First-in-Human Gene Therapy Trial of AAV8-hCARp.hCNGB3 in Adults and Children With CNGB3-associated Achromatopsia.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of AAV8-hCARp.hCNGB3 in participants with CNGB3-associated achromatopsia (ACHM). DESIGN: Prospective, phase 1/2 (NCT03001310), open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial. METHODS: The study enrolled 23 adults and children with CNGB3-associated ACHM. In the dose-escalation phase, adult participants were administered 1 of 3 AAV8-hCARp.hCNGB3 dose levels in the worse-seeing eye (up to 0.5 mL). After a maximum tolerated dose was established in adults, an expansion phase was conducted in children ≥3 years old. All participants received topical and oral corticosteroids. Safety and efficacy parameters, including treatment-related adverse events and visual acuity, retinal sensitivity, color vision, and light sensitivity, were assessed for 6 months. RESULTS: AAV8-hCARp.hCNGB3 (11 adults, 12 children) was safe and generally well tolerated. Intraocular inflammation occurred in 9 of 23 participants and was mainly mild or moderate in severity. Severe cases occurred primarily at the highest dose. Two events were considered serious and dose limiting. All intraocular inflammation resolved following topical and systemic steroids. There was no consistent pattern of change from baseline to week 24 for any efficacy assessment. However, favorable changes were observed for individual participants across several assessments, including color vision (n = 6/23), photoaversion (n = 11/20), and vision-related quality-of-life questionnaires (n = 21/23). CONCLUSIONS: AAV8-hCARp.hCNGB3 for CNGB3-associated ACHM demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Improvements in several efficacy parameters indicate that AAV8-hCARp.hCNGB3 gene therapy may provide benefit. These findings, with the development of additional sensitive and quantitative end points, support continued investigation.

Efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist JNJ-64565111 in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity: A randomized dose-ranging study.

Weight loss has been shown to improve metabolic parameters and cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of JNJ-64565111, a dual agonist of GLP-1 and glucagon receptors, in individuals with T2DM and class II/III obesity. In this randomized, double-blind study, participants with T2DM (HbA1c 6.5%-9.5%), body mass index of 35 to 50 kg/m2 and stable weight were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to placebo or JNJ-64565111 (5.0 mg, 7.4 mg or 10.0 mg). The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline in body weight at week 12. Of 195 dosed participants, 144 (73.8%) completed treatment. At week 12, placebo-subtracted body weight changes were -4.6%, -5.9% and -7.2% with JNJ-64565111 5.0 mg, 7.4 mg and 10.0 mg, respectively. All JNJ-64565111 doses were associated with no change in HbA1c and slight numerical elevation of fasting insulin. Numerical increases in fasting plasma glucose were observed with JNJ-64565111 5.0 mg and 7.4 mg. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, especially nausea and vomiting, was higher with JNJ-64565111 vs placebo. Overall, JNJ-64565111 significantly reduced body weight in a dose-dependent manner vs placebo but was associated with greater incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, no HbA1c reductions, and increased fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin.

Efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist JNJ-64565111 in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized dose-ranging study.

Individuals with obesity have a heightened risk of developing serious comorbidities, and pharmacological treatments for people with obesity are limited. This phase 2 study assessed the safety and efficacy of JNJ-64565111, a dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon receptors, in individuals with class II/III obesity without type 2 diabetes. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and open-label active-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study, participants aged 18 to 70 years with a body mass index of 35 to 50 kg/m2 and stable weight were randomly assigned in a 1:1:2:2:2 ratio to blinded treatment with placebo; JNJ-64565111 (5.0, 7.4 or 10.0 mg, each with no dose escalation), or open-label liraglutide 3.0 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline in body weight at week 26. Four-hundred seventy four participants were randomized and 343 (72.4%) completed treatment. At week 26, placebo-subtracted body weight changes (adjusted for multiplicity) were -6.8%, -8.1% and -10.0% for the JNJ-64565111 5.0 mg, 7.4 mg and 10.0 mg groups, respectively, and -5.8% for the liraglutide group. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, especially nausea and vomiting, was higher in each JNJ-64565111 treatment group compared to placebo and liraglutide. JNJ-64565111 significantly reduced body weight in a dose-dependent manner vs placebo but was associated with greater incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.

Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Recent Acute Coronary Syndromes From the EXAMINE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in all Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care (EXAMINE) study participants and in those who experienced an on-study, major nonfatal CV event. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study randomly assigned 5,380 patients with type 2 diabetes to alogliptin or placebo within 15 to 90 days of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Deaths and nonfatal CV events (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, hospitalized heart failure [HHF], and hospitalization for unstable angina [UA]) were adjudicated. Patients were monitored until censoring or death, regardless of a prior postrandomized nonfatal CV event. Time-updated multivariable Cox models were used to estimate the risk of death in the absence of or after each nonfatal event. RESULTS: Rates of CV death were 4.1% for alogliptin and 4.9% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI 0.66, 1.10). A total of 736 patients (13.7%) experienced a first nonfatal CV event (5.9% MI, 1.1% stroke, 3.0% HHF, and 3.8% UA). Compared with patients not experiencing a nonfatal event, the adjusted HR (95% CI) for death was 3.12 after MI (2.13, 4.58; P < 0.0001) 4.96 after HHF (3.29, 7.47; P < 0.0001), 3.08 after stroke (1.29, 7.37; P = 0.011), and 1.66 after UA (0.81, 3.37; P = 0.164). Mortality rates after a nonfatal event were comparable for alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent ACS, the risk of CV death was higher after a postrandomization, nonfatal CV event, particularly heart failure, compared with those who did not experience a CV event. The risk of CV death was similar between alogliptin and placebo.

Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The EXAMINE trial showed non-inferiority of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo on major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes. Concerns about excessive rates of in-hospital heart failure in another DPP-4 inhibitor trial have been reported. We therefore assessed hospital admission for heart failure in the EXAMINE trial. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and an acute coronary syndrome event in the previous 15-90 days were randomly assigned alogliptin or placebo plus standard treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention. The prespecified exploratory extended MACE endpoint was all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, urgent revascularisation due to unstable angina, and hospital admission for heart failure. The post-hoc analyses were of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure, assessed by history of heart failure and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration at baseline. We also assessed changes in N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) from baseline to 6 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968708. FINDINGS: 5380 patients were assigned to alogliptin (n=2701) or placebo (n=2679) and followed up for a median of 533 days (IQR 280-751). The exploratory extended MACE endpoint was seen in 433 (16·0%) patients assigned to alogliptin and in 441 (16·5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·86-1·12). Hospital admission for heart failure was the first event in 85 (3·1%) patients taking alogliptin compared with 79 (2·9%) taking placebo (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·79-1·46). Alogliptin had no effect on composite events of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure in the post hoc analysis (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·82-1·21) and results did not differ by baseline BNP concentration. NT-pro-BNP concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes, alogliptin did not increase the risk of heart failure outcomes. FUNDING: Takeda Development Center Americas.

A Post Hoc Analysis of HbA1c, Hypoglycemia, and Weight Change Outcomes with Alogliptin vs Glipizide in Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events and complications limit the long-term use of current antidiabetic treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), particularly for older adults who are often receiving therapy for other comorbid conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, alogliptin, versus glipizide, a sulfonylurea, in achieving glycemic control without the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, or both in older patients with T2DM. METHODS: This was an exploratory, post hoc analysis of a global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study comparing alogliptin and glipizide. Patients (n = 441) aged 65-90 years with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-9.0% who failed on diet and exercise alone or who had inadequately controlled T2DM despite oral antidiabetic monotherapy were recruited from 110 sites across 15 countries. Alogliptin 25 mg (n = 222) or glipizide 5 mg up-titrated to 10 mg (n = 219) was administered once daily for 52 weeks. Composite endpoints of HbA1c ≤7.0% coupled with the absence of hypoglycemia and weight gain, or an HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% in the absence of hypoglycemia and weight gain, were then measured. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, least squares mean HbA1c changes from baseline to Week 52 were similar in both the alogliptin and glipizide groups. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c ≤7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain was significantly higher for alogliptin versus glipizide (24% vs 13%, p < 0.03). Patients with a baseline HbA1c of <8.0% receiving alogliptin were also more likely to achieve HbA1c ≤7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain than those receiving glipizide (29% vs 13%, p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: Alogliptin demonstrated similar efficacy to glipizide in lowering HbA1c in older patients with T2DM, but with significantly more patients achieving an HbA1c ≤7.0% without hypoglycemia or an increase in body weight. These results particularly apply to patients with baseline HbA1c below 8.0%. FUNDING: The study was sponsored by Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc., Deerfield, IL, and Takeda Global Research and Development Centre Ltd., London, United Kingdom.

