A phase IIa active-comparator-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of efinopegdutide in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study assessed the effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon receptor co-agonist efinopegdutide relative to the selective GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide on liver fat content (LFC) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: This was a phase IIa, randomized, active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study. A magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction assessment was performed to determine LFC at screening and Week 24. Participants with an LFC of ≥10% at screening were randomized 1:1 to efinopegdutide 10 mg or semaglutide 1 mg, both administered subcutaneously once weekly for 24 weeks. Participants were stratified according to the concurrent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Both drugs were titrated to the target dose over an 8-week time period. The primary efficacy endpoint was relative reduction from baseline in LFC (%) after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Among 145 randomized participants (efinopegdutide n = 72, semaglutide n = 73), 33.1% had T2DM. At baseline, mean BMI was 34.3 kg/m2 and mean LFC was 20.3%. The least squares (LS) mean relative reduction from baseline in LFC at Week 24 was significantly (p <0.001) greater with efinopegdutide (72.7% [90% CI 66.8-78.7]) than with semaglutide (42.3% [90% CI 36.5-48.1]). Both treatment groups had an LS mean percent reduction from baseline in body weight at Week 24 (efinopegdutide 8.5% vs. semaglutide 7.1%; p = 0.085). Slightly higher incidences of adverse events and drug-related adverse events were observed in the efinopegdutide group compared with the semaglutide group, primarily related to an imbalance in gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NAFLD, treatment with efinopegdutide 10 mg weekly led to a significantly greater reduction in LFC than semaglutide 1 mg weekly. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: EudraCT: 2020-005136-30; NCT: 04944992. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Currently, there are no approved therapies for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The weight loss associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has been shown to decrease hepatic inflammation in patients with NASH. In addition to reducing liver fat content (LFC) indirectly through weight loss, glucagon receptor agonism may also reduce LFC by acting on the liver directly to stimulate fatty acid oxidation and reduce lipogenesis. This study demonstrated that treatment of patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with the GLP-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist efinopegdutide (10 mg weekly) led to a significantly greater reduction in LFC compared to treatment with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (1 mg weekly), suggesting that efinopegdutide may be an effective treatment for NASH.

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as initial oral therapy in youth with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D). STUDY DESIGN: This was a 54-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily as initial oral therapy in youth with T2D. The 190 participants, aged 10-17 years, had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin). All were negative for pancreatic autoantibodies and overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis. The trial was placebo controlled for the first 20 weeks, after which metformin replaced placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean ± SD HbA1c = 7.5% ± 1.0, BMI percentile = 97.1% ± 6.8, age = 14.0 years ± 2.0 [57.4% <15], 60.5% female). At Week 20, least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -0.01% (sitagliptin) and 0.18% (placebo); between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.19% (-0.68, 0.30), p = 0.448. At Week 54, the changes in HbA1c were 0.45% (sitagliptin) and -0.11 (placebo/metformin). There were no notable between-group differences in the adverse event profiles through Week 54. CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin did not provide significant improvement in glycemic control. In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that reported in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01485614; EudraCT: 2011-002528-42).

Efficacy and safety of the addition of sitagliptin to treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on metformin without or with insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin ± insulin. STUDY DESIGN: Data were pooled from two 54-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of sitagliptin 100 mg daily or placebo added onto treatment of 10- to 17-year-old youth with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on metformin ± insulin. Participants (N = 220 randomized and treated) had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin), were overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis and negative for pancreatic autoantibodies. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean HbA1c = 8.0%, BMI = 30.9 kg/m2 , age = 14.4 years [44.5% <15], 65.9% female). The dose of background metformin was >1500 mg/day for 71.8% of participants; 15.0% of participants were on insulin therapy. At Week 20, LS mean changes from baseline (95% CI) in HbA1c for sitagliptin/metformin and placebo/metformin were -0.58% (-0.94, -0.22) and -0.09% (-0.43, 0.26), respectively; difference = -0.49% (-0.90, -0.09), p = 0.018; at Week 54 the LS mean (95% CI) changes were 0.35% (-0.48, 1.19) and 0.73% (-0.08, 1.54), respectively. No meaningful differences between the adverse event profiles of the treatment groups emerged through Week 54. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not suggest that addition of sitagliptin to metformin provides durable improvement in glycemic control in youth with T2D. In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that reported in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01472367, NCT01760447; EudraCT: 2011-002529-23/2014-003583-20, 2012-004035-23).

