose of candesartan is 16 mg daily for renoprotection, as reflected by short-term reduction in albuminuria, in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.     

Efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30 combined with pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on glibenclamide (glyburide) monotherapy or combination therapy: an 18-week, randomized, open-label study

BACKGROUND: Few large randomized controlled trials have assessed the value of adding insulin to an oral antidiabetic drug regimen. OBJECTIVE: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) plus pioglitazone (n = 93), glibenclamide (glyburide) plus pioglitazone (n = 91), or BIAsp 30 monotherapy (n = 97). METHODS: This 18-week, multinational, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial involved 281 patients with type 2 diabetes (60% male; mean age, 56 years; mean body mass index, 29.5 kg/m2) with inadequate glycemic control (mean glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)], 9.5%; range, 7.4%-14.7%) on glibenclamide monotherapy or combination therapy. The primary objective was to compare end-of-trial HbA(1c) among the 3 treatment groups. Fasting and mean 7- and 8-point blood glucose profiles, blood lipid levels, plasminogen activator inhibitor levels, adverse events, and hypoglycemia frequency were also compared. Patients using BIAsp 30 (alone or with pioglitazone) were injected twice daily (immediately before breakfast and dinner). Pioglitazone (30 mg/d) and glibenclamide (5-15 mg/d) were taken orally once daily with or immediately after breakfast. RESULTS: At the end of the trial, HbA(1c) was significantly lower for the BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone group than for the glibenclamide plus pioglitazone group (mean [SD], -0.64% [0.23%]; P = 0.005) and the BIAsp 30 monotherapy group (-0.60% [0.22%]; P = 0.008). Mean (SD) fasting blood glucose (before breakfast) was significantly lower for BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone than for glibenclamide plus pioglitazone (153 [45] mg/dL vs 169 [65] mg/dL, respectively; P = 0.012). Each time point on the 8-point blood glucose profile was lower for BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone than for glibenclamide plus pioglitazone (P < 0.001 to P < 0.05). No major hypoglycemic episodes were reported, and the absolute rate of hypoglycemic events was low (<1 event/patient-week) in the BIAsp-only group. Edema was reported in < or =9% of patients in each treatment group, but no occurrence was classified as serious. Weight gain (mean, 4.0 kg) was more common in the BIAsp plus pioglitazone group (8%); however, this was consistent with improved glycemic control and is similar to that reported in other pioglitazone trials. CONCLUSIONS: BIAsp 30 plus pioglitazone provided an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment alternative to glibenclamide plus pioglitazone or BIAsp 30 alone in this population of patients who previously were not well controlled on glibenclamide monotherapy or combination therapy.     

Efficacy and tolerability of atorvastatin/fenofibrate fixed-dose combination tablet compared with atorvastatin and fenofibrate monotherapies in patients with dyslipidemia: A 12-week,multicenter, double-blind,randomized, parallel-group study