The effect of alogliptin and pioglitazone combination therapy on various aspects of ß-cell function in patients with recent-onset type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management requires continuous treatment intensification due to progressive decline in ß-cell function in insulin resistant individuals. Initial combination therapy of a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor with a thiazolidinedione (TZD) may be rational. We assessed the effects of the DPP4 inhibitor alogliptin (ALO) combined with the TZD pioglitazone (PIO), vs ALO monotherapy or placebo (PBO), on ß-cell function and glycemic control in T2DM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 16-week, two-center, randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled, parallel-arm intervention study in 71 patients with well-controlled T2DM (age 59.1±6.3 years; A1C 6.7±0.1%) treated with metformin, sulfonylurea, or glinide monotherapy was conducted. Patients were treated with combined ALO 25 mg and PIO 30 mg daily or ALO 25 mg daily monotherapy or PBO. Main outcome measures included change in A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 16. In addition, change in ß-cell function parameters obtained from standardized meal tests at baseline and at week 16 was measured. RESULTS: ALO/PIO and ALO decreased A1C from baseline by 0.9±0.1 and 0.4±0.2% respectively (both P<0.001 vs PBO). FPG was decreased to a greater extent by ALO/PIO compared with ALO monotherapy (P<0.01). ALO/PIO treatment improved ß-cell glucose sensitivity (vs PBO; P<0.001) and fasting secretory tone (vs PBO; P=0.001), while ALO monotherapy did not change ß-cell function parameters. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Short-term treatment with ALO/PIO or ALO improved glycemic control in well-controlled T2DM patients, but only combined ALO/PIO improved ß-cell function. These data support that initial combination therapy with a DPP4 inhibitor and TZD to address multiple core defects in T2DM may be a sensible approach.

Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To assess potentially elevated cardiovascular risk related to new antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes, regulatory agencies require a comprehensive evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of new antidiabetic therapies. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes with alogliptin, a new inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), as compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and either an acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization within the previous 15 to 90 days to receive alogliptin or placebo in addition to existing antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drug therapy. The study design was a double-blind, noninferiority trial with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: A total of 5380 patients underwent randomization and were followed for up to 40 months (median, 18 months). A primary end-point event occurred in 305 patients assigned to alogliptin (11.3%) and in 316 patients assigned to placebo (11.8%) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Glycated hemoglobin levels were significantly lower with alogliptin than with placebo (mean difference, -0.36 percentage points; P<0.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia, cancer, pancreatitis, and initiation of dialysis were similar with alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were not increased with the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin as compared with placebo. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708.).

EXamination of cArdiovascular outcoMes with alogliptIN versus standard of carE in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndrome (EXAMINE): a cardiovascular safety study of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes with acute coronary syndrome.

Comprehensive safety evaluation of new drugs for diabetes mellitus is needed in the area of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, particularly in populations with high CV risk. Alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus alone or in combination with other antidiabetic therapies. Long-term CV safety of alogliptin is being established in a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using an analytical approach that has both an interim and final assessment. The primary CV end point for this trial is a composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. Approximately 5,400 men and women with type 2 diabetes and ACS (acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina) are being recruited and will be followed up for up to 4.5 years postrandomization. The statistical plan for the trial uses a design that evaluates the hazard ratio (HR) of alogliptin to placebo first based on the primary CV composite end point after accrual of 80 to 150 primary CV events and again when there are 550 to 650 primary CV events. In the first series of analyses, the upper bound of a group-sequential 1-sided repeated CI for the HR must be ≤1.8 for registration in the United States. At end of study, the upper bound of a subsequent group-sequential 1-sided repeated CI for the HR must be ≤1.3. For both group sequential analyses, the repeated CIs are calculated to insure simultaneous coverage probabilities of 97.5% for the true HR. Study progress: More than 2,000 ACS patients were randomized as of June 2011. EXAMINE will define the CV safety profile of this dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor in patients at high risk for CV events.

