Evinacumab for Pediatric Patients With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by severely elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels due to profoundly defective LDL receptor (LDLR) function. Given that severely elevated LDL-C starts in utero, atherosclerosis often presents during childhood or adolescence, creating a largely unmet need for aggressive LDLR-independent lipid-lowering therapies in young patients with HoFH. Here we present the first evaluation of the efficacy and safety of evinacumab, a novel LDLR-independent lipid-lowering therapy, in pediatric patients with HoFH from parts A and B of a 3-part study. METHODS: The phase 3, part B, open-label study treated 14 patients 5 to 11 years of age with genetically proven HoFH (true homozygotes and compound heterozygotes) with LDL-C >130 mg/dL, despite optimized lipid-lowering therapy (including LDLR-independent apheresis and lomitapide), with intravenous evinacumab 15 mg/kg every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Evinacumab treatment rapidly and durably (through week 24) decreased LDL-C with profound reduction in the first week, with a mean (SE) LDL-C reduction of -48.3% (10.4%) from baseline to week 24. ApoB (mean [SE], -41.3% [9.0%]), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-48.9% [9.8%]), and total cholesterol (-49.1% [8.1%]) were similarly decreased. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 10 (71.4%) patients; however, only 2 (14.3%) reported events that were considered to be treatment-related (nausea and abdominal pain). One serious treatment-emergent adverse event of tonsillitis occurred (n=1), but this was not considered treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Evinacumab constitutes a new treatment for pediatric patients with HoFH and inadequately controlled LDL-C despite optimized lipid-lowering therapy, lowering LDL-C levels by nearly half in these extremely high-risk and difficult-to-treat individuals. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04233918.

Intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (PULSAR): 48-week results from a randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg could improve treatment outcomes and provide sustained disease control in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), with extended dosing compared with aflibercept 2 mg. METHODS: PULSAR is a phase 3, randomised, three-group, double-masked, non-inferiority, 96-week trial conducted across 223 sites worldwide. Adults with nAMD were randomised 1:1:1 to aflibercept 8 mg every 12 weeks (8q12), aflibercept 8 mg every 16 weeks (8q16), or aflibercept 2 mg every 8 weeks (2q8), following three initial monthly doses in all groups. From week 16, patients in the aflibercept 8 mg groups had their dosing interval shortened if pre-specified dose regimen modification criteria denoting disease activity were met. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at week 48. All patients with at least one dose of study treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04423718) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1011 patients randomised to aflibercept 8q12 (n=336), 8q16 (n=338), or 2q8 (n=337) between Aug 11, 2020, and July 30, 2021, 1009 patients received study treatment (aflibercept 8q12 n=335; aflibercept 8q16 n=338; and aflibercept 2q8 n=336). Aflibercept 8q12 and 8q16 showed non-inferior BCVA gains versus aflibercept 2q8 (mean BCVA change from baseline +6·7 [SD 12·6] and +6·2 [11·7] vs +7·6 [12·2] letters). The least squares mean differences between aflibercept 8q12 versus 2q8 and 8q16 versus 2q8, respectively, were -0·97 (95% CI -2·87 to 0·92) and -1·14 (-2·97 to 0·69) letters (non-inferiority margin at 4 letters). The incidence of ocular adverse events in the study eye was similar across groups (aflibercept 8q12 n=129 [39%]; aflibercept 8q16 n=127 [38%]; and aflibercept 2q8 n=130 [39%]). INTERPRETATION: Aflibercept 8 mg showed efficacy and safety with extended dosing intervals, which has the potential to improve the management of patients with nAMD. FUNDING: Bayer AG and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg in diabetic macular oedema (PHOTON): 48-week results from a randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A high-dose formulation of intravitreal aflibercept (8 mg) could improve treatment outcomes in diabetic macular oedema (DMO) by requiring fewer injections than the standard comparator, aflibercept 2 mg. We report efficacy and safety results of aflibercept 8 mg versus 2 mg in patients with DMO. METHODS: PHOTON was a randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority, phase 2/3 trial performed at 138 hospitals and specialty retina clinics in seven countries. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with type 1 or 2 diabetes and centre-involved DMO. Patients were randomly assigned (1:2:1) to intravitreal aflibercept 2 mg every 8 weeks (2q8), aflibercept 8 mg every 12 weeks (8q12), or aflibercept 8 mg every 16 weeks (8q16), following initial monthly dosing. From week 16, dosing intervals for the aflibercept 8 mg groups were shortened if patients met prespecified dose regimen modification criteria denoting disease activity. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at week 48 (non-inferiority margin of 4 letters). Efficacy and safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04429503). FINDINGS: Between June 29, 2020, and June 28, 2021, 970 patients were screened for eligibility. After exclusions, 660 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive aflibercept 8q12 (n=329), 8q16 (n=164), or 2q8 (n=167); two patients were randomly assigned in error and did not receive treatment. 658 (99·7%) patients were treated and included in the full analysis set and safety analysis set (8q12 n=328, 8q16 n=163, and 2q8 n=167). Mean patient age was 62·3 years (SD 10·4). 401 (61%) patients were male. 471 (72%) patients were White. Aflibercept 8q12 and 8q16 demonstrated non-inferior BCVA gains to aflibercept 2q8 (BCVA mean change from baseline 8·8 letters [SD 9·0] in the 8q12 group, 7·9 letters [8·4] in the 8q16 group, and 9·2 letters [9·0] in the 2q8 group). The difference in least squares means was -0·57 letters (95% CI -2·26 to 1·13, p value for non-inferiority <0·0001) between 8q12 and 2q8 and -1·44 letters (-3·27 to 0·39, p value for non-inferiority 0·0031) between aflibercept 8q16 and 2q8. Proportions of patients with ocular adverse events in the study eye were similar across groups (8q12 n=104 [32%], 8q16 n=48 [29%], and 2q8 n=46 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Aflibercept 8 mg demonstrated efficacy and safety with extended dosing intervals and could decrease treatment burden in patients with DMO. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Bayer.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Human Lecithin Cholesterol Acyltransferase in Acute ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results of REAL-TIMI 63B.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein plays a key role in reverse cholesterol transport. In addition, high-density lipoprotein particles may be cardioprotective and reduce infarct size in the setting of myocardial injury. Lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase is a rate-limiting enzyme in reverse cholesterol transport. MEDI6012 is a recombinant human lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase that increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Administration of lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase has the potential to reduce infarct size and regress coronary plaque in acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: REAL-TIMI 63B (A Randomized, Placebo­controlled Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MEDI6012 in Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction) was a phase 2B multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction within 6 hours of symptom onset and planned for percutaneous intervention were randomly assigned 2:1 to MEDI6012 (2- or 6-dose regimen) or placebo and followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was infarct size as a percentage of left ventricular mass by cardiac MRI at 10 to 12 weeks, with the primary analysis in patients with TIMI Flow Grade 0 to 1 before percutaneous intervention who received at least 2 doses of MEDI6012. The secondary outcome was change in noncalcified plaque volume on coronary computed tomographic angiography from baseline to 10 to 12 weeks with the primary analysis in patients who received all 6 doses of MEDI6012. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients were randomly assigned. Patients were a median of 62 years old, 77.9% male, and 95.8% statin naive. Median time from symptom onset to randomization was 146 (interquartile range [IQR], 103-221) minutes and from hospitalization to randomization was 12.7 (IQR, 6.6-24.0) minutes, and the first dose of drug was administered a median of 8 (IQR, 3-13) minutes before percutaneous intervention. The index myocardial infarction was anterior in 69.6% and TIMI Flow Grade 0 to 1 in 65.1% of patients. At 12 weeks, infarct size did not differ between treatment groups (MEDI6012: 9.71%, IQR 4.79-16.38; placebo: 10.48%, [IQR, 4.92-16.61], 1-sided P=0.79. There was also no difference in noncalcified plaque volume (geometric mean ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, NA-1.10], 1-sided P=0.30). There was no significant difference in treatment emergent serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of MEDI6012 in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction did not result in a significant reduction in infarct size or noncalcified plaque volume at 12 weeks. MEDI6012 was well tolerated with no excess in overall serious adverse events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03578809.