Background: Coadministration of statin and fenofibrate monotherapies is frequently used to treat patients with dyslipidemia; however, a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet is not currently marketed.Objective: This study evaluates a new FDC tablet of atorvastatin 40 mg and fenofibrate 100 mg.Methods: This was a 12-week, multicenter, doubleblind, randomized, parallel-group Phase IIb study. Adults with dyslipidemia (non?HDL-C >130 mg/dL and triglycerides [TG] ≥150 but ≤500 mg/dL) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive the FDC, atorvastatin 40 mg, or fenofibrate 145 mg for 12 weeks. Study medication was taken once daily in the evening, without regard to meals. Patients attended follow-up visits after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of the double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy end points were the mean percentage changes from baseline to the final visit (week 12) in non?HDL-C, HDL-C, and TG. Secondary variables were LDL-C, VLDL-C particle concentration, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein (a), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, homocysteine, creatinine, myeloperoxidase, and lipoproteinassociated phospholipase A2. Tolerability was assessed by adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, and ECGs.Results: Patients (n = 220) were aged 26 to 87 years; 115 (52.3%) were men and 105 (47.7%) were women; 189 (85.9%) were white, 17 (7.7%) were black, and 15 (6.8%) were Hispanic or Latino; and mean (SD) weight was 200.5 (40.85) lb (range, 103.5–367.4 lb). Previous treatments were statins (25.9% [57/220]), fibrates (1.8% [4/220]), and dietary supplements (25.5% [56/220]); 57.7% (127/220) of patients were treatment naive. Use of the FDC was associated with an improvement in non?HDL-C (?44.8%) that was significantly greater than with fenofibrate monotherapy (?16.1%; P < 0.001) but was not significantly different from that with atorvastatin monotherapy (?40.2%; P = NS). HDL-C increased significantly more in the FDC group (19.7%) than with atorvastatin (6.5%; P < 0.001) but was not significantly different from fenofibrate (18.2%; P = NS). TG lowering in the FDC group (?49.1%) was significantly greater than with both atorvastatin (?28.9%; P < 0.001) and fenofibrate (?27.8%; P = 0.001). LDL-C lowering in the FDC group (?42.3%) was significantly greater than with fenofibrate (?13.9%; P < 0.001) but not significantly different from atorvastatin (?43.1%; P = NS). The FDC had either comparable or significantly greater improvements in other lipid variables and multiple secondary variables. The FDC was generally well tolerated; the tolerability profile was consistent with those of atorvastatin and fenofibrate monotherapies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (ie, those occurring after the first dose of study medication) were recorded in 43 of 73 patients (58.9%) for the FDC, 49 of 74 (66.2%) for atorvastatin, and 48 of 73 (65.8%) for fenofibrate.Conclusions: In this 12-week study, patients with dyslipidemia treated with the 40/100-mg atorvastatin/ fenofibrate FDC had a significantly greater reduction in TG than those treated with atorvastatin 40 mg or higher-dose fenofibrate 145 mg. Treatment with the FDC was also associated with a significantly greater reduction in non?HDL-C compared with fenofibrate alone and a greater increase in HDL-C compared with atorvastatin alone. All treatments were generally well tolerated.     

Ragaglitazar improves glycemic control and lipid profile in type 2 diabetic subjects: a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study with an open pioglitazone arm

OBJECTIVE: Ragaglitazar is a novel insulin sensitizer with dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-gamma and PPAR-alpha stimulating activities that improve plasma glucose and lipid profiles. The aim of the present dose-ranging study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ragaglitazar in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study included 177 hypertriglyceridemic type 2 diabetic subjects who participated in a 12-week, double-blind, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study (open pioglitazone arm). Subjects received ragaglitazar (0.1, 1, 4, or 10 mg), placebo, or pioglitazone (45 mg). Efficacy parameters included fasting plasma levels of triglycerides and glucose (FPG) along with other lipid levels, A1C, and insulin. RESULTS: Ragaglitazar in doses of 1, 4, and 10 mg resulted in a significant decrease from baseline as compared with placebo in FPG (-48, -74, -77 mg/dl) and triglycerides (-40, -62, -51%), free fatty acids (-36, -54, -62%), apolipoprotein B (-13, -29, -25%), LDL cholesterol (-14 and -19% for 4- and 10-mg groups), and total cholesterol (-16 and -15% for 4 and 10 mg) and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol (20 and 31% for 1- and 4-mg groups, respectively). Changes in triglycerides and FPG for pioglitazone treatment were similar to 1 mg ragaglitazar. Mean A1C values of the 1-, 4-, and 10-mg ragaglitazar and pioglitazone groups were significantly reduced compared with placebo (-0.5, -1.3, -1.1, and -0.3%, respectively). Common adverse events were edema, weight increase, leukopenia, and anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Ragaglitazar provided glycemic control that was comparable with that of pioglitazone and, compared with placebo, provided significant improvement in the lipid profile.     

