Efficacy of dapagliflozin versus sitagliptin on cardiometabolic risk factors in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective, randomized study (DIVERSITY-CVR).

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have compared the cardiovascular benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. We aimed to clarify the efficacy of dapagliflozin versus sitagliptin for modulating cardiometabolic risk factors including high glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, hypoglycemia, and body weight. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group trial enrolled 340 Japanese patients with early-stage type 2 diabetes receiving metformin alone or no glucose-lowering agents, who were randomized to receive dapagliflozin or sitagliptin for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved the composite endpoint of HbA1c level maintenance < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), avoidance of hypoglycemia (maintenance of sensor glucose ≥ 3.0 mmol/L or ≥ 54 mg/dL), and ≥ 3.0% body weight loss from baseline. Secondary endpoints included components of the primary endpoint, other metabolic indices, and glucose variability indices measured using flash glucose monitoring. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics of patients were age, 58.1 ± 12.2 years; known duration of diabetes, 5.8 ± 6.1 years; body weight, 74.7 ± 14.2 kg; body mass index, 27.9 ± 4.1 kg/m2; and HbA1c level, 7.8 ± 0.8% at baseline. The achievement ratio of primary endpoint was significantly higher in the dapagliflozin group than in the sitagliptin group (24.4% vs. 13.8%, P < 0.05). While the rates of HbA1c level maintenance < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and avoidance of hypoglycemia were comparable between the groups (49.4 vs. 50.0% and 88.7 vs. 92.3% for dapagliflozin vs. sitagliptin, respectively), body weight loss of ≥ 3.0% was significantly achieved in the dapagliflozin group (54.4 vs. 19.6%, P < 0.001). Moreover, dapagliflozin was superior to sitagliptin regarding several secondary endpoints that modulate cardiometabolic risk, namely reducing fasting plasma glucose, insulin, uric acid, increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and suppressing the increase in serum creatinine and the decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate. On the other hand, sitagliptin was superior to dapagliflozin in suppressing glucose variability. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to sitagliptin, dapagliflozin was significantly more effective at improving cardiometabolic risk factors, suggesting that SGLT2 inhibitors might be more suitable than DPP-4 inhibitors for preventing cardiovascular events in patients with early-stage but inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Trial registration Trial number, UMIN000028014; registered on June 30, 2017.

Comparison of tofogliflozin versus glimepiride as the third oral agent added to metformin plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, 24-week, open-label, controlled trial (STOP-OB).

Metformin plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) is the most common therapy for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. This 24-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial randomized patients on dual therapy to add-on tofogliflozin (20 mg/day, n = 33) or glimepiride (0.5 mg/day, n = 31). The primary outcome was change in body fat percentage. The secondary outcomes included changes in HbA1c, fat mass, fat-free mass, liver function variables and uric acid. Tofogliflozin and glimepiride reduced HbA1c to a similar extent. Body fat percentage did not change from baseline in either group. Fat mass was reduced by tofogliflozin but was increased by glimepiride (by -2.0 ± 1.7 kg and +1.6 ± 1.6 kg, P = .002). Fat-free mass was also reduced by tofogliflozin and increased by glimepiride (by -1.3 ± 1.3 kg and +0.9 ± 2.0 kg, P < .001). Alanine aminotransferase and uric acid levels were reduced by tofogliflozin (P = .006 and P < .001, respectively). These data provide novel information useful for selecting the third oral agent for patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with metformin plus DPP-4i dual therapy.

RESEARCH (Recognized effect of Statin and ezetimibe therapy for achieving LDL-C Goal), a randomized, doctor-oriented, multicenter trial to compare the effects of higher-dose statin versus ezetimibe-plus-statin on the serum LDL-C concentration of Japanese type-2 diabetes patients design and rationale.