LEGACY: Phase 2a Trial to Evaluate the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamic Effects of the Anti-EL (Endothelial Lipase) Antibody MEDI5884 in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Functional HDL (high-density lipoprotein) particles that facilitate cholesterol efflux may be cardioprotective. EL (endothelial lipase) hydrolyzes phospholipids promoting catabolism of HDL and subsequent renal excretion. MEDI5884 is a selective, humanized, monoclonal, EL-neutralizing antibody. We sought to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects of multiple doses of MEDI5884 in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Approach and Results: LEGACY was a phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial that randomized 132 patients with stable coronary artery disease receiving high-intensity statin therapy to 3 monthly doses of 1 of 5 dose levels of MEDI5884 (50, 100, 200, 350, or 500 mg SC) or matching placebo. The primary end point was the safety and tolerability of MEDI5884 through the end of the study (day 151). Additional end points included change in HDL cholesterol and cholesterol efflux from baseline to day 91, hepatic uptake of cholesterol at day 91, changes in various other lipid parameters. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the placebo and MEDI5884 groups. In a dose-dependent manner, MEDI5884 increased HDL cholesterol up to 51.4% (P<0.0001) and global cholesterol efflux up to 26.2% ([95% CI, 14.3-38.0] P<0.0001). MEDI5884 increased HDL particle number up to 14.4%. At the highest dose tested, an increase in LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol up to 28.7% (P<0.0001) and apoB (apolipoprotein B) up to 13.1% (P=0.04) was observed with MEDI5884. However, at the potential target doses for future studies, there was no meaningful increase in LDL cholesterol or apoB. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of EL by MEDI5884 increases the quantity and quality of functional HDL in patients with stable coronary artery disease on high-intensity statin therapy without an adverse safety signal at the likely dose to be used. These data support further clinical investigation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03351738.

Technology-Enabled Clinical Trials: Transforming Medical Evidence Generation.

The complexity and costs associated with traditional randomized, controlled trials have increased exponentially over time, and now threaten to stifle the development of new drugs and devices. Nevertheless, the growing use of electronic health records, mobile applications, and wearable devices offers significant promise for transforming clinical trials, making them more pragmatic and efficient. However, many challenges must be overcome before these innovations can be implemented routinely in randomized, controlled trial operations. In October of 2018, a diverse stakeholder group convened in Washington, DC, to examine how electronic health record, mobile, and wearable technologies could be applied to clinical trials. The group specifically examined how these technologies might streamline the execution of clinical trial components, delineated innovative trial designs facilitated by technological developments, identified barriers to implementation, and determined the optimal frameworks needed for regulatory oversight. The group concluded that the application of novel technologies to clinical trials provided enormous potential, yet these changes needed to be iterative and facilitated by continuous learning and pilot studies.

Randomised, phase 1, dose-finding study of MEDI4166, a PCSK9 antibody and GLP-1 analogue fusion molecule, in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. MEDI4166 is a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) antibody and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue fusion molecule designed to treat patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for cardiovascular disease. In this completed, first-in-human study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of single or multiple doses of MEDI4166 in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 1 study that was conducted across 11 clinics in the USA, eligible adults had type 2 diabetes, a BMI of ≥25 kg/m2 to ≤42 kg/m2, and LDL-cholesterol levels ≥1.81 mmol/l. Participants were randomised 3:1 to receive MEDI4166 or placebo using an interactive voice/web response system, which blinded all participants, investigators and study site personnel to the study drug administered. In 'Part A' of the study, five cohorts of participants received a single s.c. injection of MEDI4166 at 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg or 400 mg, or placebo. 'Part B' of the study consisted of three cohorts of participants who received an s.c. dose of MEDI4166 once weekly for 5 weeks at 50 mg, 200 mg or 400 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint in Part A was safety. The co-primary endpoints in Part B were change in LDL-cholesterol levels and area under the plasma glucose concentration-time curve (AUC0-4h) post-mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) from baseline to day 36. The pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of MEDI4166 were also evaluated. RESULTS: MEDI4166 or placebo was administered to n = 30 or n = 10 participants, respectively, in Part A of the study, and n = 48 or n = 15 participants, respectively, in Part B. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between MEDI4166 and placebo in both Part A (60% vs 50%) and Part B (79% vs 87%) of the study. Common TEAEs with MEDI4166 included injection-site reactions, diarrhoea and headache; there was no evidence for dose-related increases in TEAEs. In Part B of the study, at all tested doses of MEDI4166, there was a significant decrease in LDL-cholesterol levels vs placebo (least squares mean [95% CI]; MEDI4166 50 mg, -1.25 [-1.66, -0.84]; MEDI4166 200 mg, -1.97 [-2.26, -1.68]; MEDI4166 400 mg, -1.96 [-2.23, -1.70]; placebo, -0.03 [-0.35, 0.28]; all p < 0.0001). However, there were no clinically relevant reductions or significant differences between MEDI4166 vs placebo in glucose AUC0-4h post-MMTT (least squares mean [95% CI]; MEDI4166 50 mg, -10.86 [-17.69, -4.02]; MEDI4166 200 mg, -4.23 [-8.73, 0.28]; MEDI4166 400 mg, -2.59 [-7.14, 1.95]; placebo, -4.84 [-9.95, 0.28]; all p > 0.05). MEDI4166 was associated with a pharmacokinetic profile supportive of weekly dosing and an overall treatment-induced anti-drug antibody-positive rate of 22%. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: MEDI4166 was associated with an acceptable tolerability profile and significantly decreased LDL-cholesterol levels in a dose-dependent manner in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes. However, there were no significant reductions in postprandial glucose levels at any dose of MEDI4166. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524782 FUNDING: This study was funded by MedImmune LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

