Health-related quality-of-life analysis from KEYNOTE-590: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-590 study, first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided statistically significant improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared with chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Change from baseline to week 18 in the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) and QLQ-Esophageal cancer module (OES18) dysphagia, pain, and reflux scales were evaluated. RESULTS: The HRQoL analysis included 730 patients who received treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment. Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to week 18 was similar between treatment groups for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and physical functioning and QLQ-OES18 reflux scales. The QLQ-OES18 dysphagia (LSM difference, -5.54; 95% CI, -10.93 to -0.16) and pain (LSM difference, -2.94; 95% CI, -5.86 to -0.02) scales favored pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy over placebo plus chemotherapy. Median time to confirmed deterioration (TTD) was similar between treatment groups for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and physical functioning and QLQ-OES18 dysphagia and reflux scales. Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy prolonged median TTD, as seen on the QLQ-OES18 pain scale (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: The use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy maintained HRQoL at week 18 relative to baseline and was comparable with placebo plus chemotherapy. These HRQoL results together with published reports of efficacy, support the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced/metastatic esophageal cancer. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT03189719.

T cell-inflamed gene expression profile and PD-L1 expression and pembrolizumab efficacy in advanced esophageal cancer.

Aim: Investigate the relationship between response to pembrolizumab and expression of the 18-gene T cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) or PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) in esophageal cancer. Materials & methods: This analysis included heavily pretreated patients with advanced/metastatic esophageal/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma who received pembrolizumab in the single-arm, phase II study KEYNOTE-180. PD-L1 CPS was evaluated with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx. Results: In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, trends toward enrichment for responders were observed for patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. In patients with adenocarcinoma, a trend was observed for TcellinfGEP but not for PD-L1. Conclusion: TcellinfGEP and PD-L1 CPS may enrich for responders to pembrolizumab in patients with esophageal cancer. Clinical trial registration: NCT02559687 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Impact of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Esophageal Cancer on Health-Related Quality of Life in KEYNOTE-181.

PURPOSE: In the phase III KEYNOTE-181 study (NCT02564263) of patients with advanced esophageal cancer (EC), pembrolizumab monotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. We present the results of the prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) analyses of the squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), CPS ≥ 10, and CPS ≥ 10 SCC populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ EC questionnaire (OES18), and EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Data were analyzed in patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment. Key analyses included baseline to week 9 least squares mean change in global health status/quality of life, functional or symptom subscales, and time to deterioration (≥ 10-point deterioration) for specific subscales. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 387 patients with SCC. Compliance and completion rates for all three questionnaires were similar in both treatment groups at baseline and week 9. No clinically meaningful differences in global health status/quality of life scores were observed between treatment groups from baseline to week 9 (least squares mean difference, 2.80; 95% CI, -1.48 to 7.08); patients in both treatment groups generally exhibited stable functioning and symptom scores of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 from baseline to week 9. Time to deterioration for pain (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.89), reflux (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.33 to 4.25), and dysphagia (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.31) subscales were similar between treatment groups. These findings were generally similar in the CPS ≥ 10 (n = 218) and CPS ≥ 10 SCC (n = 166) subgroups. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced EC, pembrolizumab monotherapy and chemotherapy maintained HRQoL in patients with SCC, CPS ≥ 10, and CPS ≥ 10 SCC.

Randomized Phase III KEYNOTE-181 Study of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, phase III study, we randomly assigned (1:1) 628 patients with advanced/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, that progressed after one prior therapy, to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or chemotherapy (investigator's choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, and in all patients (one-sided α 0.9%, 0.8%, and 0.8%, respectively). RESULTS: At final analysis, conducted 16 months after the last patient was randomly assigned, OS was prolonged with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with CPS ≥ 10 (median, 9.3 v 6.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.93]; P = .0074). Estimated 12-month OS rate was 43% (95% CI, 33.5% to 52.1%) with pembrolizumab versus 20% (95% CI, 13.5% to 28.3%) with chemotherapy. Median OS was 8.2 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96]; P = .0095) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.05]; P = .0560) in all patients. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% of patients with pembrolizumab versus 40.9% in those who underwent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, with fewer treatment-related adverse events.

A randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly omarigliptin as monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: People with T2DM not on glucose-lowering medications, or who were washed off monotherapy or low-dose dual therapy, were randomized double-blind to omarigliptin 25 mg (n=165) or matching omarigliptin placebo (n=164) for 24 weeks, followed by a 30-week period to assess continuing efficacy and safety longer-term of omarigliptin during which metformin was added to the placebo group and metformin placebo to the omarigliptin group. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 (primary endpoint) was -0.49% (-0.73, -0.24) in the omarigliptin group and -0.10% (-0.34, 0.14) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.39% (-0.59, -0.19) (p<.001). Protocol deviation in use of metformin by 38 of 252 (15%) people whose samples were available for evaluation probably attenuated glycemic efficacy results, as suggested by the LS mean difference -0.53% (-0.75, -0.32) after censoring of such participants. At 24 and 54 weeks, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. During 54 weeks there were no AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia in the omarigliptin group and 5 AEs in the placebo group. Over 54 weeks, a majority of the omarigliptin treatment had a persistent reduction in HbA1c, remaining rescue-free. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2DM, omarigliptin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 54 weeks and was generally well tolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01717313. EudraCT Number: 2012-003626-24.

A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by glimepiride and metformin.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease that often requires a patient to use multiple antihyperglycemic agents to achieve glycemic control with disease progression. Omarigliptin is a once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to the treatment regimen of patients with T2D inadequately controlled by dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride. METHODS: Patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and glimepiride (≥4 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (N = 154) or placebo (N = 153) for 24 weeks. The primary objective was to assess whether omarigliptin was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary objectives were to assess the effects of omarigliptin vs. placebo on FPG and the proportion of subjects attaining HbA1c goals of <7% and <6.5%. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.5% (omarigliptin) and 8.6% (placebo), the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 was -0.67% in the omarigliptin group and -0.06% in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of -0.61% (-0.85, -0.38). Treatment with omarigliptin resulted in a significantly greater reduction in FPG relative to placebo (LS mean difference [95% CI] -0.9 mmol/L [-1.4, -0.4]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving glycemic goals of <7.0% and <6.5% was higher in the omarigliptin group relative to the placebo group. The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuations were generally similar between treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 10.5% in the omarigliptin group and 8.5% in the placebo group. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin and placebo treatments were associated with LS mean changes in body weight of -0.1 kg and -0.9 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride, compared with placebo, once-weekly omarigliptin provided greater improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01704261 , EudraCT Number: 2012-002612-10. Trial Registration Date: October 8, 2012.

Use of Prohibited Medication, a Potentially Overlooked Confounder in Clinical Trials: Omarigliptin (Once-weekly DPP-4 Inhibitor) Monotherapy Trial in 18- to 45-year-olds.