AIMS: Hypercholesterolemia coexisting with diabetes still requires clinical intervention to manage the high risk of cardiovascular disease it poses. No second-step strategy is established, however, for cases where strong statins fail to bring cholesterol down to target levels. In this study we seek to demonstrate the superior effect of ezetimibe in combination with strong statins to reduce LDL-C in Japanese patients suffering from both T2DM and hyper LDL-cholesterolemia. METHODS: T2DM outpatients (109 patients from 16 institutes) who failed to achieve the target LDL-C value were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups, a double-dose-statin group and ezetimibe-plus-statin group. Follow-ups were scheduled at 0, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in the level of LDL-C from baseline to 12 weeks. INTERIM RESULTS: We could successfully create randomized (gender, age, LDL-C, HbA1c, etc.) two groups except for slight differences in apolipoprotein-B and sd-LDL. CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH is the first prospective, parallel-group, multicenter study comparing a double dose of strong statin with ezetimibe plus strong statin for T2DM patients. The RESEARCH study will provide reliable evidence with which to establish a clinical strategy for diabetics who fail to achieve the target LDL-C value.

Treatment Burden on Once-Weekly Omarigliptin Versus Daily Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial (ONWARD-DPP4 Study).

INTRODUCTION: Preference for quality of life is important in deciding the treatment strategy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study aimed to assess the effect of omarigliptin on patients' psychological attitudes and responses compared with daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) by measuring the burden of pharmacotherapy using the Diabetic Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ). METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were taking daily DPP-4is were enrolled and randomized to a group that switched to omarigliptin or a group that continued daily DPP4is and were monitored for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the DTBQ score from baseline to week 12. The secondary endpoints included changes in blood test results, medication preferences and medication adherence. RESULTS: The DTBQ total score significantly decreased from baseline to week 12 in both groups; however, no significant intergroup differences were observed. The DTBQ subscale, implementation and flexibility burden scores significantly decreased in the group that switched to omarigliptin, although no significant intergroup difference in the change was observed. DTBQ scores and medication preferences were associated with improvements in the DTBQ scores. CONCLUSION: Although this study failed to demonstrate the improvement of DTBQ total score by switching from daily DPP4is to omarigliptin compared with continuing the daily DPP4is, the DTBQ subscale score implementation and flexibility burden score were significantly improved only in the group that switched to omarigliptin, suggesting the possibility of switching from daily DPP4is to omarigliptin to decrease the patients' medication burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCTs031200437.

Rationale and Design of the STOP-OB Study for Evaluating the Effects of Tofogliflozin and Glimepiride on Fat Deposition in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Metformin/DPP-4 Inhibitor Dual Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The global pandemic of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is an enormous clinical and socioeconomic burden. Biguanides and DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are the most commonly used therapies in Japanese T2DM patients. When glycemic control is not adequate despite combination of these drugs, there is no consensus on the next step drug. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of previous trials have indicated that glycemic control with triple combination therapies yields similar results. Thus, beneficial effects on cardiovascular risk factors may be important. The present study was designed to evaluate body fat percentage and several insulin resistance parameters after addition of tofogliflozin or glimepiride to the regimens of patients being treated with metformin and a DPP-4 inhibitor but failing to attain adequate blood glucose control. METHODS: Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, tofogliflozin versus glimepiride, comparative trial in patients with type 2 diabetes on body composition is an ongoing, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial. T2DM patients treated with metformin/DPP-4 inhibitor dual therapy have been recruited and randomly assigned to 20 mg/day tofogliflozin (n = 32) or 0.5 mg/day glimepiride (n = 32) groups, with either of these drugs being added to pre-existing regimens for 24 weeks. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is the change in body fat percentage from baseline to 24 weeks. The secondary outcomes are changes in body composition other than fat percentage, body weight, parameters related to glycemic control and ß-cell function, parameters related to lipids and arteriosclerosis, parameters related to liver function, parameters related to diabetic nephropathy, and uric acid levels. Safety parameters will also be analyzed. This is the first trial comparing the effects and safety of adding an SGLT2i and a sulfonylurea as the third-line oral agent to metformin/DPP-4i dual therapy. The results will provide valuable information for choosing third-line oral agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000026161. FUNDING: Kowa Co. Ltd. and Kowa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

