Racial Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Fixed-dose Combination of Dapagliflozin/Sitagliptin in Western and Korean Healthy Adults.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of dapagliflozin/sitagliptin versus individual component (IC) tablets in healthy Western and Korean participants. The combination of these antihyperglycemic drugs provides efficient glucose control, and the use of FDC has generally been shown to improve medication adherence in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Two randomized, open-label, two-period, two-treatment, single-dose, single-center, crossover bioequivalence studies conducted on healthy fasted German participants (aged 18-55 years; Western study) and South Korean participants (aged 19-55 years; Korean study) were included. In both studies, pharmacokinetic parameters (maximum [peak] plasma concentration [Cmax], area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to the last quantifiable concentration [AUClast], and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity [AUCinf]) were used to assess the bioequivalence of 10 mg dapagliflozin/100 mg sitagliptin FDC (Treatment A) with their ICs (Treatment B) under fasted conditions. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. FINDINGS: Forty-six healthy participants (male, 60.9%; mean age, 39.5 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 23.9 kg/m2) were randomized in the Western study, and 51 healthy participants (male, 100.0%; mean age, 24.6 years; mean BMI, 23.9 kg/m2) were randomized in the Korean study. In both studies, the participants were randomized 1:1 into treatment sequence AB and treatment sequence BA. Dapagliflozin/sitagliptin FDC was bioequivalent to IC tablets in both Western and Korean studies, as the 90% confidence interval of the FDC to IC ratios of the geometric least-squares means of the pharmacokinetic parameters for both dapagliflozin and sitagliptin was within the 0.8000-1.2500 bioequivalence criterion limit. The observed differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, such as Cmax, AUClast, and AUCinf, between the Western and Korean studies were not clinically meaningful. Dapagliflozin/sitagliptin FDC and their ICs were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported in any of the study populations. IMPLICATIONS: The 10 mg dapagliflozin/100 mg sitagliptin FDC and IC formulations were bioequivalent in fasted healthy Western and Korean participants, with no new safety concerns identified, thus offering a useful alternative for patients currently receiving individual medications as part of their treatment regimen. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Western study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05266404) and Korean study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05453786).

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin: PIONEER 12, a double-blind, Phase IIIa, randomised trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. METHODS: The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 12 trial was a randomised, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase IIIa trial conducted over 26 weeks at 90 sites across the China region (including mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong) and five other countries. Adults aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan) with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, HbA1c between 53 and 91 mmol/mol (inclusive) and treated with a stable daily dose of metformin were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to either once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. Treatment allocation was masked to both participants and investigators. Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. The confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight (kg) from baseline to week 26. All randomised participants were included in the full analysis set (FAS). All participants exposed to at least one dose of trial product were included in the safety analysis (SAS). RESULTS: Of 1839 participants screened, 1441 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=361), 7 mg (n=360), 14 mg (n=361) or sitagliptin 100 mg (n=359) and included in the FAS. A total of 1438 participants were included in the SAS. In total, 75.2% of participants were from the China region. A total of 1372 (95.2%) participants completed the trial and 130 participants prematurely discontinued treatment (8.3%, 8.6% and 15.0% for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively; 4.2% for sitagliptin 100 mg). Significantly greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were reported for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg. For oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg, the estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CI]) were -2 (-4, -1) mmol/mol, -8 (-9, -6) mmol/mol and -11 (-12, -9) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs (95% CI) in percentage points vs sitagliptin 100 mg were -0.2 (-0.3, -0.1), -0.7 (-0.8, -0.6) and -1.0 (-1.1, -0.8), respectively. Reductions in body weight were significantly greater for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg (ETD [95% CI] -0.9 [-1.4, -0.4] kg, -2.3 [-2.8, -1.8] kg and -3.3 [-3.8, -2.8] kg for 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively). In the subpopulation of participants from the China region (75.2% of trial participants), reductions in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to week 26 were similar to those seen in the overall population. The most frequent adverse events in the semaglutide treatment arms were gastrointestinal, although these were mostly transient and mild/moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Significantly greater reductions in both HbA1c and body weight over 26 weeks were seen with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg than with sitagliptin 100 mg in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04017832. FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.