Effect of exenatide on 24-hour blood glucose profile compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 2-week study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the glucose-lowering effect of exenatide over 24 hours in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control using metformin, with or without a thiazolidinedione (TZD). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, 2-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 2-week study was conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control, despite metformin with or without a TZD. Patients underwent a baseline and a week-2 (study end) 24-hour admission during which serial serum glucose measurements were taken. Preprandial and postprandial concentrations of triglycerides and free fatty acids were also measured. Meals provided for each patient were identical at the baseline and week-2 assessments. Following the baseline admission, patients were randomized to receive SC injections of either exenatide (5 microg BID for 1 week, then 10 microg BID for the next week) or placebo (volume equivalent) for 14 days. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients (19 women [63%], 11 men [37%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [11.2] years; weight, 94.3 [23.0] kg; body mass index, 34.2 [6.1] kg/m(2); glycosylated hemoglobin value, 8.0% [0.9%]; diabetes duration, 8.7 [5.6] years; race, Hispanic 18 [60%], white 10 [33%], black 2 [7%]) were eligible. Seventeen patients (57%) were randomized to treatment with exenatide and 13 patients (43%) received placebo. Concurrent antidiabetic medications were metformin only (n = 19 [63%]) and metformin plus a TZD (n = 11 [37%]). All postbaseline values were least squares mean (SE). After 2 weeks (study end), the 24-hour time-average glucose values were 7.0 (0.2) and 8.8 (0.3) mmol/L for exenatide-treated and placebo-administered patients, respectively (P < 0.001). The glucose values for patients treated with exenatide were lower compared with those in patients who received placebo 2 hours after the morning meal (6.6 [0.4] vs 12.0 [0.5] mmol/L; P < 0.001), the midday meal (8.8 [0.5] vs 11.8 [0.6] mmol/L; P = 0.001), and the evening meal (6.8 [0.4] vs 11.3 [0.4] mmol/L; P < 0.001). The mean durations of patient exposure to glucose concentrations >7.8 and >11.1 mmol/L were significantly shorter for the exenatide group compared with the placebo group (>7.8 mmol/L: 6.8 [0.9] vs 14.1 [1.1] hours; >11.1 mmol/L: 1.0 [0.7] vs 4.7 [0.8] hours; both, P < 0.001). After 2 weeks, the postprandial triglyceride excursions after the morning and evening meals for patients treated with exenatide were significantly lower compared with those treated with placebo. There was no apparent effect on free fatty acid concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with type 2 diabetes, exenatide was associated with significantly reduced glucose concentrations at multiple time points during 24 hours, with the greatest effect seen on postprandial glucose concentrations. In addition, exenatide was associated with decreased overall hyperglycemic exposure and significantly decreased postprandial triglyceride excursions. These results are consistent with those seen in other studies that reported the effectiveness of exenatide in controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing pioglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing pioglitazone therapy were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] > or =7% and < or =10%) while receiving a stable dose of pioglitazone. METHODS: This was a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study in patients aged > or =18 years (ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00086502). At screening, all patients began a diet/exercise program that continued throughout the study period. Patients taking antihyperglycemic therapy other than pioglitazone underwent a washout of this therapy and entered an 8- to 14-week open-label pioglitazone dose-titration/stabilization period. Patients with an HbA(1c) > or =7% and < or =10% at the end of this period entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period (total duration of run-in period, up to 21 weeks). Patients who had been receiving pioglitazone monotherapy (30 or 45 mg/d) and had an HbA(1c) > or =7% and < or =10% entered the 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period directly. Thus, at the time of randomization, all patients were receiving ongoing pioglitazone (30 or 45 mg/d). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive sitagliptin 100 mg once daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in HbA(1c) at week 24. Secondary efficacy end points included the change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, and proinsulin; the Homeostasis Model Assessment beta-cell function and insulin-resistance indexes; the proinsulin/ insulin ratio; the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index; the percent changes from baseline in selected lipid parameters; the proportion of patients meeting the American Diabetes Association HbA(1c), goal of <7.0%; the proportion of patients requiring metformin rescue therapy; and the time to the initiation of rescue therapy. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients were randomized to receive sitagliptin, and 178 were randomized to receive placebo. The mean (SD) baseline HbAlc value was 8.1% (0.8) in the sitagliptin group and 8.0% (0.8) in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, sitagliptin added to pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant reductions compared with placebo in HbA(1c) (between-treatment difference in least squares [LS] mean change from baseline. -0.70 %; 95 % CI, -0.85 to -0.54; P < 0.001) and FPG (-17.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, -24.3 to -11.0; P < 0.001). Mean HbA(1c) values at end point were 7.2% (0.9) and 7.8% (1.1) in the respective treatment groups, and the proportions of patients reaching a target HbA(1c) of <7.0% were 45.4% and 23.0% (P < 0.001). Significant reductions in fasting serum proinsulin levels and the proinsulin/insulin ratio were seen with sitagliptin treatment compared with placebo (both, P < 0.01). Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia compared with placebo (2 vs 0 patients, respectively).     