Combination therapy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and insulin for patients who developed diabetes after partial pancreatectomy.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: It is known that after pancreatectomy, patients experience hyposecretion of endogenous insulin and frequently develop diabetes. However, it has been unclear whether combination therapy with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and basal insulin is effective for such patients. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with long-acting insulin glargine and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide in patients who developed diabetes after pancreatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Japanese patients who developed diabetes after pancreatectomy were eligible for this study. Participants were treated with combination therapy of glargine and lixisenatide for 12 weeks. Fasting and postprandial plasma glucose, C-peptide immunoreactivity, glycated hemoglobin, bodyweight, visceral fat and subcutaneous fat were measured. RESULTS: At 12 weeks after initiation of lixisenatide, glycated hemoglobin levels decreased from 8.46 ± 1.64% to 6.81 ± 1.15%. In addition, 1-h postprandial plasma glucose and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose levels significantly decreased from 222.9 ± 56.2 mg/dL to 125.1 ± 37.5 mg/dL (P < 0.001) and from 247.5 ± 56.8 mg/dL to 115.1 ± 29.0 mg/dL (P < 0.001), respectively. Neither hypoglycemia nor clinically relevant adverse events occurred during this study. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that combination therapy with basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists after partial pancreatectomy can be a useful therapeutic option for providing effective glycemic control with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia.

Comparison between sitagliptin and nateglinide on postprandial lipid levels: The STANDARD study.

AIM: To assess the effects of sitagliptin and nateglinide on lipid metabolism. METHODS: In a parallel group comparative open trial, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus under treatment at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center were randomly assigned to receive either sitagliptin (50 mg once daily) or nateglinide (90 mg three times daily before meals). Eligible patients met the following criteria: age ≥ 20 years; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 6.5% despite diet and exercise; HbA1c between 6.5% and 8.0%; fasting glucose < 7.77 mmol/L; diet and exercise therapy for more than 3 mo; and ability to read and understand the information for written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to sitagliptin, contraindications to nateglinide, pregnancy or possible pregnancy, and severe liver/renal failure. Patients who were considered to be unsuitable by the attending physician for other reasons were also excluded. Blood samples were collected at one and three hours after intake of a test meal. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) of apolipoprotein (Apo) B48 at three hours postprandially. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomly assigned to the sitagliptin group and sixteen patients were randomized to the nateglinide group. All 36 patients took the medication as directed by the physician in both groups, and they all were analyzed. Apart from antidiabetic drugs, there was no difference between the two groups with respect to the frequency of combined use of lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and/or antiplatelet drugs. The doses of these medications were maintained during 12 wk of treatment. Detailed dietary advice, together with adequate exercise therapy, was given to the patients so that other factors apart from the two test drugs were similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences of the baseline characteristics between the two groups, except for body mass index (the sitagliptin group: 25.14 ± 3.05 kg/m(2); the nateglinide group: 21.39 ± 2.24 kg/m(2)). Fasting levels of HbA1c, glycated albumin, 1.5-anhydroglucitol, and blood glucose, as well as the blood glucose levels at one and three hours postprandially, improved in both groups after 12 wk of treatment, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. However, the glucagon level at one hour postprandially (P = 0.040) and the diastolic blood pressure (P < 0.01) only showed a significant decrease in the sitagliptin group. In the nateglinide group, there was no significant change in the AUC of Apo B48, the glucagon level at one hour postprandially, the fasting triglyceride level, or the diastolic blood pressure. Body weight was unchanged in both groups. However, the AUC of Apo B48 at three hours postprandially showed a significant decrease in the sitagliptin group from 2.48 ± 0.11 at baseline to 1.94 ± 0.78 g/L per hour after 12 wk (P = 0.019). The fasting triglyceride level also decreased significantly in the sitagliptin group (P = 0.035). With regard to lipid-related markers other than Apo B48 and fasting triglycerides, no significant changes were observed with respect to Apo A1, Apo B, or Apo C3 in either group. No adverse events occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Sitagliptin significantly improves some lipid parameters while having a comparable effect on blood glucose to nateglinide. A large-scale prospective study of sitagliptin therapy is warranted.