PURPOSE: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin monotherapy in young adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Unexpected efficacy results in this trial led to a series of investigations that identified the use of prohibited medication by a substantial number of trial patients. METHODS: Patients with T2DM who were ≥18 to <45 years of age and either drug-naive or not on an antihyperglycemic agent for ≥12 weeks with inadequate glycemic control were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 102) or placebo once weekly (n = 101) for 24 weeks. The objectives of the trial were to assess the effect of treatment with omarigliptin on glycemic parameters, including levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 2-hour postmeal glucose, and fasting plasma glucose, and to assess the safety and tolerability of omarigliptin. Additional investigations into trial conduct included the measurement of drug levels for omarigliptin and metformin in blood samples collected for future biomedical research, available for approximately one half of the patients. FINDINGS: The mean age of trial participants was 39.2 years, approximately 60% were male, mean body mass index was 32.5 kg/m2, and mean duration of diabetes was 3.1 years. The mean baseline HbA1c value was 7.9% in the omarigliptin group and 8.1% in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, the least squares mean change (95% CI) in HbA1c value from baseline was -0.33% (-0.60 to -0.06) in the omarigliptin group and -0.45% (-0.72 to -0.18) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference of 0.12% (-0.26 to 0.49; P = 0.535). Similarly, no between-group difference was observed for the other glycemic parameters (2-hour postmeal glucose and fasting plasma glucose levels). No issues were identified in drug allocation, dispensing or supply, patient compliance with trial medication, sample handling or analysis, or site trial conduct that explained the observed results. Measurement of drug levels from future biomedical research samples uncovered the use, with no investigator knowledge, of an antihyperglycemic agent that was prohibited by the protocol (ie, metformin) by 42.4% (39 of 92) of patients. Metformin was used by more patients in the placebo group (57% [25 of 44]) than in the omarigliptin group (29% [14 of 48]). IMPLICATIONS: The use of prohibited metformin in a trial of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, introduced a confounding factor that invalidated the results of the trial. This behavior may have been encouraged in the trial by protocol-specified self-monitoring of blood glucose levels. Use of prohibited medication may be an underappreciated confounder in clinical trial research. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: MK-3102-028 (US); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01814748; EudraCT number, 2012-004303-12 (EU).

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the cardiovascular safety of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Omarigliptin is a once-weekly (q.w.) oral DPP-4 inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. To support approval of omarigliptin in the United States, the clinical development program included a cardiovascular (CV) safety study. Subsequently, a business decision was made not to submit a marketing application for omarigliptin in the United States, and the CV safety study was terminated. Herein we report an analysis of data from that early-terminated study. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, 4202 patients with T2DM and established CV disease were assigned to either omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo in addition to their existing diabetes therapy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to summarize the primary endpoint of time to first major adverse CV event (MACE, the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and the analysis of first event of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF). RESULTS: The median follow-up was approximately 96 weeks (range 1.1-178.6 weeks). The primary MACE outcome occurred in 114/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (5.45%; 2.96/100 patient-years) and 114/2100 patients in the placebo group (5.43%; 2.97/100 patient-years), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.29). The hHF outcome occurred in 20/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (0.96%; 0.51/100 patient-years) and 33/2100 patients in the placebo group (1.57%; 0.85/100 patient-years), with an HR of 0.60 (95% CI 0.35, 1.05). After 142 weeks, the least-squares mean difference (omarigliptin vs. placebo) in glycated hemoglobin levels was -0.3% (95% CI -0.46, -0.14). The numbers of patients with adverse events, serious adverse events or discontinued from study medication due to adverse events were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this CV safety study of patients with T2DM and established CV disease, omarigliptin did not increase the risk of MACE or hHF and was generally well tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01703208. Registered 05 October 2012.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with T2DM on a stable dose of metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.0-10.5% were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo (n = 201 in both) for 24 weeks (primary timepoint) followed by an additional 80-week treatment period. RESULTS: At week 24, from a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c (primary end-point) was -0.54% (-0.69%, -0.40%) in the omarigliptin group and 0.00% (-0.14%, 0.15%) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.55% (-0.75%, -0.34%); p < .001. Between-group differences (LS mean 95% CI) for the secondary end-points of 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose (omarigliptin vs placebo) were -0.8 mmol/L (-1.4, -0.2) (p = .011) and -0.5 mmol/L (-0.9, -0.1) (p = .010), respectively. At week 24, the incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and subjects with one or more adverse event (AE), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to an AE were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. Over 104 weeks, omarigliptin treatment provided a clinically meaningful reduction in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, adding omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. to metformin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 104 weeks and was generally welltolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin, a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (n = 376) or glimepiride up to 6 mg once daily (n = 375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at week 54. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.30% in the omarigliptin group and -0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.4 kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5 kg). CONCLUSIONS: After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss vs weight gain.

Safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: outcomes from TECOS.