Efficacy and tolerability of initial triple combination therapy with metformin, dapagliflozin and saxagliptin compared with stepwise add-on therapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (TRIPLE-AXEL study): A multicentre, randomized, 104-week, open-label, active-controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of an initial triple combination therapy (TCT) compared with conventional stepwise add-on therapy (SAT) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, 104-week, open-label trial randomized 105 patients with drug-naïve T2D (with HbA1c level ≥ 8.0%, < 11.0%) to the TCT (1000 mg of metformin, 10 mg of dapagliflozin and 5 mg of saxagliptin once daily) or SAT (initiated with metformin, followed by glimepiride and sitagliptin) groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved an HbA1c level of less than 6.5% without hypoglycaemia, weight gain of 5% or higher, or discontinuation of drugs because of adverse events at week 104. RESULTS: HbA1c reduction from baseline at week 104 was similar between the groups (the least squares mean change was -2.56% in the TCT group vs. -2.75% in the SAT group). The primary outcome was achieved in 39.0% and 17.1% of the TCT and SAT groups, respectively, with a risk difference of 22.0 (95% confidence interval 3.0, 40.8; P = .027). HbA1c level less than 6.5% at week 104 was 46.3% in both the TCT and SAT groups, whereas the incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain, or discontinuation of drugs was 16.7% and 62.0% in the TCT and SAT groups, respectively (P < .001). TCT was well-tolerated and had fewer adverse events than SAT. CONCLUSIONS: Among newly diagnosed patients with T2D, initial TCT effectively lowered HbA1c levels with higher tolerability and safety than SAT for 104 weeks, suggesting a novel strategy for initial combination therapy in T2D patients.

[Cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin added to metformin in real world patients with type 2 diabetes].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of sitagliptin added to metformin on cardiovascular adverse events in real world patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Real world data from Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database were used to select T2DM patients with diagnosis and treatment records in the platform from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2022. According to drug prescription records, the patients were divided into metformin plus sitagliptin group (combination group) and metformin monotherapy group(monotherapy group). A series of retrospective cohorts were constructed according to the index date.Finally, full retrospective cohorts were constructed according to propensity score model, including baseline covariates that might be related to outcomes, to match the subjects in the combination group and monotherapy group for the purpose of increasing the comparability of baseline characteristics. The participants were followed up from the index date until the first occurrence of the following events: Diagnosis of outcomes, death, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2022). Cox proportional risk model was used to estimate the hazard ratio(HR)and 95% confidence interval (CI) of sitagliptin added to metformin on 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE) combination outcome and secondary cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: Before propensity score matching, the proportion of the patients in combination group using insulin, α glucosidase inhibitors, sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2I) and glienides at baseline was higher than that in monotherapy group, and the baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in combination group were higher than those in monotherapy group. After propensity score matching, 5 416 subjects were included in the combination group and the monotherapy group, and baseline characteristics were effectively balanced between the groups. The incidence densities of 3P-MACE were 6.41/100 person years and 6.35/100 person years, respectively. Sitagliptin added to metformin did not increase or decrease the risk of 3P-MACE compared with the metformin monotherapy (HR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10). In secondary outcomes analysis, the incidence of cardiovascular death was lower in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.85), and no association was found between sitagliptin and the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke (HR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.89-1.41; HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.91-1.12). CONCLUSION: In T2DM patients in Yinzhou district of Ningbo, compared with metformin alone, sitagliptin added to metformin may reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, and do not increase the incidence of overall cardiovascular events. The results of this study can provide real-world evidence for post-marketing cardiovascular safety evaluation of sitagliptin.

Individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and acute kidney injury in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine whether any individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was AKI. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies involving 56 117 participants were included. There were 918 cases of AKI (1.63%). The risk of bias was generally considered to be low. The only DPP-4 inhibitor that significantly increased the frequency of AKI when compared with placebo was sitagliptin (risk ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.22-2.23). However, because one study showed significant outliers in the funnel plot, in a highly heterogeneous population composed solely of patients undergoing surgery for coronary artery bypass graft, we conducted a post-hoc sensitivity analysis to exclude this study. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of AKI between sitagliptin and placebo. Individual DPP-4 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of AKI. However, sitagliptin may be associated with AKI in patients with underlying severe cardiovascular disease.