Initial combination therapy with alogliptin and pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of alogliptin plus pioglitazone for initial combination therapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 26-week, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized 655 patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes to four arms: 25 mg alogliptin (A25) q.d. monotherapy, 30 mg pioglitazone (P30) q.d. monotherapy, or 12.5 (A12.5) or 25 mg alogliptin q.d. plus pioglitazone (P30) q.d. combination therapy. Primary efficacy was A1C change from baseline with the high-dose combination (A25+P30) versus each monotherapy. RESULTS: Combination therapy with A25+P30 resulted in greater reductions in A1C (-1.7±0.1% from an 8.8% mean baseline) vs. A25 (-1.0±0.1%, P<0.001) or P30 (-1.2±0.1%, P<0.001) and in fasting plasma glucose (-2.8±0.2 mmol/l) vs. A25 (-1.4±0.2 mmol/l, P<0.001) or P30 (-2.1±0.2 mmol/l, P=0.006). The A25+P30 safety profile was consistent with those of its component monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Alogliptin plus pioglitazone combination treatment appears to be an efficacious initial therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes.

Alogliptin use in elderly people: a pooled analysis from phase 2 and 3 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) enzyme inhibitor, in elderly (> or =65) and younger (<65) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of alogliptin. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 to 80 with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycemic control. INTERVENTIONS: Elderly (mean age 70.0; n=455) and younger (mean age 51.8; n=1,911) patients received alogliptin 12.5 mg (n=922), alogliptin 25 mg (n=910), or placebo (n=534) for 26 weeks (12 weeks in a Phase 2 study). The studies evaluated alogliptin as monotherapy and coadministered with pioglitazone, glyburide, metformin, or insulin. MEASUREMENTS: Efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), weight, and lipid values. Safety variables included hypoglycemic events, adverse events, and blood pressure. RESULTS: Least-squares mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 0.7% and 0.8% in elderly patients receiving alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg, respectively, and 0.5% and 0.6%, respectively, in younger patients (P<.001 for both alogliptin doses vs placebo for both age groups P=.70 for 12.5 mg and .68 for 25 mg for differences between age groups). Results were similar for FPG. Incidence of hypoglycemia was 8.3% or less in all alogliptin groups (< or =10.5% for placebo), with no apparent difference between elderly and younger patients. Changes in weight were negligible in all treatment groups in both age categories. The safety profiles of alogliptin were similar in the age and dose groups. CONCLUSION: Alogliptin was effective and well tolerated in the elderly patients enrolled in these studies. Improvements in HbA1c were similar to those seen in younger patients, and no increase in the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, or other adverse events was apparent in elderly patients.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin added to pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by therapy with a thiazolidinedione (TZD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, 493 patients 18-80 years old with inadequate glycemic control after stabilization (i.e., glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] 7.0-10.0%) despite ongoing treatment with a TZD were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to treatment with pioglitazone plus alogliptin 12.5 mg, alogliptin 25 mg or placebo once daily. Concomitant therapy with metformin or sulfonylurea at prestudy doses was permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to Week 26. Secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight, and incidences of marked hyperglycemia (FPG > or = 200 mg/dL [11.10 mmol/L]) and rescue for hyperglycemia. RESULTS: Least squares (LS) mean change in HbA(1c) was significantly (p < 0.001) greater for alogliptin 12.5 mg (-0.66%) or 25 mg (-0.80%) than for placebo (-0.19%). A significantly (p < or = 0.016) larger proportion of patients achieved HbA(1c) < or = 7% with alogliptin 12.5 mg (44.2%) or 25 mg (49.2%) than with placebo (34.0%). LS mean decreases in FPG were significantly (p = 0.003) greater with alogliptin 12.5 mg (-19.7 mg/dL [-1.09 mmol/L]) or 25 mg (-19.9 mg/dL [-1.10 mmol/L]) than with placebo (-5.7 mg/dL [-0.32 mmol/L]). The percentage of patients with marked hyperglycemia was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for alogliptin (< or =25.0%) than placebo (44.3%). The incidences of overall adverse events and hypoglycemia were similar across treatment groups, but cardiac events occurred more often with active treatment than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of alogliptin to pioglitazone therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and was generally well tolerated. The study did not evaluate the effect of combination therapy on long-term clinical outcomes and safety. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00286494, clinicaltrials.gov.