MEDI0382, a GLP-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist, in obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, ascending dose and phase 2a study.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss is often key in the management of obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes, yet few treatments for diabetes achieve clinically meaningful weight loss. We aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of treatment with MEDI0382, a balanced glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist developed to provide glycaemic control and weight loss, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, combined multiple-ascending dose (MAD) and phase 2a study was done at 11 study sites (hospitals and contract research organisations) in Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-65 years with controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] levels of 6·5-8·5% at screening) and a body-mass index between 27 kg/m2 and 40 kg/m2. An interactive web-response system was used to randomly assign patients to receive MEDI0382 or placebo. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 in cohorts A-C and 3:1 in cohorts D and E in the MAD portion of the study, and 1:1 in the phase 2a portion. Randomisation was done by a contracted third-party operator who was not involved in the clinical operations of the study. The pharmacists, participants, and study site personnel involved in treating and assessing participants were masked to treatment allocation. Patients received once-daily subcutaneous injections of the study drug at doses of no more than 300 µg for 22 days or less in the MAD portion of the study, and a dose of no more than 200 µg for 41 days or less in the phase 2a portion. The two primary endpoints of the phase 2a portion were the change from baseline to day 41 in glucose area under the curve at 0-4 h (AUC0-4 h) after a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT), assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and whose measurements were taken at baseline and day 41, and change from baseline in bodyweight, assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety analyses were done in all participants who received any study drug analysed according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02548585. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Dec 9, 2015, and Feb 24, 2017. 61 patients were randomly assigned to the MAD part of the study (42 to MEDI0382 and 19 to placebo). 51 patients were randomly assigned to the phase 2a part, of whom 25 were randomly assigned to MEDI0382 and 26 to placebo. In the phase 2a study, three patients in the MEDI0382 group and one in the placebo group discontinued, all as a result of adverse events. 22 (88%) patients in the MEDI0382 group and 25 (96%) in the placebo group received at least one dose and had measurements taken at baseline and day 41. Glucose AUC0-4 h post MMTT decreased significantly with MEDI0382 versus placebo (least squares [LS] mean -32·78% [90% CI -36·98 to -28·57] vs -10·16% [-14·10 to -6·21], and the mean difference was -22·62% [-28·40 to -16·85]; p<0·0001). In the ITT population, reduction in bodyweight was significantly greater with MEDI0382 than with placebo (LS mean -3·84 kg [90% CI -4·55 to -3·12] vs -1·70 kg [-2·40 to -1·01] and mean difference of 2·14 kg [-3·13 to -1·31]; p=0·0008). The proportion of patients who had a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between treatment groups (22 [88%] of 25 in the MEDI0382 group vs 23 [88%] of 26 in the placebo group); gastrointestinal disorders (18 [72%] vs 13 [40%]) and decreased appetite (five [20%] vs none) occurred more frequently with MEDI0382 than placebo. No participants in the MEDI0382 group had a grade 3 or worse TEAE (vs two [8%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: MEDI0382 has the potential to deliver clinically meaningful reductions in blood glucose and bodyweight in obese or overweight individuals with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: MedImmune.

MEDI0382, a GLP-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist, meets safety and tolerability endpoints in a single-dose, healthy-subject, randomized, Phase 1 study.

