Effect of race and ethnicity on vildagliptin efficacy: A pooled analysis of phase II and III studies.

AIMS: To determine the impact of race and ethnicity on the efficacy, body weight and hypoglycaemia incidence with vildagliptin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using patient-level data from the vildagliptin clinical trial programme. METHODS: Data from 22 randomized, placebo-controlled global and local (Japan, China) registration studies of vildagliptin (50 mg once-daily or twice-daily) of ≥12-week duration were analysed by race (Caucasian [n = 2764] and Asian [n = 2232]) and by ethnicity (Japanese, Chinese, and Indian). The placebo-subtracted differences in the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to week 12 or week 24 were evaluated by race or ethnicity using repeated measure analysis of unstructured covariance. Hypoglycaemia incidences were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The HbA1c reduction from baseline with vildagliptin was similar across the racial/ethnic subgroups (-0.83% ± 0.02% to -1.01% ± 0.05%). Placebo-corrected HbA1c reduction was similar between Caucasian (-0.68% ± 0.03%) and Asian (-0.80% ± 0.03%) patients ( P value for interaction = .56); analysis by race and ethnicity showed better efficacy ( P < .02) in Japanese patients. Japanese patients were drug-naïve and treated with a single oral anti-diabetes drug only; they showed no response to placebo. Weight neutrality of vildagliptin was demonstrated in all groups (0.47 ± 0.11 kg to -0.29 ± 0.08 kg). Hypoglycaemic events (≥1) were infrequent in all ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The glycaemic efficacy of vildagliptin was similar in Caucasian and Asian patients. The slightly better efficacy observed in Japanese patients was driven by the absence of placebo effect and might be explained by their earlier stage of diabetes compared to other subgroups.

Cardiovascular safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A European multi-database, non-interventional post-authorization safety study.

The aim of this non-interventional, multi-database, analytical cohort study was to assess the cardiovascular (CV) safety of vildagliptin vs other non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) using real-world data from 5 European electronic healthcare databases. Patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years on NIAD treatment were enrolled. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes of interest (myocardial infarction [MI], acute coronary syndrome [ACS], stroke, congestive heart failure [CHF], individually and as a composite) were estimated using negative binomial regression. Approximately 2.8% of the enrolled patients (n = 738 054) used vildagliptin at any time during the study, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years, resulting in a cumulative current vildagliptin exposure of 28 330 person-years. The adjusted IRRs (vildagliptin [±other NIADs] vs other NIADs) were in the range of 0.61 to 0.97 (MI), 0.55 to 1.60 (ACS), 0.02 to 0.77 (stroke), 0.49 to 1.03 (CHF), and 0.22 to 1.02 (composite CV outcomes). The IRRs and their 95% CIs were close to 1, demonstrating no increased risk of adverse CV events, including the risk of CHF, with vildagliptin vs other NIADs in real-world conditions.

Comparison of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: There are limited data comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors directly. We compared the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment (RI). METHODS: This study was a parallel-arm, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 24 week study conducted in 87 centres across Brazil and the USA. Patients with type 2 diabetes, either drug naive or treated with any glucose-lowering agents, who had inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 6.5-10.0% [48-86 mmol/mol]) and an estimated GFR <30 ml min(-1) [1.73 m](-2) were randomised (via interactive voice response technology) to vildagliptin 50 mg once daily or sitagliptin 25 mg once daily. These doses are recommended in this patient population and considered maximally effective. Participants, investigators and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. Efficacy endpoints included change in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at all visits and the primary safety endpoint was assessment of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: In total, 148 patients were randomised, 83 to vildagliptin and 65 to sitagliptin. All patients were analysed. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was -0.54% (5.9 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.52% (59 mmol/mol) with vildagliptin and -0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.80% (62 mmol/mol) with sitagliptin (p = 0.874). FPG decreased by 0.47 ± 0.37 mmol/l with vildagliptin and increased by 0.16 ± 0.43 mmol/l with sitagliptin (p = 0.185). Both treatments were well tolerated with overall similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: At their recommended doses for severe RI, vildagliptin (50 mg once daily) compared with sitagliptin (25 mg once daily) demonstrated similar efficacy and both drugs were well tolerated. This study provides further support for the use of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with severe RI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616811 (completed) FUNDING: This study was planned and conducted by Novartis.