Identification of Risk Factors for Gliptin-associated Bullous Pemphigoid among Diabetic Patients.

Drug-associated bullous pemphigoid has been shown to follow long-term gliptin (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors) intake. This study aimed at identifying risk factors for gliptin-associated bullous pemphigoid among patients with type 2 diabetes. A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary centre among diabetic patients exposed to gliptins between the years 2008-2021. Data including demographics, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory results were collected using the MDClone platform. Seventy-six patients with type 2 diabetes treated with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors who subsequently developed bullous pemphigoid were compared with a cohort of 8,060 diabetic patients exposed to dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors who did not develop bullous pemphigoid. Based on a multivariable analysis adjusted for age and other covariates, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias were significantly more prevalent in patients with bullous pemphigoid (p = 0.0013). Concomitant use of either thiazide or loop diuretics and gliptin therapy was associated with drug-associated bullous pemphigoid (p < 0.0001 for both). While compared with sitagliptin, exposure to linagliptin and vildagliptin were associated with bullous pemphigoid with an odds ratio of 5.68 and 6.61 (p < 0.0001 for both), respectively. These results suggest gliptins should be prescribed with caution to patients with type 2 diabetes with coexisting Alzheimer's and other dementias, or patients receiving long-term use of thiazides and loop diuretics. The use of sitagliptin over linagliptin and vildagliptin should be preferred in these patients.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with basal-plus insulin regimen versus insulin alone in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: SITA-PLUS hospital trial.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of basal-plus (BP) insulin regimen with or without sitagliptin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This open-label, randomized clinical trial included inpatients with a previous diagnosis of T2D and blood glucose (BG) between 180 and 400 mg/dL. Participants received basal and correctional insulin doses (BP regimen) either with or without sitagliptin. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean daily BG among the groups. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (mean age 60 years, 64 % men) were randomized. Compared with BP insulin therapy alone, the sitagliptin-BP combination led to a lower mean daily BG (158.8 vs 175.0 mg/dL, P = 0.014), a higher percentage of readings within a BG range of 70-180 mg/dL (75.9 % vs 64.7 %, P < 0.001), and a lower number of BG readings >180 mg/dL (P < 0.001). Sitagliptin-BP resulted in fewer basal and supplementary insulin doses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.017, respectively) and lower daily insulin injections (P = 0.023) than those with insulin alone. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For inpatients with T2D and hyperglycemia, the sitagliptin and BP regimen combination is safe and more effective than insulin therapy alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT05579119.

Cyclosporine-induced kidney damage was halted by sitagliptin and hesperidin via increasing Nrf2 and suppressing TNF-α, NF-κB, and Bax.

Cyclosporine A (CsA) is employed for organ transplantation and autoimmune disorders. Nephrotoxicity is a serious side effect that hampers the therapeutic use of CsA. Hesperidin and sitagliptin were investigated for their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and tissue-protective properties. We aimed to investigate and compare the possible nephroprotective effects of hesperidin and sitagliptin. Male Wistar rats were utilized for induction of CsA nephrotoxicity (20 mg/kg/day, intraperitoneally for 7 days). Animals were treated with sitagliptin (10 mg/kg/day, orally for 14 days) or hesperidin (200 mg/kg/day, orally for 14 days). Blood urea, serum creatinine, albumin, cystatin-C (CYS-C), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and glucose were measured. The renal malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione (GSH), catalase, and SOD were estimated. Renal TNF-α protein expression was evaluated. Histopathological examination and immunostaining study of Bax, Nrf-2, and NF-κB were performed. Sitagliptin or hesperidin attenuated CsA-mediated elevations of blood urea, serum creatinine, CYS-C, glucose, renal MDA, and MPO, and preserved the serum albumin, renal catalase, SOD, and GSH. They reduced the expressions of TNF-α, Bax, NF-κB, and pathological kidney damage. Nrf2 expression in the kidney was raised. Hesperidin or sitagliptin could protect the kidney against CsA through the mitigation of oxidative stress, apoptosis, and inflammation. Sitagliptin proved to be more beneficial than hesperidin.

A case of anti-laminin γ1 (p200) pemphigoid developed after dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor administration.