AIMS: MEDI0382 is a balanced glucagon-like peptide-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. The primary objective was to assess the safety of MEDI0382 in healthy subjects. METHODS: In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, Phase 1 study, healthy subjects (aged 18-45 years) were randomized (3:1) to receive a single subcutaneous dose of MEDI0382 or placebo after ≥8 h of fasting. The study consisted of six cohorts that received study drug at 5 µg, 10 µg, 30 µg, 100 µg, 150 µg or 300 µg. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessments of pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. All subjects were followed for up to 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects received MEDI0382 (n = 6 per cohort) and 12 subjects received placebo (n = 2 per cohort). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred more frequently with MEDI0382 vs. placebo, which was mostly due to an increased occurrence at MEDI0382 doses ≥150 µg. All TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs were vomiting, nausea and dizziness. There appeared to be a dose-dependent increase in heart rate with MEDI0382 treatment. MEDI0382 showed linear pharmacokinetic profile (time to maximum plasma concentration: 4.50-9.00 h; elimination half-life: 9.54-12.07 h). No immunogenicity was observed in the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-dose, Phase 1 study in healthy subjects, the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of MEDI0382 support once-daily dosing and further clinical development of MEDI0382.

Nonclinical and clinical pharmacology evidence for cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin.

BACKGROUND: In the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR) trial in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, saxagliptin did not increase the risk for major CV adverse events. However, there was an unexpected imbalance in events of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), one of six components of the secondary CV composite endpoint, with a greater number of events observed with saxagliptin. Here, we examined findings from nonclinical safety and clinical pharmacology studies of saxagliptin with the aim of identifying any potential signals of myocardial injury. METHODS: In vitro and in vivo (rat, dog, monkey) safety pharmacology and toxicology studies evaluating the potential effects of saxagliptin and its major active metabolite, 5-hydroxy saxagliptin, on the CV system are reviewed. In addition, results from saxagliptin clinical studies are discussed: one randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled single-ascending-dose study (up to 100 mg); one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential, multiple-ascending-high-dose study (up to 400 mg/day for 14 days); and one randomized, double-blind, 4-period, 4-treatment, cross-over thorough QTc study (up to 40 mg/day for 4 days) in healthy volunteers; as well as one randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple-ascending-dose study in patients with T2D (up to 50 mg/day for 14 days). RESULTS: Neither saxagliptin nor 5-hydroxy saxagliptin affected ligand binding to receptors and ion channels (e.g. potassium channels) or action potential duration in in vitro studies. In animal toxicology studies, no changes in the cardiac conduction system, blood pressure, heart rate, contractility, heart weight, or heart histopathology were observed. In healthy participants and patients with T2D, there were no findings suggestive of myocyte injury or fluid overload. Serum chemistry abnormalities indicative of cardiac injury, nonspecific muscle damage, or fluid homeostasis changes were infrequent and balanced across treatment groups. There were no QTc changes associated with saxagliptin. No treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of heart failure or myocardial damage were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The saxagliptin nonclinical and clinical pharmacology programs did not identify evidence of myocardial injury and/or CV harm that may have predicted or may explain the unexpected imbalance in the rate of hHF observed in SAVOR.

Hypoglycaemia manifestations and recurrent events: Lessons from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 outcome study.

Hypoglycaemia is a well-known risk associated with the use of sulphonylureas and insulin, often limiting achievement of glycaemic goals. Recognizing the precipitants and recurrence patterns of hypoglycaemic events, particularly major events, is therefore clinically important. The SAVOR-TIMI-53 trial was a cardiovascular outcome study of 16 492 patients allocated to saxagliptin vs placebo added to conventional care for a median of 2.1 years. Hypoglycaemic events were a prespecified outcome in the study and were defined as a symptomatic episode that recovered with carbohydrates or any recorded blood glucose <3.0 mmol/l (<54 mg/dL). A major event was defined as one that required third-party assistance. Analysis of the features of the first hypoglycaemic event for each patient showed that a precipitant for the event was recognized by fewer than half of the patients, with the precipitant most often being a missed meal. In 40% of patients reporting major hypoglycaemic events, no precipitating factor was recognized, and in >60%, no previous hypoglycaemic event was reported during the timespan of the study, underscoring the lack of predictability of such an event.