Individualised treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes using vildagliptin add-on or lone therapy (INTERVAL): a 24 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest setting individualised targets for glycaemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, despite no evidence. We aimed to assess the feasibility of setting and achieving individualised targets over 24 weeks along with conventional HbA1c reduction using vildagliptin versus placebo. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, 24 week study, we enrolled drug-naive or inadequately controlled (glycosylated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≥7·0% to ≤10·0%) patients with type 2 diabetes aged 70 years or older from 45 outpatient centres in Europe. Investigators set individualised treatment targets on the basis of age, baseline HbA1c, comorbidities, and frailty status before a validated automated system randomly assigned patients (1:1) to vildagliptin (50 mg once or twice daily as per label) or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were proportion of patients reaching their investigator-defined HbA1c target and HbA1c reduction from baseline to study end. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01257451, and European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, number 2010-022658-18. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and March 14, 2012, we randomly assigned 139 patients each to the vildagliptin and placebo groups. 37 (27%) of 137 patients in the placebo group achieved their individualised targets by education and interactions with the study team alone and 72 (52·6%) of 137 patients achieved their target in the vildagliptin group (adjusted odds ratio 3·16, 96·2% CI 1·81-5·52; p<0·0001). This finding was accompanied by a clinically relevant 0·9% reduction in HbA1c from a baseline of 7·9% with vildagliptin and a between-group difference of -0·6% (98·8% CI -0·81 to -0·33; p<0·0001). The overall safety and tolerability was similar in the vildagliptin and placebo groups, with low incidence of hypoglycaemia and no emergence of new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first to introduce and show the feasibility of using individualised HbA1c targets as an endpoint in any type 2 diabetes population. Individualised glycaemic target levels are achievable with vildagliptin without any tolerability issues in the elderly type 2 diabetes population. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

Association between vildagliptin and risk of angioedema, foot ulcers, skin lesions, hepatic toxicity, and serious infections in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A European multidatabase, noninterventional, postauthorization safety study.

OBJECTIVES: This noninterventional, multidatabase, analytical cohort study explored whether vildagliptin is associated with an increased risk of specific safety events of interest, namely angioedema, foot ulcers, or skin lesions, adverse hepatic events, or serious infections compared with other noninsulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) using real-world data from five European electronic healthcare databases. DESIGN: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus aged ≥18 years on NIAD treatment were included between January 2005 and June 2014. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes of interest were estimated using negative binomial regression. PATIENTS: Approximately 2.8% of the included patients (n = 738 054) used vildagliptin at any time during the study, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years. RESULTS: The adjusted IRRs (vildagliptin vs. other NIADs) were in the range of 0.87-3.71 (angioedema), 0.73-1.19 (foot ulcers), 0.37-1.18 (skin lesions), 0.24-1.14 (composite of foot ulcer or skin lesions), 0.29-0.55 (serious hepatic events), and 0.59-1.04 (serious infections), with no lower bound of the 95% CIs > 1. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no increased risk of the events of interest in association with vildagliptin use compared with other NIADs.

Pancreatic safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A European, noninterventional, postauthorization safety study.

This cohort study assessed the pancreatic safety of vildagliptin versus other noninsulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) based on data from five European electronic health care databases. Patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years on NIAD treatment were enrolled. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated separately for acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer for vildagliptin (± other NIADs) compared with other NIADs using negative binomial regression. Approximately 2.8% of the enrolled patients (n = 738 054) used vildagliptin during the study, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years. For acute pancreatitis, adjusted IRRs ranged between 0.89 andt 2.58 with all corresponding 95% CIs crossing 1. For pancreatic cancer adjusted IRRs ranged from 0.56 to 3.64, with the lower limit of 95% CIs >1 in some analyses. Post hoc sensitivity analyses taking latency time into account markedly lowered the risk estimates with corresponding 95% CIs crossing 1. Overall, the results do not suggest an increased pancreatitis risk with vildagliptin, while the observation for pancreatic cancer have to be interpreted carefully as this study was not designed to assess pancreatic cancer and rather be explained by certain underlying limitations including latency -time, chance findings and/or bias and confounding.