Efficacy and safety of ipragliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on sitagliptin.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily added to sitagliptin 50 mg once daily monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of two clinical trials are reported. In both trials, patients had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7.0% to 10.0% on sitagliptin 50 mg once daily 2 weeks prior to addition of ipragliflozin or placebo. In one trial (Trial 843), patients were randomized 1:1 to addition of blinded ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily (n = 73) or placebo (n = 70) for 24 weeks; the primary endpoint was efficacy (change in HbA1c at Week 24). In the other trial (Trial 849), open-label ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily was added for 52 weeks (n = 77); the primary objective was to assess safety/tolerability. RESULTS: In Trial 843, baseline characteristics were similar between groups (mean age 60.5 years, HbA1c 8.0%); after 24 weeks, adding ipragliflozin provided significantly greater reduction in HbA1c compared to placebo: least squares mean difference -0.77% (95% confidence interval -0.98, -0.57; P <0.001). In Trial 843, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) overall and prespecified AEs of clinical interest (symptomatic hypoglycaemia, urinary tract infection, genital infection, hypovolaemia, and polyuria/pollakiuria) were similar between groups. In Trial 849, specific AEs with incidence ≥5% were nasopharyngitis, pollakiuria, back pain, thirst, constipation, influenza and arthralgia; drug-related AEs reported in ≥2 patients were pollakiuria, thirst and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily added on to sitagliptin 50 mg once daily monotherapy provided significant improvement in glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated in Japanese patients with T2D. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02577003, NCT02564211.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on ipragliflozin.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 50 mg once daily added to ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Japanese patients with T2D and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0% to 10.0% while treated with ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily were randomized 1:1 to additional treatment with sitagliptin 50 mg once daily (N = 70) or matching placebo (N = 71) for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary efficacy endpoints were changes in 2-hour post-meal glucose (PMG), total PMG 0- to 2-hour area under the curve (AUC0-2h ), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age 55.5 years, mean baseline HbA1c 8.0%). After 24 weeks, the addition of sitagliptin provided significantly greater reduction in HbA1c compared to placebo (least squares [LS] mean difference -0.83% [95% confidence interval -1.05, -0.62]; P <0.001). Significant reductions were also observed in all secondary endpoints: LS mean differences from placebo in changes in 2-hour PMG, total PMG AUC0-2h , and FPG were -42.5 mg/dL, -67.0 mg·h/dL and -11.2 mg/dL, respectively (all P <0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) overall and incidence of predefined AEs of clinical interest (symptomatic hypoglycaemia, urinary tract infection, genital infection, hypovolaemia and polyuria/pollakiuria) were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with T2D, sitagliptin 50 mg once daily added to ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily monotherapy provided significant improvement in glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02577016.

Double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of early initiation of sitagliptin during metformin uptitration in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: The CompoSIT-M study.

AIMS: To characterize the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initiation of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin during metformin dose escalation in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal on a sub-maximal dose of metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study participants with HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol and ≤97 mmol/mol (≥7.5% and ≤11.0%) while on 1000 mg/d metformin were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily or placebo. All were to uptitrate metformin to 2000 mg/d. A longitudinal data analysis model was used to test the primary hypothesis that sitagliptin is superior to placebo when initiated during uptitration of metformin in reducing HbA1c at week 20. [ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02791490, EudraCT: 2015-004224-59] RESULTS: A total of 458 participants (mean HbA1c 71.1 mmol/mol [8.7%], T2D duration 6.3 years) were treated. After 20 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -12.1 mmol/mol (-14.0, -10.1) (-1.10% [-1.28, -0.93]) and -7.6 mmol/mol (-9.6, -5.6) (-0.69% [-0.88, -0.51]) with sitagliptin and placebo, respectively; the between-group difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -4.5 mmol/mol (-6.5, -2.5) (-0.41% [-0.59, -0.23]); P < 0.001. The likelihood of having HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) at week 20 was higher in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group in the overall population (relative risk 1.7, P = 0.002) and in those with a baseline HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (≥8.5%) (relative risk 2.4, P = 0.026). There were no notable differences between groups with regard to adverse events overall, hypoglycaemia events, changes in body weight or other safety variables. CONCLUSION: In participants not at HbA1c goal on a sub-maximal dose of metformin, addition of sitagliptin at the time of metformin dose uptitration improved glycaemic response and HbA1c goal attainment, with similar safety and tolerability, compared to metformin uptitration alone.

Double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of continuing or discontinuing the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin when initiating insulin glargine therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: The CompoSIT-I Study.