AIMS: To characterize the incidence of diabetes-associated complications and assess the safety of sitagliptin in participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For participants with baseline eGFR measurements (n = 14 528), baseline characteristics and safety outcomes were compared for the CKD cohort (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 ) vs those without CKD. Within the CKD cohort, the same analyses were performed, comparing sitagliptin- and placebo-assigned participants. Baseline characteristics were summarized for all participants, and serious adverse events were analysed in those who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Adverse events of interest and diabetes complications were summarized for the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: CKD was present in 3324 (23%) participants at entry into TECOS. The mean (SD) age for this CKD cohort was 68.8 (7.9) years, mean diabetes duration was 13.7 (9.0) years, and 62% were men. Incidences of serious adverse events, malignancy, bone fracture, severe hypoglycaemia and most categories of diabetes complications were higher in the CKD cohort compared with those without CKD. Over ~2.8 median years of follow-up, CKD participants assigned to sitagliptin had rates of diabetic eye disease, diabetic neuropathy, renal failure, malignancy, bone fracture, pancreatitis and severe hypoglycaemia similar to those of placebo-assigned participants. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in TECOS with CKD had higher incidences of serious adverse events and diabetes complications than those without CKD. Treatment with sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with no meaningful differences in safety outcomes observed between those with CKD assigned to sitagliptin or placebo.

A randomised, double-blind, trial of the safety and efficacy of omarigliptin (a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor) in subjects with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment.

AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of omarigliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic renal impairment (RI). METHODS: Patients with T2DM with moderate RI (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) (N=114), severe RI (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) (N=55) or end-stage renal disease on dialysis (N=44), who were either not on an antihyperglycaemic agent therapy for at least 12 weeks at screening, washed-off of oral antihyperglycaemic agent monotherapy or low-dose dual combination therapy, or on insulin monotherapy, with baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 6.5%-10.0% were randomised to omarigliptin or to placebo for 24 weeks (primary end-point) followed by a 30-week period with subjects on placebo switched to blinded glipizide (if not on insulin). RESULTS: After 24 weeks, from a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.4% in the omarigliptin group and 8.3% in the placebo group, the least squares mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c in the overall population (all renal strata combined) was -0.77% (-1.00 to -0.54) in the omarigliptin group and -0.44% (-0.67 to -0.21) in the placebo group; between-group difference of -0.33% (-0.63 to -0.02); P=0.035. After 24 weeks, the incidences of subjects with symptomatic hypoglycaemia, one or more adverse event (AE), drug-related AE, serious AE and discontinuation due to an AE were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in subjects with T2DM and RI, relative to placebo, omarigliptin provided clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c, had a similar incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia and was generally well tolerated.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of treatment with the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor omarigliptin or the once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor omarigliptin or once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T2DM with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/d) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 322) or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily (n = 320). The primary analysis assessed whether omarigliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c at week 24, based on the criterion of having an upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) about the difference less than the non-inferiority bound of 0.3%. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in both groups. After 24 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.47% in the omarigliptin group and -0.43% in the sitagliptin group, with a between-group difference of -0.03% (95% CI -0.15, 0.08). This result met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The LS mean change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose and the percentage of patients with HbA1c <7.0% or <6.5% at week 24 were similar in the two treatment groups. There were no notable differences in adverse events and the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was low and similar in the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, the addition of omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily led to similar improvements in glycaemic control. Both agents were generally well tolerated with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Assessing the Safety of Sitagliptin in Older Participants in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS).

OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist regarding safety and efficacy of antihyperglycemic drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes. The Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin on a primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥6.5% [48 mmol/mol] and ≤8.0% [64 mmol/mol]) and cardiovascular disease. We analyzed baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes for TECOS participants aged ≥75 years. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinical and safety event summaries are presented for older versus younger participants and for the treatment groups within the older cohort. RESULTS: Of 14,351 participants with age recorded, 2,004 (14%) were ≥75 years old (mean age 78.3 years [SD 3.1]), with 68% men and type 2 diabetes duration median 12.0 years (IQR 7, 21). During 2.9 years median follow-up, older participants had higher rates of the primary outcome (6.46 vs. 3.67 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio 1.72 [95% CI 1.52-1.94]), death (2.52 [2.20-2.89]), severe hypoglycemia (1.53 [1.15-2.03]), and fractures (1.84 [1.44-2.35]). In the older cohort, sitagliptin did not significantly impact the primary composite (1.10 [0.89-1.36]), death (1.05 [0.83-1.32]), heart failure hospitalization (0.99 [0.65-1.49]), severe hypoglycemia (1.03 [0.62-1.71]), rates of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, sitagliptin had neutral effects on cardiovascular risk and raised no significant safety concerns.