COMBINED TREATMENT WITH SAXAGLIPTIN PLUS DAPAGLIFLOZIN REDUCES INSULIN LEVELS BY INCREASED INSULIN CLEARANCE AND IMPROVES ß-CELL FUNCTION.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if reduction in serum insulin with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin or dapagliflozin add-on to metformin contributed to increased insulin clearance and to assess the effects of these treatments on ß-cell function. METHODS: Patients (glycated hemoglobin, 8 to 12%; 64 to 108 mmol/mol) were randomized to 24-week, double-blind treatment with saxagliptin 5 mg/day plus dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n = 179), saxagliptin 5 mg/day plus placebo (n = 176), or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day plus placebo (n = 179) added to metformin. C-peptide to insulin ratio was used as an index of insulin clearance during a meal tolerance test, and ß-cell function was evaluated by Homeostasis Model Assessment 2. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, compared with baseline, saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and saxagliptin + placebo increased mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) C-peptide area under the curve (AUC0-180 min) (40.2 [9.2 to 71.3] ng/mL and 95.4 [63.4 to 127.4] ng/mL, respectively); no change was noted with dapagliflozin + placebo (14.5 [-17.6 to 46.8] ng/mL). Insulin AUC was reduced from baseline with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin (-1,120.4 [-1,633.9 to -606.9] µU/mL) and dapagliflozin + placebo (-1,018.6 [-1550.5 to -486.8] µU/mL) but increased with saxagliptin + placebo (661.2 [131.1 to 1,191.3] µU/mL). C-peptide to insulin ratio did not change versus baseline with saxagliptin + placebo but increased after saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo, largely due to decreased insulin AUC with dapagliflozin. All treatments improved ß-cell function (mean change [95% CI] from baseline, saxagliptin+dapagliflozin: 20.6% [16.5% to 24.8%]; dapagliflozin + placebo: 17.0% [12.7% to 21.4%]; saxagliptin + placebo: 11.0% [6.6% to 15.5%]). CONCLUSION: Increased C-peptide to insulin ratio with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo add-on to metformin compared with saxagliptin + placebo add-on to metformin suggests that dapagliflozin increases insulin clearance and may contribute to lower circulating insulin. All treatments improved ß-cell function, with the greatest improvements with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo. ABBREVIATIONS: A1c = glycated hemoglobin AUC0-180 min = area under the curve from 0 to 180 minutes HOMA-2ß = homeostasis model assessment-2 ß-cell function SGLT-2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety and efficacy of many current antihyperglycemic agents, including saxagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 16,492 patients with type 2 diabetes who had a history of, or were at risk for, cardiovascular events to receive saxagliptin or placebo and followed them for a median of 2.1 years. Physicians were permitted to adjust other medications, including antihyperglycemic agents. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS: A primary end-point event occurred in 613 patients in the saxagliptin group and in 609 patients in the placebo group (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively, according to 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio with saxagliptin, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.12; P=0.99 for superiority; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the results were similar in the "on-treatment" analysis (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.17). The major secondary end point of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, coronary revascularization, or heart failure occurred in 1059 patients in the saxagliptin group and in 1034 patients in the placebo group (12.8% and 12.4%, respectively, according to 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.11; P=0.66). More patients in the saxagliptin group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for heart failure (3.5% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.51; P=0.007). Rates of adjudicated cases of acute and chronic pancreatitis were similar in the two groups (acute pancreatitis, 0.3% in the saxagliptin group and 0.2% in the placebo group; chronic pancreatitis, <0.1% and 0.1% in the two groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4 inhibition with saxagliptin did not increase or decrease the rate of ischemic events, though the rate of hospitalization for heart failure was increased. Although saxagliptin improves glycemic control, other approaches are necessary to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; SAVOR-TIMI 53 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01107886.).

Heart failure, saxagliptin, and diabetes mellitus: observations from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus and heart failure frequently coexist. However, few diabetes mellitus trials have prospectively evaluated and adjudicated heart failure as an end point. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 16 492 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of, or at risk of, cardiovascular events were randomized to saxagliptin or placebo (mean follow-up, 2.1 years). The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Hospitalization for heart failure was a predefined component of the secondary end point. Baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide was measured in 12 301 patients. More patients treated with saxagliptin (289, 3.5%) were hospitalized for heart failure compared with placebo (228, 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence intercal, 1.07-1.51; P=0.007). Corresponding rates at 12 months were 1.9% versus 1.3% (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.88; P=0.002), with no significant difference thereafter (time-varying interaction, P=0.017). Subjects at greatest risk of hospitalization for heart failure had previous heart failure, an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min, or elevated baseline levels of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide and saxagliptin (P for interaction=0.46), although the absolute risk excess for heart failure with saxagliptin was greatest in the highest N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide quartile (2.1%). Even in patients at high risk of hospitalization for heart failure, the risk of the primary and secondary end points were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of balanced primary and secondary end points, saxagliptin treatment was associated with an increased risk or hospitalization for heart failure. This increase in risk was highest among patients with elevated levels of natriuretic peptides, previous heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01107886.