A 73-year-old man with diabetes mellitus was referred to our department for ultraviolet treatment for erythematous skin lesions with itching. On dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) sitagliptin (Januvia®) for diabetes mellitus, the erythematous skin lesions appeared and spread to the whole body. At the initial visit, erythema multiforme-like skin lesions with crusts were observed on the trunk and extremities, and the patient was suspected to have drug eruption. Histopathology demonstrated eosinophilic infiltration in the superficial dermis and inflammatory cell infiltration in the epidermis. Sitagliptin was discontinued, and erythematous lesions improved with oral prednisolone. Thereafter the patient was treated with phototherapy and  betamethasone sodium phosphate infusion for residual prurigo. However, blistering skin lesions appeared 5 months later. Histopathological findings were subepidermal blisters with eosinophilic abscess, and bullous pemphigoid was suspected. CLEIAs for autoantibodies to desmoglein 1 (Dsg1), Dsg3 and BP180 were negative. Direct immunofluorescence showed linear depositions of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and C3 at the epidermal basement membrane zone, and indirect immunofluorescence detected IgG anti-epidermal basement membrane zone antibodies, reacting with the dermal side of 1M NaCl-split normal human skin. IgG antibodies reacted with 200 kDa laminin γ1 (p200) by immunoblotting using dermal extracts. These results indicated that this patient was diagnosed with anti-laminin γ1 (p200) pemphigoid developed after DPP-4i administration. Although reports of DPP-4i-related bullous pemphigoid have accumulated, cases of anti-laminin γ1 (p200) pemphigoid developed after DPP-4i administration are rarely reported.

Two-Year Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Initial Triple Combination of Metformin, Sitagliptin, and Empagliflozin in Drug-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients.

BACKGRUOUND: We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of initial triple therapy using metformin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We enrolled 170 drug-naïve patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level >7.5% who had started triple therapy (metformin, sitagliptin, and empagliflozin). Glycemic, metabolic, and urinary parameters were measured for 24 months. RESULTS: After 24 months, HbA1c level decreased significantly from 11.0%±1.8% to 7.0%±1.7%. At 12 and 24 months, the rates of achievement of the glycemic target goal (HbA1c <7.0%) were 72.5% and 61.7%, respectively, and homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function and insulin resistance indices improved. Whole-body fat percentage decreased by 1.08%, and whole-body muscle percentage increased by 0.97% after 24 months. Fatty liver indices and albuminuria improved significantly. The concentration of ketone bodies was elevated at the baseline but decreased after 24 months. There were no serious adverse events, including ketoacidosis. CONCLUSION: Initial triple combination therapy with metformin, sitagliptin, and empagliflozin led to achievement of the glycemic target goal, which was maintained for 24 months without severe hypoglycemia but with improved metabolic function and albuminuria. This combination therapy may be a good strategy for drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Prusogliptin (DBPR108) monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, active and placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of prusogliptin (DBPR108), a novel and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in individuals with type 2 diabetes who had not been using glucose-lowering agents regularly for the 8 weeks before the screening period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, adult patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive either DBPR108 100 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo once daily during the initial 24-week double-blind treatment period, followed by a 28-week open-label extension period during which all patients received DBPR108 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: In total, 766 patients were enrolled and received DBPR108 100 mg (n = 462), sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 152), or placebo (n = 152). The mean age of all patients was 54.3 ± 10.5 years, with 58% being men. The median duration of type 2 diabetes was 0.38 (0.02, 2.65) years, and the mean HbA1c (SD) at baseline was 7.94% (0.62), 7.88% (0.61) and 7.83% (0.59) for DBPR108, sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively. At week 24, the least square mean (SE) changes from baseline in HbA1c were -0.63% (0.04%) for DBPR108, -0.60% (0.07%) for sitagliptin and -0.02% (0.07%) for placebo. The mean treatment difference between DBPR108 and placebo was -0.61% (95% CI -0.77% to -0.44%), and between DBPR108 and sitagliptin was -0.03% (95% CI -0.19% to 0.13%). These results indicate that DBPR108 was superior to placebo and non-inferior to sitagliptin. DBPR108 also significantly reduced fasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels and had little effect on body weight. The mean (SD) changes in HbA1c from baseline to week 52 were -0.50% (0.97%) for the DBPR108 group, -0.46% (0.96%) for the sitagliptin group and -0.41% (0.95%) for the placebo group. The incidence of adverse events was comparable across all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: DBPR108 showed superiority to placebo and non-inferiority to sitagliptin in terms of glycaemic control over the initial 24 weeks in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, its efficacy was sustained for up to 52 weeks.

Greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% with oral semaglutide versus oral comparators: An exploratory analysis of the PIONEER studies.

AIM: To assess how long participants with type 2 diabetes spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% and how likely they were to maintain this target with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg or oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg or subcutaneous liraglutide 1.8 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analyses used on-treatment data without rescue medication for all randomized participants (semaglutide [approved maintenance doses], n = 1880; comparators [not including placebo], n = 1412). Duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was calculated using an HbA1c time curve. A binary endpoint of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 26 (week 24 for PIONEER 7) and 52 of each trial (and week 78 for PIONEER 3) was analysed. RESULTS: Mean duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was greater with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin in PIONEER 3 (27 vs. 22 weeks) and with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin (27-34 vs. 19 vs. 22 weeks, respectively), and similar versus subcutaneous liraglutide. A greater proportion of participants achieved and maintained HbA1c less than 7.0% for more than 75% of the trial with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators. The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 24/26 and 52/78 were significantly greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators or subcutaneous liraglutide, and with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg resulted in greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0%, and a greater likelihood of achieving and maintaining HbA1c less than 7.0% versus oral comparators.

Impact of Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® on quality of life besides glycemic control in type 2 DM patients.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining the quality of life is the main objective of managing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (QoL). Since it is a key factor in patient motivation and adherence, treatment-related QoL has always been considered when choosing glucose-lowering medicines. The objective of the study was to evaluate the quality of life besides glycemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receiving Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® (Sitagliptin with Metformin) in routine care. METHODS: It was a prospective, open-label, non-randomized clinical trial including T2DM patients uncontrolled on Metformin therapy. All patients received Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® for six months. Sequential changes in QoL, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, body weight, and blood pressure were monitored from baseline to 3 consecutive follow-up visits. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was also noted throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 504 patients were screened; 188 completed all three follow-ups. The mean QoL score significantly declined from 57.09% at baseline to 33.64% at the 3rd follow-up visit (p < 0.01). Moreover, a significant decline in mean HbA1c and FPG levels was observed from baseline to 3rd follow-up visit (p < 0.01). Minor adverse events were observed, including abdominal discomfort, nausea, flatulence, and indigestion. Gender, HbA1c, diarrhea, and abdominal discomfort were significant predictors of a patient's QoL, as revealed by the Linear Regression Model (R2 = 0.265, F(16, 99) = 2.231). CONCLUSION: Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® significantly improved glycemic control (HbA1c levels) and QoL in T2DM patients without serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT05167513), Date of registration: December 22, 2021.

Medication adjustment of afatinib and combination therapy with sitagliptin for alleviating afatinib-induced diarrhea in rats.

Afatinib, as the first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), causes severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions that greatly affect patients' quality of life and even potentially result in treatment discontinuation. Multiple dose adjustments and concomitant use of anti-diarrheal medications are commonly employed to manage diarrhea, also allowing for a recovery period between each adjustment. However, these approaches are based on empirical guidance and still have limitations. This study aims to explore reliable approaches to alleviate diarrhea by focusing on two strategies: adjusting the dosing regimen of afatinib itself and implementing combination therapy. In this study, we firstly revealed a dose-dependent relationship between afatinib-induced diarrhea and gastrointestinal epithelial damage, resulting in atrophy, reduced expression of tight junction proteins, and increased permeability. We further found that even after discontinuation of the medication, although the severity of diarrhea had improved to baseline, the tight junction proteins and permeability of the intestinal epithelium did not fully recover, and the pharmacokinetics studies showed that drug absorption significantly increased than normal. This indicated the recovery period was longer than expected and may accelerate the occurrence of subsequent episodes of diarrhea. Hence, it would be prudent to consider adjustments to the starting dose or the recovery interval. Furthermore, we initially investigated the relationship between DPP enzyme and afatinib-induced diarrhea and found a significant decrease in plasma DPP enzyme activity following afatinib-induced diarrhea. Subsequently, we conducted continuous treatment with sitagliptin and observed significant improvement in afatinib-induced diarrhea. We observed that sitagliptin can promote the production of anti-inflammatory factors, increase the expression of intestinal epithelial tight junction proteins, and improve intestinal microbiota, further validating the mechanism through the use of GLP-23-33 as GLP-2 receptor inhibitor. In conclusion, sitagliptin exhibits promising potential as a therapeutic option for managing afatinib-induced diarrhea. Taken together, our study provides valuable insights into alleviating afatinib-induced diarrhea through both afatinib medication adjustment and sitagliptin combination therapy.