Effects of Vildagliptin on Ventricular Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have heart failure and it is important to know about the safety of new treatments for diabetes in these individuals. METHODS: Patients 18 to 85 years of age with type 2 diabetes and heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class I to III and left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <0.40) were randomized to 52 weeks treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (50 mg once daily if treated with a sulfonylurea) or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was between-treatment change from baseline in echocardiographic LVEF using a noninferiority margin of -3.5%. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients were randomly assigned to vildagliptin (n = 128) or placebo (n = 126). Baseline LVEF was 30.6 ± 6.8% in the vildagliptin group and 29.6 ± 7.7% in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in LVEF was 4.95 ± 1.25% in vildagliptin treated patients and 4.33 ± 1.23% in placebo treated patients, a difference of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.21 to 3.44; p = 0.667). This difference met the predefined noninferiority margin of -3.5%. Left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes increased more in the vildagliptin group by 17.1 ml (95% CI: 4.6 to 29.5 ml; p = 0.007) and 9.4 ml (95% CI: -0.49 to 19.4 ml; p = 0.062), respectively. Decrease in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 16 weeks, the main secondary endpoint, was greater in the vildagliptin group: -0.62% (95% CI: -0.93 to -0.30%; p < 0.001; -6.8 mmol/mol; 95% CI: -10.2 to -3.3 mmol/mol). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, vildagliptin had no major effect on LVEF but did lead to an increase in left ventricular volumes, the cause and clinical significance of which is unknown. More evidence is needed regarding the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. (Effect of Vildagliptin on Left Ventricular Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00894868).

Estimands: A More Strategic Approach to Study Design and Analysis.

Do we always precisely define the treatment effects that our clinical trial will estimate? Our tenet is that this is not always done, or is done inadequately. This lack of clarity can result in a misalignment among trial objectives, trial design, and statistical methods. We will discuss these challenges and present an improved framework using estimands that is proposed in a draft International Council for Harmonization (ICH) E9 addendum.

Vildagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin improves glycemic control without increasing risk of hypoglycemia in Asian, predominantly Chinese, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin added onto insulin with or without metformin in an Asian, predominantly Chinese, population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: In this 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5%-11.0%) on stable therapy with long-acting, intermediate-acting, or premixed insulin, with or without concomitant metformin, were randomized to receive vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. or placebo. RESULTS: Of 293 patients randomized, 146 received vildagliptin and 147 received placebo treatment. At baseline, the overall mean age of patients was 58.1 years, mean T2DM duration was 11.3 years, and mean HbA1c was 8.7%. The adjusted mean (±SE) change in HbA1c at Week 24 in the vildagliptin and placebo groups was -1.08 ± 0.12% and -0.38 ± 0.12%, respectively (between-treatment difference -0.70 ± 0.16%; P < 0.001). The between-group difference in fasting plasma glucose was -0.43 ± 0.38 mmol/L (P = 0.259). Significantly, more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with vildagliptin than with placebo (23.6% vs. 11.2%; P = 0.006). The incidence of adverse events in the vildagliptin and placebo groups was 43.8% and 46.3%, whereas that of serious adverse events was 3.4% and 6.8%, respectively. The frequency of hypoglycemia was lower in the vildagliptin than placebo group (2.7% vs. 5.4%). CONCLUSION: The addition of vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. significantly improved glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemia in Asian, predominantly Chinese, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on insulin, with or without metformin.