Sustained-release versus immediate-release glipizide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in chinese patients: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 12-week clinical study

BACKGROUND: Few data exist that have compared sulfonylurea formulations in differing ethnic populations. Most studies of sulfonylureas have been performed in white patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a sustained-release glipizide (GSR) formulation with those of immediate-release glipizide (GIR) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, clinical study enrolled adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were already being treated with diet and a sulfonylurea. Patients were randomized to receive either GSR 10 mg PO QD or GIR 5 mg PO BID for 12 weeks. Because these 2 formulations differed in appearance, each patient also received placebo resembling the alternate formulation, to be received at the alternate frequency. Drugs dispensed but not used were returned to the investigators and counted to monitor compliance with the protocol. For efficacy assessment, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) were measured before and after treatment. Tolerability was measured by adverse events (AEs), which were evaluated by the attending physician during each clinical visit. RESULTS: Of the 57 patients (37 men, 20 women) enrolled in the study, 41 completed it. All were Han Chinese of Taiwanese origin, and had the following characteristics: age range, 33 to 69 years; mean (SE) height, 161.99 (9.42) cm; and mean (SE) body mass index, 25.21 (3.43) kg/m2. An intent-to-treat analysis found that the mean (SE) changes from baseline in FPG (-30.00 [10.67] vs -25.96 [11.15] mg/dL) and in HbA(1c) (-0.08% [0.24%] vs +0.14% [0.22%]) during the 12-week period of the study were not significantly different between the 2 formulations. For patients in the per-protocol analysis, mean (SE) changes from baseline in FPG (-30.00 [10.67] vs -16.52 [7.79] mg/dL) and HbA(1c) (-0.08% [0.24%] vs +0.11% [0.25%]) were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported AEs were urinary abnormality (22.2%) and tachycardia (6.7%) for the GSR group and GIR group, respectively. No serious drug-related AEs were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: In this small study, treatment with oral GSR (10 mg QD) was not significantly different from that of treatment with GIR (5 mg BID) with respect to short-term (12 weeks) FPG and HbA(1c) reductions in these ethnic Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving treatment with a sulfonylurea.     

Efficacy of inhaled insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes not controlled with diet and exercise: a 12-week, randomized, comparative trial

OBJECTIVE: Effective type 2 diabetes management requires prompt intervention if glycemic control is not achieved by nonpharmacological means. This study investigates whether inhaled insulin (INH; Exubera) can achieve target glycemic control in patients failing on diet and exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with suboptimal control on diet and exercise (HbA(1c) [A1C] 8-11%) were randomized to 3 months' treatment with either INH before meals (n = 76) or rosiglitazone 4 mg twice a day (n = 69), in conjunction with a diet and exercise regimen. The primary end point was percentage of patients achieving A1C <8.0%. RESULTS: The INH and rosiglitazone groups had comparable baseline A1C values (9.5 vs. 9.4%, respectively). Significantly more patients achieved A1C <8.0% (83 vs. 58%, adjusted odds ratio 7.14 [95% CI 2.48-20.58], P = 0.0003), A1C <7.0% (44 vs. 18%, 4.43 [1.94-10.12]), and A1C < or = 6.5% (28 vs. 7.5% 5.34 [1.83-15.57]) with INH. A1C decrease was greater with INH (-2.3% vs. -1.4%, adjusted treatment group difference: -0.89% [95% CI -1.23 to -0.55]) with final mean A1C values of 7.2 and 8.0% for INH and rosiglitazone, respectively. Hypoglycemia (episodes per subject-month) was higher with INH (0.7 vs. 0.05, risk ratio 14.72 [95% CI 7.51-28.83]), with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. Pulmonary function changes were small and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: INH could be an effective therapy for people with type 2 diabetes early in the course of their disease.     