Insights from cardiovascular outcome trials with novel antidiabetes agents: what have we learned? An industry perspective.

Owing to the close association of cardiovascular (CV) disease with type 2 diabetes and the uncertainty surrounding the CV safety of antidiabetes agents, in 2008 the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for the demonstration of CV safety for new antidiabetes drugs. Recently the results from CV outcomes trials of three dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist have been reported. The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR) trial, the Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome (EXAMINE) trial, and the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) assessed the safety of saxagliptin, alogliptin, and sitagliptin, respectively, in patients with type 2 diabetes with CV disease or at high risk for CV disease. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) assessed the safety of lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome event. The results show that these agents neither increased nor deceased major adverse CV events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) compared with placebo. However, the resources needed to conduct these studies may detract from the ability to understand the potential long-term benefit and risk in the majority of patients that are candidates for use of these medications.

Assessment of the cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis of 20 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: It is important to establish the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile of novel antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: Pooled analyses were performed of 20 randomized controlled studies (N = 9156) of saxagliptin as monotherapy or add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as well as a subset of 11 saxagliptin + metformin studies. Adjudicated major adverse CV events (MACE; CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], and stroke) and investigator-reported heart failure were assessed, and incidence rates (IRs; events/100 patient-years) and IR ratios (IRRs; saxagliptin/control) were calculated (Mantel-Haenszel method). RESULTS: In pooled datasets, the IR point estimates for MACE and individual components of CV death, MI, and stroke favored saxagliptin, but the 95% CI included 1. IRR (95% CI) for MACE in the 20-study pool was 0.74 (0.45, 1.25). The Cox proportional hazard ratio (95% CI) was 0.75 (0.46, 1.21), suggesting no increased risk of MACE in the 20-study pool. In the 11-study saxagliptin + metformin pool, the IRR for MACE was 0.93 (0.44, 1.99). In the 20-study pool, the IRR for heart failure was 0.55 (0.27, 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of pooled data from 20 clinical trials in patients with T2DM suggests that saxagliptin is not associated with an increased CV risk.

Safety of saxagliptin: events of special interest in 9156 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: A post hoc pooled analysis was undertaken to evaluate the safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with attention to events of special interest for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. METHODS: Pooled analyses were performed for 20 randomized controlled studies (N = 9156) of saxagliptin as monotherapy or add-on therapy, and a subset of 11 saxagliptin + metformin studies. Adverse events and events of special interest (gastrointestinal adverse events, infections, hypersensitivity, pancreatitis, skin lesions, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, hypoglycaemia, bone fracture, severe cutaneous adverse reactions, opportunistic infection, angioedema, malignancy, worsening renal function, and specific laboratory events) were assessed; incidence rates (events/100 person-years) and incidence rates ratios (saxagliptin/control) were calculated (Mantel-Haenszel method). RESULTS: In both pooled datasets, the incidence rates for deaths, serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, pancreatitis, malignancy, and most other events of special interest, excepting bone fractures and hypersensitivity, were similar between treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incidence rates ratios including 1. In the 20-study pool, the incidence rates per 100 person-years was higher with saxagliptin versus control for bone fractures [1.1 vs 0.6; incidence rates ratio (95% CI), 1.81 (1.04-3.28)] and hypersensitivity adverse events [1.3 vs 0.8; 1.67 (1.01-2.87)]. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data from 20 studies confirm that saxagliptin has a favourable safety and benefit-risk profile.