Coadministration of pioglitazone or glyburide and alogliptin: pharmacokinetic drug interaction assessment in healthy participants.

Alogliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor under investigation for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Potential pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions of alogliptin with pioglitazone or glyburide were evaluated in healthy adults. In a randomized, 6-sequence, 3-period crossover study (study I), participants (n = 30 enrolled; n = 27 completed) received monotherapy with pioglitazone 45 mg once daily (qd), alogliptin 25 mg qd, or coadministration of the 2 agents. The 12-day treatment periods were separated by a > or =10-day washout interval. In a nonrandomized, single-sequence study (study II), participants (n = 24 completed) received a single 5-mg dose of the sulfonylurea glyburide, alone and after 8 days of dosing with alogliptin 25 mg qd. Sequential samples of blood (both studies) and urine (first study) were obtained for determination of PK parameters for alogliptin, pioglitazone, their metabolites, and glyburide. Minor changes in PK parameters between combination therapy and monotherapy were obtained but not judged to be clinically relevant. The combination treatments were well tolerated, although glyburide frequently caused hypoglycemia. Most adverse events were of mild intensity and occurred with a frequency similar to that with monotherapy. It is concluded that pioglitazone or glyburide can be administered with alogliptin without dose adjustment to any component of the combination therapy.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor alogliptin in drug-naïve patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study included 329 patients with poorly controlled diabetes randomized to once-daily treatment with 12.5 mg alogliptin (n = 133), 25 mg alogliptin (n = 131), or placebo (n = 65) for 26 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was mean change from baseline in A1C at the final visit. RESULTS: At week 26, mean change in A1C was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for 12.5 mg (-0.56%) and 25 mg (-0.59%) alogliptin than placebo (-0.02%). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose were also greater (P < 0.001) in alogliptin-treated patients than in those receiving placebo. Overall, incidences of adverse events (67.4-70.3%) and hypoglycemia (1.5-3.0%) were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Alogliptin monotherapy was well tolerated and significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, without raising the incidence of hypoglycemia.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and tolerability profiles of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose study in adult patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Alogliptin is a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and tolerability profiles and explore the efficacy of multiple oral doses of alogliptin in patients with T2D. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients with T2D between the ages of 18 and 75 years were assigned to receive a single oral dose of alogliptin 25, 100, or 400 mg or placebo (4:4:4:3 ratio) once daily for 14 days. PK profiles and plasma DPP-4 inhibition were assessed on days 1 and 14. Tolerability was monitored based on adverse events (AEs) and clinical assessments. Efficacy end points included 4-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) and insulin concentrations, and fasting glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), C-peptide, and fructosamine values. RESULTS: Of 56 enrolled patients (57% women; 93% white; mean age, 55.6 years; mean weight, 89.8 kg; mean body mass index, 31.7 kg/m(2)), 54 completed the study. On day 14, the median T(max) was ~1 hour and the mean t(1/2) was 12.5 to 21.1 hours across all alogliptin doses. Alogliptin was primarily excreted renally (mean fraction of drug excreted in urine from 0 to 72 hours after dosing, 60.8%-63.4%). On day 14, mean peak DPP-4 inhibition ranged from 94% to 99%, and mean inhibition at 24 hours after dosing ranged from 82% to 97% across all alogliptin doses. Significant decreases from baseline to day 14 were observed in mean 4-hour PPG after breakfast with alogliptin 25 mg (-32.5 mg/dL; P=0.008), 100 mg (-37.2; P=0.002), and 400 mg (-65.6 mg/dL; P<0.001) compared with placebo (+8.2 mg/dL). Significant decreases in mean 4-hour PPG were also observed for alogliptin 25, 100, and 400 mg compared with placebo after lunch (-15.8 mg/dL [P=0.030]; -29.2 mg/dL [P=0.002]; -27.1 mg/dL [P=0.009]; and +14.3 mg/dL, respectively) and after dinner (-21.9 mg/dL [P=0.017]; -39.7 mg/dL [P<0.001]; -35.3 mg/dL [P=0.003]; and +12.8 mg/dL). Significant decreases in mean HbA(1c) from baseline to day 15 were observed for alogliptin 25 mg (-0.22%; P=0.044), 100 mg (-0.40%; P<0.001), and 400 mg (-0.28%; P=0.018) compared with placebo (+0.05%). Significant decreases in mean fructosamine concentrations from baseline to day 15 were observed for alogliptin 100 mg (-25.6 micromol/L; P=0.001) and 400 mg (-19.9 micromol/L; P=0.010) compared with placebo (+15.0 micromol/L). No statistically significant changes were noted in mean 4-hour postprandial insulin or mean fasting C-peptide. No serious AEs were reported, and no patients discontinued the study because of an AE. The most commonly reported AEs for alogliptin 400 mg were headache in 6 of 16 patients (compared with 0/15 for alogliptin 25 mg, 1/14 for alogliptin 100 mg, and 3/11 for placebo), dizziness in 4 of 16 patients (compared with 1/15, 2/14, and 1/11, respectively), and constipation in 3 of 16 patients (compared with no patients in any other group). No other individual AE was reported by >2 patients receiving the 400-mg dose. Apart from dizziness, no individual AE was reported by >1 patient receiving either the 25- or 100-mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: In these adult patients with T2D, alogliptin inhibited plasma DPP-4 activity and significantly decreased PPG levels. The PK and PD profiles of multiple doses of alogliptin in this study supported use of a once-daily dosing regimen. Alogliptin was generally well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicity.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of single increasing doses of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin in healthy male subjects.