Safety and Efficacy of Omarigliptin (MK-3102), a Novel Once-Weekly DPP-4 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the optimal dose of omarigliptin, a once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and evaluate the long-term safety of that dose. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, dose-range finding study, 685 oral antihyperglycemic agent-naïve or washed-out subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of five once-weekly doses of omarigliptin (0.25 mg, 1 mg, 3 mg, 10 mg, or 25 mg) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in HbA1c, and secondary end points were 2-h postmeal glucose (PMG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of the study medication. Subjects who completed the base study were eligible to enter a 66-week extension study. RESULTS: Once-weekly treatment for 12 weeks with omarigliptin provided dose-related reductions in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG. At week 12, the omarigliptin 25-mg dose provided the greatest glycemic efficacy. The placebo-adjusted least-squares mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG were -0.72% (-7.8 mmol/mol), -2.5, and -1.3 mmol/L, respectively (all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across dose groups, with a low incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and no effect on body weight. Omarigliptin was generally well-tolerated throughout the base and extension studies. CONCLUSIONS: Omarigliptin 25 mg q.w., compared with placebo, provided significant glucose lowering and was generally well tolerated for up to 78 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Effect of Sitagliptin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P=0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P=0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; TECOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790205.).

Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes from India and Malaysia treated with sitagliptin or a sulfonylurea during Ramadan: a randomized, pragmatic study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia between sitagliptin and sulfonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes who fasted during Ramadan. METHODS: In a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized study, patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from clinical centers in India (n = 765) and Malaysia (n = 105). Eligible patients (age ≥ 18 yrs) expressed their intention to daytime fast during Ramadan, were treated with a stable dose of sulfonylurea with or without metformin for ≥3 months prior to screening visit, and had an HbA(1c) ≤ 10%. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either switch to sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. or remain on their pre-study sulfonylurea. Daily diary cards were completed to document information on hypoglycemic symptoms and complications. The primary endpoint was the overall incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia during Ramadan. RESULTS: Of the 870 patients randomized, 848 (n = 421 for sitagliptin and 427 for sulfonylurea) returned ≥1 completed diary card and were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who recorded ≥1 symptomatic hypoglycemic event during Ramadan was lower with sitagliptin (3.8%) compared to sulfonylurea (7.3%). The risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was significantly lower with sitagliptin (risk ratio [95% CI] = 0.52 [0.29, 0.94]; p = 0.028). By country, the proportions of patients who recorded ≥1 symptomatic hypoglycemic event during Ramadan were 4.1% vs. 7.7% in India and 1.9% vs. 3.8% in Malaysia for sitagliptin and sulfonylurea, respectively. No patient discontinued treatment due to a hypoglycemic event. One patient on sitagliptin and seven on sulfonylurea had an event that required non-medical assistance. No events required medical assistance. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. LIMITATIONS: Symptomatic hypoglycemic events did not require a confirmatory blood glucose measurement, which may have overestimated hypoglycemic events. Measures of glycemic control and body weight were not assessed. CONCLUSION: Switching antihyperglycemic treatment to sitagliptin from a sulfonylurea reduced the risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia by approximately 50% for Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes who fasted during Ramadan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01340768.

A randomized trial of lifestyle modification and taranabant for maintaining weight loss achieved with a low-calorie diet.