Comparison of therapeutic efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, or lobeglitazone adjunct therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea and metformin: Third agent study.

AIMS: Compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, despite metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. METHODS: The study randomized patients into three groups, receiving sitagliptin 100 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, or lobeglitazone 0.5 mg daily (n = 26 each) and monitored changes in biochemical parameters and body composition for 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was changes in HbA1c at 24 months. RESULTS: The mean change in HbA1c in the sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone groups was -0.81 ± 0.21%, -1.05 ± 0.70%, and -1.08 ± 0.98%, after 24 months. Dapagliflozin treatment significantly lowered systolic blood pressure by 5.5 mmHg and alanine aminotransferase levels. Dapagliflozin and lobeglitazone treatment significantly reduced proteinuria and insulin resistance. Dapagliflozin decreased whole body fat percentage by 1.2%, whereas sitagliptin and lobeglitazone increased it by 1.1% and 1.8%, respectively. Whole body muscle percentage increased in the dapagliflozin group and decreased in the lobeglitazone group. The safety profiles of the three treatments were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: All three drugs displayed good glucose-lowering efficacy and comparable safety profiles. However, dapagliflozin therapy produced favorable changes in body composition. Dapagliflozin may be a suitable adjunct therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes seeking to improve their body composition.

Comparative efficacy and safety profile of once-weekly Semaglutide versus once-daily Sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations. RESULTS: The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: -3.73; 95% CI: -5.42, -2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: -0.66; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: -3.17; 95% CI: -3.84, -2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.

Time-dependent event accumulation in a cardiovascular outcome trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Estimating cardiovascular (CV) event accrual is important for outcome trial planning. Limited data exist describing event accrual patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We compared apparent CV event accrual patterns with true event rates in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). METHODS: Centrally adjudicated event dates and accrual rates for a 4-point major adverse CV event composite (MACE-4; includes CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina hospitalization), MACE-4 components, all-cause mortality (ACM), and heart failure hospitalization were compiled. We used three graphical methods (Weibull probability plot, plot of negative log of the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution estimate, and the Epanechnikov kernel-smoothed estimate of the hazard rate) to examine hazard rate morphology over time for the 7 outcomes. RESULTS: Plots for all outcomes showed real-time constant event hazard rates for the duration of the follow-up, confirmed by Weibull shape parameters. The Weibull shape parameters for ACM (1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.21) and CV death (1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16) were not sufficiently > 1 as to require non-constant hazard rate models to accurately depict the data. The time lag between event occurrence and event adjudication being completed, the adjudication gap, improved over the course of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In TECOS, the nonfatal event hazard rates were constant over time. Small increases over time in the hazard rate for fatal events would not require complex modelling to predict event accrual, providing confidence in traditional modelling methods for predicting CV outcome trial event rates in this population. The adjudication gap provides a useful metric to monitor within-trial event accrual patterns. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00790205.

