The effect of vildagliptin relative to sulphonylureas in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan: the VIRTUE study.

AIMS: To assess, in a real-world setting, the effect of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea (SU) treatment on hypoglycaemia in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fasting during Ramadan. METHODS: This multinational, non-interventional study, conducted in Asia and the Middle East, included Muslim adult patients with T2DM who received treatment with vildagliptin or SU as add-on to metformin or monotherapy. During a ~16-week observation period, data were collected up to 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after Ramadan fasting. The primary study objective was to compare the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event (HE) during fasting. RESULTS: Of > 1300 patients enrolled in the study, 684 were treated with vildagliptin and 631 with SUs. Significantly fewer patients experienced ≥ 1 HE with vildagliptin compared with those receiving SUs (5.4% vs. 19.8%, respectively; p < 0.001); no vildagliptin-treated patients reported a grade 2 HE, vs. 4 SU-treated patients (p = 0.053). Mean HbA1c changes from baseline were vildagliptin: -0.24%, SUs: +0.02% (p < 0.001). Mean body weight reductions from baseline were vildagliptin: -0.76 kg, SUs: -0.13 kg (p < 0.001). A higher proportion of SU-treated patients experienced adverse events (AEs) compared with vildagliptin (22.8% vs. 10.2%). This difference was driven by hypoglycaemia as the most common AE. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of fasting Muslim patients with T2DM, vildagliptin was associated with significantly fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared with SU therapy. This outcome is particularly meaningful when viewed in the context of good glycaemic and weight control observed in vildagliptin-treated patients. Vildagliptin was well tolerated in this patient population.

Treatment with aliskiren/amlodipine combination in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension: a randomised, double-blind, active comparator trial.

AIMS: To assess the extent of reduction in blood pressure (BP) of aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy compared with amlodipine monotherapy in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients. METHODS: This was an 8-week multicentre, randomised, double-blind study. After a 1-to 4-week washout period, eligible patients [mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) ≥ 160 to < 200 mmHg] were randomised to receive a once-daily dose of aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5mg (n = 244) or amlodipine 5 mg (n = 241) for 1 week, followed by up-titration to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. Efficacy outcome measures included change from baseline to week 8 endpoint in msSBP (primary endpoint), mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP), and BP control rate (< 140/90 mmHg). Safety was assessed by monitoring and recording all adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities. RESULTS: Patients' demographic characteristics were balanced between the two groups, mean baseline BP being 171.0/94.3 mmHg for aliskiren/amlodipine and 171.8/95.6 mmHg for amlodipine. Of 485 randomised patients, 433 (89.3%) completed the study. At week 8 endpoint, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater msSBP/msDBP reductions and BP control rate, compared with monotherapy (all: p ≤ 0.0001). The overall incidence of AEs was similar between the two groups. The most commonly reported AE was peripheral oedema with the incidence lower for combination therapy (14.4%) than for monotherapy (18.3%). CONCLUSION: In this population with considerably elevated BP, use of aliskiren/amlodipine combination showed significantly greater BP reductions and allowed more patients to achieve BP control compared with amlodipine monotherapy, with no additional safety concerns.