Effect of dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids on progression of atherosclerosis in carotid arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega-3 PUFA) from fish oil slow atherosclerosis progression in coronary arteries, as we showed in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Embedded in this trial, the present study examined the influence of 2 years of dietary supplementation with 1.65 g omega-3 PUFA per day on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in 223 patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Coronary angiography, a comprehensive clinical examination, and intima-media thickness measurement by B-mode ultrasound of the carotid arteries (common, internal and bifurcation), were performed at the study start and study end. An expert panel visually evaluated the global change of carotid atherosclerosis on a semiquantitative scale. A second outcome measure was the change of overall mean maximum intima-media thickness. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-one patients completed the study. In the global change score, 38% of the patients in the fish oil group and 35% in the placebo group showed progression. Global change was not different between intervention groups. Mean maximum intima-media thickness increased by 0.07+/-0.13 mm and 0.05+/-0.11 mm in the fish oil and placebo group, respectively (mean+/-S.D., P=0.24). No correlation was found between the change in carotid and coronary arteries. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of selected patients with documented coronary artery disease omega-3 PUFA given for 2 years did not demonstrate an effect on slowing progression of atherosclerosis in carotid arteries as measured by ultrasound.

Efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination of vildagliptin and metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin is increasing in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but no single-pill combination (SPC) is currently available in Japan. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin/metformin SPC in Japanese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with vildagliptin monotherapy. METHODS: This was a 14-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. 171 patients with T2DM inadequately controlled [HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) 7.0-10.0%] with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (bid) were randomized (2:1) to receive either a vildagliptin/metformin SPC (n = 115) or matching vildagliptin/placebo SPC (n = 56). RESULTS: Baseline demographics and background characteristics were generally comparable between the treatment groups. The change in HbA1c [mean ± standard error (SE)] was -0.8 ± 0.1% in the vildagliptin/metformin SPC (baseline HbA1c, 7.9 ± 0.1%) group and 0.1 ± 0.1% in the vildagliptin/placebo SPC (baseline HbA1c, 8.0 ± 0.1%) group, with a between-treatment difference of -1.0 ± 0.1% (P <0.001) in favor of the vildagliptin/metformin SPC group. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA1c <7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin/metformin SPC compared with vildagliptin/placebo SPC (45.8% vs. 13.5%, P <0.001). The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 43.5% in the vildagliptin/metformin SPC and 67.9% in the vildagliptin/placebo SPC group. The incidences of serious AEs were low in both the treatment groups (0.9% vs. 3.6%, respectively). Body weight remained constant throughout the study in both the treatment groups. There were no deaths or hypoglycemic events during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Switching Japanese patients with T2DM requiring treatment intensification, from vildagliptin monotherapy to a vildagliptin/metformin SPC (50/250 or 50/500 mg) was efficacious and safe, eliciting significant reduction in HbA1c without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Vildagliptin added to sulfonylurea improves glycemic control without hypoglycemia and weight gain in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on to sulfonylurea therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: The 24-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study compared vildagliptin 50 mg, q.d., with placebo as add-on to glimepiride in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5%-11.0% [58-97 mmol/mol]) on a stable dose of sulfonylurea for ≥12 weeks before study entry. RESULTS: In all, 279 patients were randomized to receive either vildagliptin (n = 143) or placebo (n = 136). At baseline, overall mean age was 58.5 years, body weight 68.1 kg, duration of diabetes 6.9 years and daily glimepiride dose 3.3 mg. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA1c was -0.7% (-8 mmol/mol; baseline 8.6%, 70 mmol/mol) in the vildagliptin group and -0.2% (-2 mmol/mol; baseline 8.7%, 72 mmol/mol) in the placebo group, with a treatment difference of -0.5% (-5 mmol/mol; P < 0.001). The between-group difference in AMΔ in fasting plasma glucose was -0.4 mmol/L (P = 0.160). There was a slight, but not significant, decrease in body weight in both groups. No hypoglycemic events were reported in either group, including those patients reaching HbA1c <7.0%. Patients in the vildagliptin and placebo groups reported low and comparable incidences of adverse events (14.0% vs. 17.8%) and serious adverse events (0.7% in each group). CONCLUSION: Vildagliptin 50 mg, q.d., added to sulfonylurea monotherapy is effective in Chinese patients with T2DM, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Effect of postmenopausal hormone replacement on atherosclerosis in femoral arteries.