BACKGROUND: Alogliptin is a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to characterize the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of single oral doses of alogliptin in healthy male subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which healthy, nonobese male subjects between the ages of 18 and 55 years were assigned to 1 of 6 cohorts: alogliptin 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, or 800 mg. One subject in each cohort received placebo. An ascending-dose strategy was used, in which each cohort received its assigned dose only after review of the safety data from the previous cohort. Blood and urine were collected over 72 hours after dosing for pharmacokinetic analysis and determination of plasma DPP-4 inhibition and active glucagon-like peptide -1(GLP-1) concentrations. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects (66 per cohort) were enrolled and completed the study (29/36 [81% ] white; mean age, 26.6 years; mean weight, 76.0 kg). Alogliptin was rapidly absorbed (median T(max), 1-2 hours) and eliminated slowly (mean t(1/2), 12.4-21.4 hours), primarily via urinary excretion (mean fraction of drug excreted in urine from 0 to 72 hours after dosing, 60%-71%). C(max) and AUC(0-infinity) increased dose proportionally over the range from 25 to 100 mg. The metabolites M-I (N-demethylated) and M-II (N-acetylated) accounted for <2% and <6%, respectively, of alogliptin concentrations in plasma and urine. Across alogliptin doses, mean peak DPP-4 inhibition ranged from 93% to 99%, and mean inhibition at 24 hours after dosing ranged from 74% to 97%. Exposure to active GLP-1 was 2- to 4-fold greater for all alogliptin doses compared with placebo; no dose response was apparent. Hypoglycemia (asymptomatic) was reported in 5 subjects (11 receiving alogliptin 50 mg, 2 receiving alogliptin 200 mg, 1 receiving alogliptin 400 mg, 1 receiving placebo). Other adverse events were reported in 1 subject each: dizziness (alogliptin 100 mg), syncope (alogliptin 200 mg), constipation (alogliptin 200 mg), viral infection (alogliptin 400 mg), hot flush (placebo), and nausea (placebo). CONCLUSION: In these healthy male subjects, alogliptin at single doses up to 800 mg inhibited plasma DPP-4 activity, increased active GLP-1, and was generally well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicity.

Effects of pioglitazone on lipid and lipoprotein profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone while continuing stable statin therapy.

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone while maintaining stable statin and other lipid-altering therapies. A total of 305 patients were enrolled in this open-label study. Patients had been taking stable dosages of rosiglitazone and statins for > 90 days. At baseline, patients discontinued rosiglitazone and started pioglitazone 30 mg/day, but continued statins and other lipid-altering therapies. The primary end point was change from baseline in fasting triglyceride levels. At 17 weeks after treatment conversion, patients had significant reductions in triglycerides (-15.2%), total cholesterol (-9.0%), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle concentration (-189 nmol/L), and increases in LDL cholesterol (+2.2%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (+1.8%), and LDL particle diameter (+0.23 nm). In conclusion, after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone while maintaining stable statin therapy, patients with type 2 diabetes had marked improvements in lipid profiles along with stable glycaemic control.