Improving the maintenance of weight loss remains a critical challenge for obesity researchers. The present 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of weight maintenance counseling combined with either placebo or the cannabinoid-1 receptor inverse agonist, taranabant, for sustaining prior weight loss achieved on a low-calorie diet (LCD). Seven hundred eighty-four individuals who had lost ≥ 6% of body weight during six initial weeks of treatment with an 800 kcal/day liquid LCD were randomly assigned to placebo or once-daily taranabant in doses of 0.5, 1, or 2 mg. All participants were provided monthly, on-site behavioral weight maintenance counseling, as well as monthly phone calls. The primary end point was change in body weight from randomization to week 52. The randomized participants lost an average of 9.6 kg (9.5% of initial weight) during the 6-week LCD. The model-adjusted mean change in body weight during the subsequent 1 year was +1.7 kg for placebo, compared with -0.1, -0.6, and -1.2 kg for the taranabant 0.5, 1, and 2 mg doses, respectively (all P values ≤ 0.007 vs. placebo). The incidences of psychiatric-related adverse events, including irritability, were higher for taranabant 1 and 2 mg vs. placebo (P ≤ 0.038). In addition to reporting data on the safety and efficacy of taranabant, this study provides a method for studying the combination of lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy for weight maintenance after diet-induced weight loss.

One-year health-related quality of life outcomes in weight loss trial participants: comparison of three measures.

BACKGROUND: The literature on changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in weight loss studies is inconsistent, and few studies use more than one type of measure. The purpose of the current study was to compare one-year changes in HRQOL as a function of weight change using three different measures: a weight-related measure (Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite [IWQOL-Lite)]) and two generic measures (SF-36; EQ-5D). METHODS: Data were obtained from 926 participants (mean Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m(2)) = 35.4; 84% female; mean age = 49.5 years) in a placebo-controlled randomized trial for weight loss. At baseline and one-year, participants completed all three HRQOL measures. HRQOL was compared across weight change categories (> or = 5% and 0-4.9% gain, 0-4.9%, 5.0-9.9% and > or = 10% loss), using effect sizes. RESULTS: The weight-related measure of HRQOL exhibited greater improvements with one-year weight loss than either of the generic instruments, with effect sizes ranging from 0.24 to 0.62 for 5-9.9% weight reductions and 0.44 to 0.95 for > or = 10% reductions. IWQOL-Lite Self-Esteem also showed a small improvement with weight gain. Changes in the two generic measures of HRQOL were inconsistent with each other, and in the case of the SF-36, variable across domains. For participants gaining > or = 5% of weight, the greatest reductions in HRQOL occurred with respect to SF-36 Mental Health, MCS, and Vitality, with effect sizes of -0.82, -0.70, and -0.63 respectively. CONCLUSION: This study found differences between weight-related and generic measures of health-related quality of life in a one-year weight loss trial, reflecting the potential value of using more than one measure in a trial. Although weight loss was generally associated with improved IWQOL-Lite, physical SF-36 subscale and EQ-5D scores, a small amount of weight gain was associated with a slight improvement on weight-specific HRQOL and almost no change on the EQ-5D, suggesting the need for further research to more fully study these relationships. We believe our findings have relevance for weight loss patients and obesity clinicians/researchers in informing them of likely HRQOL outcomes associated with varying amounts of weight loss or gain.

Neuropeptide Y5 receptor antagonism does not induce clinically meaningful weight loss in overweight and obese adults.

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is a potent orexigenic neuropeptide, and antagonism of NPY Y1 and NPY Y5 receptors (NPYxR) is considered a potentially important anti-obesity drug target. We tested the hypothesis that blockade of the NPY5R will lead to weight loss in humans using MK-0557, a potent, highly selective, orally active NPY5R antagonist. The initial series of experiments reported herein, including a multiple-dose positron-emission tomography study and a 12 week proof-of concept/dose-ranging study, suggested an optimal MK-0557 dose of 1 mg/day. The hypothesis was then tested in a 52 week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 1661 overweight and obese patients. Although statistically significant at 52 weeks, the magnitude of induced weight loss was not clinically meaningful. These observations provide the first clinical insight into the human NPY-energy homeostatic pathway and suggest that solely targeting the NPY5R in future drug development programs is unlikely to produce therapeutic efficacy.