AIMS: To compare the effects of continuing versus discontinuing sitagliptin when initiating and intensively titrating insulin glargine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or a sulphonylurea. Those on metformin + sitagliptin were directly randomized; all others were switched to metformin + sitagliptin (discontinuing other DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas) and stabilized during a run-in period. At randomization, patients were allocated to continuing sitagliptin or discontinuing sitagliptin, with both groups initiating insulin glargine and titrating to a target fasting glucose of 4.0 to 5.6 mmol/L. RESULTS: A total of 743 participants (mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 72.6 mmol/mol [8.8%], disease duration 10.8 years), were treated. After 30 weeks, the mean HbA1c and least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c were 51.4 mmol/mol (6.85%) and -20.5 mmol/mol (-1.88%) in the sitagliptin group and 56.4 mmol/mol (7.31%) and -15.5 mmol/mol (-1.42%) in the placebo group; the difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -5.0 mmol/mol (-0.46%; P < 0.001). The percentage of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) was higher (54% vs. 35%) and the mean daily insulin dose was lower (53 vs. 61 units) in the sitagliptin group. Despite lower HbA1c, event rates and incidences of hypoglycaemia were not higher in the sitagliptin group. Adverse events overall and changes from baseline in body weight were similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: When initiating insulin glargine therapy, continuation of sitagliptin, compared with discontinuation, resulted in a clinically meaningful greater reduction in HbA1c without an increase in hypoglycaemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738879.

Effect of Sitagliptin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

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

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin compared with dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild renal insufficiency: The CompoSIT-R study.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin with the sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and mild renal insufficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≥7.0 to ≤9.5% (≥53 to ≤80 mmol/mol) and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 to <90 mL/min/1.73m2 on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) ± sulfonylurea were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 307) or dapagliflozin 5 mg titrated to 10 mg (n = 306) once daily for 24 weeks. A longitudinal data analysis model was used to test the primary hypothesis that sitagliptin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin in reducing HbA1c at Week 24, with superiority to be tested if non-inferiority is met. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02532855. RESULTS: Baseline mean HbA1c (% [mmol/mol]) was 7.7 (60.9) and 7.8 (61.2), and mean eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2 ) was 79.4 and 76.9 for the sitagliptin and dapagliflozin groups, respectively. After 24 weeks, the between-group difference in least squares mean (95% CI) changes from baseline in HbA1c was -0.15% (-0.26, -0.04) (-1.67 mmol/mol [-2.86, -0.48]), P = 0.006, meeting the prespecified criteria for declaring both non-inferiority and superiority of sitagliptin versus dapagliflozin. The HbA1c goal of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) was met by 43% (sitagliptin) and 27% (dapagliflozin) of patients. No meaningful between-group difference was observed in a pre-specified analysis of 2-hour incremental postprandial glucose excursion. A review of adverse events (AEs) was notable for a lower incidence of drug-related AEs with sitagliptin compared with dapagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, mild renal insufficiency and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin ± sulfonylurea, sitagliptin treatment resulted in greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with dapagliflozin and was generally well tolerated.

Longitudinal medical resources and costs among type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS).

AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.

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

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

A randomized, placebo- and sitagliptin-controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of omarigliptin, a once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of omarigliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: In a 24-week double-blind trial, 414 patients with T2D were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly, sitagliptin 50 mg once daily or placebo. The double-blind period was followed by a 28-week open-label extension during which all patients received omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly. Efficacy endpoints were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.66% for omarigliptin, -0.65% for sitagliptin and 0.13% for placebo. The difference in LS mean for omarigliptin vs placebo was -0.80% ( P < .001). The difference in LS mean for omarigliptin vs sitagliptin was -0.02% (95% confidence interval -0.15, 0.12), which met the criterion for non-inferiority to sitagliptin. Both active treatments provided significant reductions in FPG and 2-hour PPG compared with placebo (P < .001). Over the 24-week double-blind period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence rates of adverse events among the treatment groups. There was 1 episode of symptomatic hypoglycaemia in the sitagliptin group and none in the omarigliptin or placebo groups. In the 28-week open-label period, omarigliptin provided persistent improvements in glycaemic control without notable change in safety profile compared with the double-blind period. Omarigliptin had no meaningful effect on body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with T2D, omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly provided significant glucose-lowering compared with placebo and was non-inferior to sitagliptin 50 mg once daily. Omarigliptin was generally well tolerated for up to 52 weeks.

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

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

Sitagliptin and risk of fractures in type 2 diabetes: Results from the TECOS trial.