Postprandial dynamics of plasma glucose, insulin, and glucagon in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with saxagliptin plus dapagliflozin add-on to metformin therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze changes in plasma glucose, insulin, and glucagon in relation to glycemic response during treatment with dual add-on of saxagliptin (SAXA) plus dapagliflozin (DAPA) to metformin XR (MET) compared with SAXA add-on or DAPA add-on alone to MET in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poorly controlled with MET. METHODS: Double-blind trial in adults with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥8.0 to ≤12.0% randomized to SAXA 5 mg/day plus DAPA 10 mg/day (n = 179), or SAXA 5 mg/day and placebo (n = 176), or DAPA 10 mg/day and placebo (n = 179) added to background MET ≥1,500 mg/day. The mean change from baseline in the area under the curve from 0 to 180 minutes (AUC0-180 min) was calculated for glucose, insulin, and glucagon obtained during a liquid meal tolerance test (MTT). RESULTS: Glucose AUC0-180 min was reduced more from baseline with SAXA + DAPA + MET (-12,940 mg/dL) compared with SAXA + MET (-6,309 mg/dL) and DAPA + MET (-11,247 mg/dL). Insulin AUC0-180 min significantly decreased with SAXA + DAPA + MET (-1,120 µU/mL) and DAPA + MET (-1,019 µU/mL) and increased with SAXA + MET (661 µU/mL). Glucagon AUC0-180 min only increased with DAPA + MET (2,346 pg/mL). The changes in glucose (P<.0001) and insulin (P = .0003) AUC0-180 min correlated with change in HbA1c, whereas the change in glucagon AUC0-180 min did not (P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: When added to background MET, the combination of SAXA + DAPA provided additional reductions in glucose AUC0-180 min and HbA1c without the increase in insulin seen with SAXA and without the increase in glucagon seen with DAPA. Changes in insulin and glucose but not glucagon AUC0-180 min correlated with change in HbA1c.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in COVID-19 Treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies Reveal Benefits in Return to Usual Activities.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the effects of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) combination on symptoms, daily function, and overall health-related quality of life. METHODS: We analyzed patient-reported outcomes data from symptomatic outpatients in a phase 1/2/3 trial. Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥ 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19 received mAb treatment (casirivimab plus imdevimab 1200 mg) or placebo. Prespecified exploratory assessments included time to sustained symptoms resolution, usual health, and return to usual activities (assessed daily for 29 days). The trial was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021, prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs and Omicron-lineage variants against which casirivimab + imdevimab is not active. RESULTS: In this analysis 736 outpatients received mAb and 1341 received placebo. Median time to sustained symptoms resolution was consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 14 vs 17 days, [nominal p = 0.0017]; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 17 vs 21 days, [nominal p = 0.0046]). Median time to sustained return to usual health and usual activities were both consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 12 vs 15 days [nominal p = 0.0001] and 9 vs 11 days [nominal p = 0.0001], respectively; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 14 vs 18 days [nominal p = 0.0003] and 10 vs 13 days [nominal p = 0.0041], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: mAb treatment against susceptible SARS-CoV-2 strains improved how patients feel and function, as evidenced by shortened time to sustained symptoms resolution and return to usual health and activities. Future studies are warranted to assess the patient experience with next generation mAbs. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: Registration number, NCT04425629; Submission date June 11, 2020.

Medical cannabis for pain management in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis: randomized, double-blind, cross-over, feasibility study.

Background: Chronic pain is prevalent but difficult to treat in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). Effective and safe analgesics are limited in this patient population. Our aim in this feasibility study was to evaluate the safety of sublingual oil based medical cannabis for pain management in patients undergoing HD. Methods: In a prospective randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, patients undergoing HD with chronic pain were assigned to one of three arms: BOL-DP-o-04-WPE whole-plant extract (WPE), BOL-DP-o-04 cannabinoid extraction (API) or placebo. WPE and API contained trans-delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in a 1:6 ratio (1:6, THC:CBD). Patients were treated for 8 weeks, with subsequent 2-week wash out, followed by a cross-over to a different arm. The primary endpoint was safety. Results: Eighteen patients were recruited and 15 were randomized. Three did not complete drug titration period due to adverse events (AEs) and one patient died during titration due to sepsis (WPE). Of those who completed at least one treatment period, seven patients were in the WPE arm, five in the API and nine receiving placebo. The most common AEs were sleepiness, which improved after dose reduction or patient adaptation. Most AEs were mild to moderate and resolved spontaneously. Serious AEs considered related to study drug included one episode of accidental overdose (WPE) leading to hallucinations. Liver enzymes were stable during cannabis treatment. Conclusions: Short-term medical cannabis use in patients treated with HD was generally well tolerated. The safety data supports further studies to assess the overall risk-benefit of a treatment paradigm utilizing medical cannabis to control pain in this patient population.