OBJECTIVES: On the basis of epidemiological and experimental data, it has been supposed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) inhibits atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. This randomized controlled trial examined whether 1 mg 17beta-estradiol daily, combined cyclically with 0.025 mg gestodene in every month (HRT 1), or in every third month (HRT 2) slows the increase of intima-media thickness in femoral arteries compared with no HRT. METHODS: Healthy postmenopausal women (n=321) with an increased risk for future vascular disease as indicated by >1 mm of intima-media thickness in the carotid arteries were equally randomized to one of the three groups for 48 weeks. Ultrasound scans of femoral arteries were recorded at study start and study end, together with a thorough clinical examination and laboratory work-up. RESULTS: Complete scans were obtained in 260 of the 264 subjects who participated until study end. Mean maximum intima-media thickness of four femoral artery segments (common and superficial, both sides) was 0.93+/-0.37 mm (mean+/-S.D.) at study start. It increased by 0.02+/-0.05, 0.02+/-0.05, and 0.03+/-0.05 mm in the HRT 1, HRT 2 and no HRT groups, respectively (HRT 1 versus no HRT, HRT 2 versus no HRT; both P>0.2). Compared with no HRT, HRT significantly lowered follicle stimulating hormone, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and fibrinogen. CONCLUSIONS: In this 1-year trial, irrespective of the progestogen dose used, HRT with 1 mg 17 beta-estradiol did not inhibit progression of femoral artery atheroslerosis in postmenopausal women with subclinical vascular disease.

Clinical evidence and mechanistic basis for vildagliptin's effect in combination with insulin.

Due to the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, many patients need insulin as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in order to maintain adequate glycemic control. Insulin therapy primarily targets elevated fasting glycemia but is less effective to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia. In addition, the risk of hypoglycemia limits its effectiveness and there is a concern of weight gain. These drawbacks may be overcome by combining insulin with incretin-based therapies as these increase glucose sensitivity of both the α- and ß-cells, resulting in improved postprandial glycemia without the hypoglycemia and weight gain associated with increasing the dose of insulin. The dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitor vildagliptin has also been shown to protect from hypoglycemia by enhancing glucagon counterregulation. The effectiveness of combining vildagliptin with insulin was demonstrated in three different studies in which vildagliptin decreased A1C levels when added to insulin therapy without increasing hypoglycemia. This was established with and without concomitant metformin therapy. Furthermore, the effectiveness of vildagliptin appears to be greater when insulin is used as a basal regimen as opposed to being used to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia, since improvement in insulin secretion likely plays a minor role when relatively high doses of insulin are administered before meals. This article reviews the clinical experience with the combination of vildagliptin and insulin and discusses the mechanistic basis for the beneficial effects of the combination. The data support the use of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in general and, in line with emerging clinical practice, suggest that treating patients with vildagliptin, metformin, and basal insulin could be an attractive therapeutic option.