Efficacy and safety profile of fenofibrate-coated microgranules 130 mg, with and without food, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia and the metabolic syndrome: an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: The limited bioavailability of certain fenofibrate formulations necessitates administration with food, raising concerns about efficacy and compliance. There is a need for new formulations that have improved bioavailability and eliminate the requirement for administration with food. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the food-related efficacy of a new formulation of micronized fenofibrate coated on inert microgranules (FF-muG) for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia in patients exhibiting the metabolic syndrome. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study in patients who had fasting triglyceride (TG) concentrations > or =300 mg/dL and <1000 mg/dL and met National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria for the metabolic syndrome. A 6-week washout and diet lead-in period was followed by an 8-week treatment period. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either FF-muG 130 mg with food, FF-muG 130 mg without food, or placebo every day for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the mean percent change in TG levels from baseline to the end of treatment; changes in other lipid end points were also assessed. Safety profiles were assessed based on adverse-event reports, changes in clinical laboratory values and vital signs (including electrocardiography), and the findings of physical examinations. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients took part in the study: 54 received FF-muG 130 mg with food, 42 received FF-muG 130 mg without food, and 50 received placebo. The groups were similar in terms of mean age (56 years), sex (59.5%-63.0% men; 37.0%-40.5% women), race (83.3%-100% white), mean body weight (92 kg), mean height (172 cm), mean fasting baseline TG concentrations (480 mg/dL), and other components of the metabolic syndrome. The 2 FF-muG groups (with and without food) showed similar improvements in the dyslipidemia associated with the metabolic syndrome: TG levels decreased a mean of 36.7% and 36.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 vs placebo). The overall frequency of adverse events was similar in the 2 FF-muG groups and did not differ significantly from placebo (63.0%, 61.9%, and 52.0%, respectively). Gastrointestinal disturbances (eg, diarrhea, dyspepsia) occurred more frequently in the 2 FF-muG groups compared with the placebo group (31.5%, 26.2%, and 12.0%; P = NS). Significant increases from baseline in alanine aminotransferase were seen in both FF-muG groups (mean [SEM], 3.77 [2.60] and 11.69 [7.42] U/L, respectively; P < or = 0.05 vs placebo); however, these increases were considered clinically significant in only 5 cases, none of them requiring discontinuation of study drug. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no inequivalence in the TG-lowering effects of the 2 fenofibrate regimens compared with placebo. Both regimens were well tolerated. Thus, FF-muG 130 mg administered without regard to meals appears to be efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia in patients exhibiting the metabolic syndrome.     

Optimizing insulin secretagogue therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized double-blind study with repaglinide

OBJECTIVE: Repaglinide, a novel antidiabetic agent that has a rapid onset and short duration of action, was developed for mealtime dosing. The purpose of this pharmacodynamic study was to validate a prandial regimen of repaglinide by comparing meal-related dosing with a regimen in which the same total daily dose was divided into only two doses at morning and evening meals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in 19 antidiabetic agent-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (mean age 58 years, known duration of diabetes 3.5 years, HbA(1c) 7.3%, and BMI 32 kg/m(2)). Patients were randomly assigned to receive repaglinide either before each of the three main meals or before breakfast and before the evening meal. Patients in both groups received the same total daily dose of repaglinide. Twenty-four hour profiles of blood glucose, plasma insulin, and plasma C-peptide concentrations were measured at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Repaglinide increased postprandial insulin levels and markedly reduced postprandial glucose levels relative to baseline in both groups. Significant reductions were also recorded in fasting blood glucose and HbA(1c) levels. The repaglinide regimen, in which a dose was taken before each main meal, was more effective in improving glycemic control (including postprandial glucose and HbA(1c) levels) than the same total dose of repaglinide divided into morning and evening mealtime doses. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the strategy of mealtime dosing with repaglinide. The improvements in glycemic control observed in these patients are encouraging. In addition to classic parameters of glycemic control, improvements in postprandial glucose excursions may prove to be important because postprandial hyperglycemia has been suggested to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in diabetes.     

Efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy over 24 weeks in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes may be of clinical interest based on improvements in glycemic control and weight that have been reported with the use of exenatide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes naive to antidiabetic agents and whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: This 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 23 centers across the United States, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russia, and India. Patients aged >or=18 years with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive exenatide 5 microg, exenatide 10 microg, or placebo administered SC BID. Patients were instructed by investigators to maintain their individualized prestudy diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. Efficacy measures included: glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)); fasting serum glucose (FSG); 6-point self-monitored blood glucose; percentages of patients achieving HbA(1c) values or=1 treatment-emergent adverse event. Nausea was reported with the greatest incidence (5 microg, 3%; 10 microg, 13%; placebo, 0%; P = 0.010 for the combined exenatide group vs placebo). Most (88%) treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. Hypoglycemia was reported in 5%, 4%, and 1% of patients in the exenatide 5- and 10-microg and placebo groups, respectively (P = NS), with no incidents of severe hypoglycemia reported. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with type 2 diabetes naive to treatment with antidiabetic agents, exenatide monotherapy was associated with improved HbA(1c), improved fasting and postprandial glucose control, reduced weight, improved beta-cell function (HOMA-B), and improved blood pressure, and was well tolerated. These results suggest that exenatide monotherapy may provide a viable treatment option beyond diet and exercise and support further study of exenatide monotherapy in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.