Risk heterogeneity of bullous pemphigoid among dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: A population-based cohort study using Japanese Latter-Stage Elderly Healthcare Database.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Although the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and bullous pemphigoid (BP) has begun to be established, some studies have suggested there are risk differences among DPP-4 inhibitors. We conducted a population-based cohort study to examine the risk differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the claims databases of the Fukuoka Prefecture Wide-Area Association of Latter-Stage Elderly Healthcare between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare patients receiving one DPP-4 inhibitor with those who were prescribed another antidiabetic drug. The primary outcome was an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of the development of bullous pemphigoid during a 3-year follow-up. The secondary outcome was the development of BP requiring systemic steroids immediately after the diagnosis. These were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: The study comprised 33,241 patients, of which 0.26% (n = 88) developed bullous pemphigoid during follow-up. The percentages of patients with bullous pemphigoid who required immediate systemic steroid treatment was 0.11% (n = 37). We analyzed four DPP-4 inhibitors: sitagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, and linagliptin. Vildagliptin and linagliptin raised the risk of BP significantly (primary outcome, vildagliptin, HR 2.411 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.325-4.387], linagliptin, HR 2.550 [95% CI 1.266-5.136], secondary outcome, vildagliptin HR 3.616 [95% CI 1.495-8.745], linagliptin HR 3.556 [95% CI 1.262-10.024]). A statistically significant risk elevation was not observed with sitagliptin and alogliptin (primary outcome, sitagliptin, HR 0.911 [95% CI 0.508-1.635], alogliptin, HR 1.600 [95% CI 0.714-3.584], secondary outcome, sitagliptin, HR 1.192 [95% CI 0.475-2.992], alogliptin, HR 2.007 [95% CI 0.571-7.053]). CONCLUSIONS: Not all the DPP-4 inhibitors could induce bullous pemphigoid significantly. Therefore, the association warrants further investigations before generalization.

Vascular and metabolic effects of ipragliflozin versus sitagliptin (IVS) in type 2 diabetes treated with sulphonylurea and metformin: IVS study.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled with metformin and sulphonylurea, we compared the glucose-lowering efficacy, cardiometabolic parameters and safety of two drugs, ipragliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, and sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 7.5%-9.0% glycated haemoglobin treated with metformin and sulphonylurea were randomly assigned to ipragliflozin (50 mg, n = 70) or sitagliptin (100 mg, n = 70) therapy for 24 weeks. Measures of glycaemic control, fatty liver indices, other metabolic parameters and subclinical atherosclerosis were compared by a paired t-test before and after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Mean glycated haemoglobin levels decreased from 8.5% to 7.5% in the ipragliflozin group and from 8.5% to 7.8% in the sitagliptin group, resulting in a 0.34% between-group difference (95% confidence interval, 0.10%-0.43%, p = .088). Fasting and postprandial 2-h glucose levels also showed a similar trend, with a greater reduction with ipragliflozin therapy. An increase of over 70% in ketone levels and a decrease in whole body and abdominal fat masses were observed with ipragliflozin treatment. Fatty liver indices also improved with ipragliflozin treatment. Despite no difference in carotid intima-media thickness and ankle-brachial index, ipragliflozin therapy improved flow-mediated vasodilation, reflecting endothelial function, while sitagliptin did not. The safety profile did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ipragliflozin add-on therapy can be a viable option for better glycaemic control with multiple vascular and metabolic benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin and sulphonylurea.

A phase I open-label clinical trial to study drug-drug interactions of Dorzagliatin and Sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

This is a phase 1, open-label, single-sequence, multiple-dose, single-center trial conducted in the US (NCT03790839), to evaluate the clinical pharmacokinetics, safety and pharmacodynamics of dorzagliatin co-administered with sitagliptin in patients with T2D and obesity. The trial has completed. 15 patients with T2D and obesity were recruited and treated with sitagliptin 100 mg QD on Day 1-5, followed by a combination of sitagliptin 100 mg QD with dorzagliatin 75 mg BID at second stage on Day 6-10 and the third stage of dorzagliatin 75 mg BID alone on Day 11-15. Primary outcomes include pharmacokinetic geometric mean ratio (GMR), safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes include the incremental area under the curve for 4 hours post oral glucose tolerance test (iAUC) of pharmacodynamic biomarkers and glucose sensitivity. GMR for AUC0-24h and Cmax were 92.63 (90% CI, 85.61, 100.22) and 98.14 (90% CI, 83.73, 115.03) in combination/sitagliptin, and 100.34 (90% CI, 96.08, 104.79) and 102.34 (90% CI, 86.92, 120.50) in combination/dorzagliatin, respectively. Combination treatment did not increase the adverse events and well-tolerated in T2D patients. Lack of clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interactions between dorzagliatin and sitagliptin, and an improvement of glycemic control under combination potentially support their co-administration for diabetes management.