AIM: To examine fracture incidence among participants in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from 14 671 participants in the TECOS study who were randomized double-blind to sitagliptin (n = 7332) or placebo (n = 7339). Cumulative fracture incidence rates were calculated and their association with study treatment assignment was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The baseline mean (standard deviation) participant age was 65.5 (8.0) years, diabetes duration was 11.6 (8.1) years and glycated haemoglobin level was 7.2 (0.5)% [55.2 (5.5) mmol/mol], and 29.3% of participants were women and 32.1% were non-white. During 43 222 person-years' follow-up, 375 (2.6%; 8.7 per 1000 person-years) had a fracture; 146 were major osteoporotic fractures (hip, n = 34; upper extremity, n = 81; and clinical spine, n = 31). Adjusted analyses showed fracture risk increased independently with older age (P < .001), female sex (P < .001), white race (P < .001), lower diastolic blood pressure (P < .001) and diabetic neuropathy (P = .003). Sitagliptin, compared with placebo, was not associated with a higher fracture risk [189 vs 186 incident fractures: unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.23, P = .944; adjusted HR 1.03, P = .745], major osteoporotic fractures (P = .673) or hip fractures (P = .761). Insulin therapy was associated with a higher fracture risk (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02-1.91; P = .035), and metformin with a lower risk (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98; P = .035). CONCLUSION: Fractures were common among people with diabetes in the TECOS study, but were not related to sitagliptin therapy. Insulin and metformin treatment were associated with higher and lower fracture risks, respectively.

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

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

Rationale, design, and organization of a randomized, controlled Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

Sitagliptin, an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, lowers blood glucose when administered as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents. TECOS will evaluate the effects of adding sitagliptin to usual diabetes care on cardiovascular outcomes and clinical safety. TECOS is a pragmatic, academically run, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial recruiting approximately 14,000 patients in 38 countries who have type 2 diabetes (T2DM), are at least 50 years old, have cardiovascular disease, and have an hemoglobin A1c value between 6.5% and 8.0%. Eligible participants will be receiving stable mono- or dual therapy with metformin, sulfonylurea, or pioglitazone, or insulin alone or in combination with metformin. Randomization is 1:1 to double-blind sitagliptin or matching placebo, in addition to existing therapy in a usual care setting. Follow-up occurs at 4-month intervals in year 1 and then twice yearly until 1300 confirmed primary end points have occurred. Glycemic equipoise between randomized groups is a desired aim. The primary composite cardiovascular endpoint is time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, with cardiovascular events adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to study therapy. TECOS is a pragmatic-design cardiovascular outcome trial assessing the cardiovascular effects of sitagliptin when added to usual T2DM management.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD receiving dialysis: a 54-week randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with oral antihyperglycemic agents has not been well characterized in patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and glipizide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD on dialysis therapy were assessed in this study. STUDY DESIGN: 54-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: From 31 clinical sites in 12 countries, 129 patients 30 years or older with type 2 diabetes and ESRD who were on dialysis therapy and had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7%-9% were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment. INTERVENTION: Monotherapy with sitagliptin, 25 mg daily or glipizide (initiated with 2.5 mg daily and titrated up to a potential maximum dose of 10 mg twice daily or down to avoid hypoglycemia). OUTCOMES: Primary end points were 54-week change in HbA1c level from baseline and tolerability with sitagliptin. A secondary end point was the comparison of sitagliptin versus glipizide on the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Of 129 patients randomly assigned, 64 were in the sitagliptin group (mean baseline age, 61 years; HbA1c, 7.9%) and 65 were in the glipizide group (mean baseline age, 59 years; HbA1c, 7.8%). After 54 weeks, the least squares mean change from baseline in HbA1c level was -0.72% (95% CI, -0.95% to -0.48%) with sitagliptin and -0.87% (95% CI, -1.11% to -0.63%) with glipizide, for a difference of 0.15% (95% CI, -0.18% to 0.49%). The incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were 6.3% versus 10.8% (between-group difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -15.7% to 5.6%]) and 0% versus 7.7% (between-group difference, -7.8% [95% CI, -17.1% to -1.9%]) in the sitagliptin and glipizide groups, respectively. Higher incidences (ie, 95% CI around between-treatment difference excluded 0) of cellulitis and headache were found with sitagliptin compared to glipizide (6.3% vs 0%, respectively, for both). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size limits between-group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sitagliptin or glipizide monotherapy was effective and well tolerated over 54 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD who were receiving dialysis.

Cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sitagliptin or non-sitagliptin comparators. METHODS: A post hoc assessment of cardiovascular safety in 14,611 patients was performed by pooling data from 25 double-blind studies, which randomised patients at baseline to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or a non-sitagliptin comparator (i.e., non-exposed). Included studies were limited to those at least 12 weeks in duration (range: 12 to 104 weeks). Patient-level data were used in this analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including ischaemic events and cardiovascular deaths. Analyses were performed in three cohorts: the entire 25-study cohort, the cohort from placebo-controlled portions of studies (n=19), and the cohort from studies comparing sitagliptin to a sulphonylurea (n=3). RESULTS: In the entire cohort analysis, 78 patients had at least 1 reported MACE-related event, with 40 in the sitagliptin group and 38 in the non-exposed group. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.65 per 100 patient-years in the sitagliptin group and 0.74 in the non-exposed group (incidence rate ratio = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53, 1.30]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to placebo, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.80 per 100-patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.76 with placebo (incidence rate ratio = 1.01 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.86]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to sulphonylurea, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.00 per 100 patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.86 with sulphonylurea (incidence rate ratio = 0.00 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.31]). CONCLUSION: A pooled analysis of 25 randomised clinical trials does not indicate that treatment with sitagliptin increases cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In a subanalysis, a higher rate of cardiovascular-related events was associated with sulphonylurea relative to sitagliptin.

Global photographic assessment of men aged 18 to 60 years with male pattern hair loss receiving finasteride 1 mg or placebo.

BACKGROUND: Finasteride (1 mg) has been shown to increase vertex hair growth in men aged 18 to 60 years with male pattern hair loss and to increase frontal scalp hair growth in subjects aged 18 to 41 years. OBJECTIVE: A secondary efficacy analysis was conducted to determine effects of finasteride (1 mg) on scalp hair growth in the 4 distinct scalp regions affected by male pattern hair loss. METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind studies randomized patients with vertex hair loss (men aged 18-41 and 41-60 years) to finasteride (1 mg/d) or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated by review of standardized clinical photographs (global photographic assessment) of the vertex, anterior/mid scalp regions, and frontal and temporal hairlines over 24 months relative to baseline. RESULTS: At 24 months, treatment with finasteride resulted in statistically significant (P ≤ .05) hair growth versus placebo in all scalp regions. There was also a significant decrease in hair loss in the younger men treated with finasteride in all areas, but only in the vertex and anterior/mid scalp regions in the older men. A slightly higher incidence of drug-related sexual adverse experiences was reported in the finasteride group than in the placebo group, irrespective of age. LIMITATIONS: These studies enrolled men with vertex pattern hair loss; therefore, the findings may not be extrapolated to men with predominantly anterior/mid scalp, frontal, or temporal hair loss. CONCLUSION: Based on global photographic assessment, finasteride (1 mg) is able to increase hair growth in all areas of the scalp affected by male pattern hair loss.

Corifollitropin Alfa Combined With Human Chorionic Gonadotropin in Adolescent Boys With Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism.

CONTEXT: Adolescent males with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) have traditionally been treated with exogenous testosterone (T) or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to produce virilization; however, those modalities do not result in growth of the testes and may promote premature maturation and terminal differentiation of Sertoli cells prior to their proliferation, which may impact future fertility. Another option is to use gonadotropins in those individuals to induce testicular growth, proliferation and maturation of Sertoli cells, and production of endogenous T with consequent virilization. OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy and safety of corifollitropin alfa (CFA) combined with hCG for the induction of testicular growth and pubertal development in adolescent boys with HH. METHODS: This was a 64-week, multicenter, open-label, single-group study of CFA in adolescent boys, aged 14 to younger than 18 years, with HH. Seventeen participants initiated a 12-week priming period with CFA (100 µg if weight ≤ 60 kg, or 150 µg if weight > 60 kg) given subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, after which they entered a 52-week combined treatment period with CFA, once every 2 weeks, and subcutaneous hCG, twice-weekly (hCG dose adjusted between 500 IU and 5000 IU to keep total T and estradiol levels within protocol-specified ranges). The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in testicular volume (TV), measured as the sum of volumes of left and right testes by ultrasound. RESULTS: After 64 weeks of therapy with CFA/CFA combined with hCG, geometric mean fold increase from baseline in TV was 9.43 (95% CI, 7.44-11.97) (arithmetic mean of change from baseline at week 64, 13.0 mL). Hormonal, Tanner stage, and growth velocity changes were consistent with initiation and progression of puberty. Treatment was generally well tolerated. No participant developed anti-CFA antibodies. CONCLUSION: Treatment of adolescent boys with HH with CFA alone for 12 weeks followed by CFA combined with hCG for 52 weeks induced testicular growth accompanied by pubertal progression, increased T, and a pubertal growth spurt (EudraCT: 2015-001878-18).