Vildagliptin-insulin combination improves glycemic control in Asians with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg bid as add-on therapy to insulin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a subgroup of Asian patients from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in T2DM patients inadequately controlled by stable insulin therapy, with or without metformin. A total of 173 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 87) or placebo (n = 86) for 24 wk. Changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG), from baseline to study endpoint, were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. Change from baseline to endpoint in body weight was summarized by treatment. Safety and tolerability of vildagliptin was also evaluated. RESULTS: After 24 wk, the difference in adjusted mean change in HbA1c between vildagliptin and placebo was 0.82% (8.96 mmol/mol; P < 0.001) in Asian subgroup, 0.85% (9.29 mmol/mol; P < 0.001) in patients also receiving metformin, and 0.73% (7.98 mmol/mol; P < 0.001) in patients without metformin, all in favor of vildagliptin. There was no significant difference in the change in FPG between treatments. Weight was stable in both treatment groups (+0.3 kg and -0.2 kg, for vildagliptin and placebo, respectively). Overall, vildagliptin was safe and well tolerated with similarly low incidences of hypoglycemia (8.0% vs 8.1%) and no severe hypoglycemic events were experienced in either group. CONCLUSION: In Asian patients inadequately controlled with insulin (with or without concomitant metformin), insulin-vildagliptin combination treatment significantly reduced HbA1c compared with placebo, without an increase in risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Efficacy of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily in patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and longstanding type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with insulin therapy, which is a difficult-to-treat population, with limited therapeutic options and a high susceptibility to hypoglycemia. METHODS: This was a post hoc subanalysis of data obtained during a previously described randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment. The present data derive from 178 patients with severe renal impairment (baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate approximately 21 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 100 randomized to vildagliptin, 78 randomized to placebo), all of whom were receiving insulin therapy (alone or in combination with an oral antidiabetic agent) for longstanding type 2 diabetes (mean approximately 19 years). RESULTS: With vildagliptin in combination with insulin, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA(1c) from baseline (7.7% ± 0.1%) was -0.9% ± 0.4% and the between-treatment difference (vildagliptin - placebo) was -0.6% ± 0.2% (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving endpoint HbA(1c) < 7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin than placebo (45.2% versus 22.8%, P = 0.008). When added to insulin, vildagliptin and placebo had comparable hypoglycemic profiles and did not cause weight gain. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated, with comparable incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths. CONCLUSION: When added to insulin therapy in patients with severe renal impairment and longstanding type 2 diabetes, vildagliptin 50 mg once daily was efficacious, eliciting HbA(1c) reductions consistent with those previously reported for a patient population with much more recent onset of type 2 diabetes and normal renal function, and had a hypoglycemic profile comparable with placebo. Accordingly, vildagliptin is a suitable treatment option for patients with advanced type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function who require insulin therapy and present a serious therapeutic challenge in clinical practice.

Assessing the general safety and tolerability of vildagliptin: value of pooled analyses from a large safety database versus evaluation of individual studies.

AIM: Analyzing safety aspects of a drug from individual studies can lead to difficult-to-interpret results. The aim of this paper is therefore to assess the general safety and tolerability, including incidences of the most common adverse events (AEs), of vildagliptin based on a large pooled database of Phase II and III clinical trials. METHODS: Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥ 12 to ≥ 104 weeks' duration. AE profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid; N = 6116) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators (placebo and active comparators; N = 6210). Absolute incidence rates were calculated for all AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths. RESULTS: Overall AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths were all reported with a similar frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin (69.1%, 8.9%, 5.7%, and 0.4%, respectively) and patients receiving comparators (69.0%, 9.0%, 6.4%, and 0.4%, respectively), whereas drug-related AEs were seen with a lower frequency in vildagliptin-treated patients (15.7% vs 21.7% with comparators). The incidences of the most commonly reported specific AEs were also similar between vildagliptin and comparators, except for increased incidences of hypoglycemia, tremor, and hyperhidrosis in the comparator group related to the use of sulfonylureas. CONCLUSIONS: The present pooled analysis shows that vildagliptin was overall well tolerated in clinical trials of up to >2 years in duration. The data further emphasize the value of a pooled analysis from a large safety database versus assessing safety and tolerability from individual studies.

Trial logistics, implementation, and conduct of the OCTAVE mega study in Germany. Prospective, randomised, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of omapatrilat and enalapril.

Using the example of the largest clinical trial so far conducted to obtain marketing approval (OCTAVE--Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment Assessment Versus Enalapril) this paper describes the way the trial was conducted in Germany and the set-up of the trial logistics. OCTAVE was a prospective, randomised, double-blind study in which the efficacy and tolerability of omapatrilat (CAS 167305-00-2) compared to enalapril (CAS 75847-73-3) were studied in 25 302 patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. Patient recruitment was completed on schedule in just under four months in this global study. An appropriate study design, tailor-made logistics, a special monitoring system and effective project and data management allowed the selection and initiation of 430 study centres in Germany. As a result 4868 patients were randomised within about six months of finalising the study protocol.