Cardiovascular Outcomes in GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study).

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. The effects of glucose-lowering medications on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes and low cardiovascular risk are unclear. We investigated cardiovascular outcomes by treatment group in participants randomly assigned to insulin glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, added to baseline metformin, in GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study). METHODS: A total of 5047 participants with a mean±SD age of 57.2±10.0 years, type 2 diabetes duration of 4.0±2.7 years, and low baseline prevalence of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, 5.1%; cerebrovascular accident, 2.0%) were followed for a median of 5 years. Prespecified outcomes included between-group time-to-first event analyses of MACE-3 (composite of major adverse cardiovascular events: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), MACE-4 (MACE-3+unstable angina requiring hospitalization or revascularization), MACE-5 (MACE-4+coronary revascularization), MACE-6 (MACE-5+hospitalization for heart failure), and the individual components. MACE outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure in the liraglutide-treated group were compared with the other groups combined using Cox proportional hazards models. MACE-6 was also analyzed as recurrent events using a proportional rate model to compare all treatment groups. RESULTS: We observed no statistically significant differences in the cumulative incidence of first MACE-3, MACE-4, MACE-5, or MACE-6, or their individual components, by randomized treatment group. However, when compared with the other treatment groups combined, the liraglutide-treated group had a significantly lower risk of MACE-5 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; P=0.021), MACE-6 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]; P=0.021), and hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.86]; P=0.022). Compared with the liraglutide group, significantly higher rates of recurrent MACE-6 events occurred in the groups treated with glimepiride (rate ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.13-2.29]) or sitagliptin (rate ratio 1.75; [95% CI, 1.24-2.48]). CONCLUSIONS: This comparative effectiveness study of a contemporary cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, largely without established cardiovascular disease, suggests that liraglutide treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients at relatively low risk compared with other commonly used glucose-lowering medications. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01794143.

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Glycemic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. METHODS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%. RESULTS: A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin: PIONEER 12, a double-blind, Phase IIIa, randomised trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. METHODS: The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 12 trial was a randomised, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase IIIa trial conducted over 26 weeks at 90 sites across the China region (including mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong) and five other countries. Adults aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan) with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, HbA1c between 53 and 91 mmol/mol (inclusive) and treated with a stable daily dose of metformin were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to either once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. Treatment allocation was masked to both participants and investigators. Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. The confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight (kg) from baseline to week 26. All randomised participants were included in the full analysis set (FAS). All participants exposed to at least one dose of trial product were included in the safety analysis (SAS). RESULTS: Of 1839 participants screened, 1441 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=361), 7 mg (n=360), 14 mg (n=361) or sitagliptin 100 mg (n=359) and included in the FAS. A total of 1438 participants were included in the SAS. In total, 75.2% of participants were from the China region. A total of 1372 (95.2%) participants completed the trial and 130 participants prematurely discontinued treatment (8.3%, 8.6% and 15.0% for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively; 4.2% for sitagliptin 100 mg). Significantly greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were reported for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg. For oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg, the estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CI]) were -2 (-4, -1) mmol/mol, -8 (-9, -6) mmol/mol and -11 (-12, -9) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs (95% CI) in percentage points vs sitagliptin 100 mg were -0.2 (-0.3, -0.1), -0.7 (-0.8, -0.6) and -1.0 (-1.1, -0.8), respectively. Reductions in body weight were significantly greater for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg (ETD [95% CI] -0.9 [-1.4, -0.4] kg, -2.3 [-2.8, -1.8] kg and -3.3 [-3.8, -2.8] kg for 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively). In the subpopulation of participants from the China region (75.2% of trial participants), reductions in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to week 26 were similar to those seen in the overall population. The most frequent adverse events in the semaglutide treatment arms were gastrointestinal, although these were mostly transient and mild/moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Significantly greater reductions in both HbA1c and body weight over 26 weeks were seen with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg than with sitagliptin 100 mg in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04017832. FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibition for Prophylaxis of Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease.

BACKGROUND: Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4; also known as CD26), a transmembrane receptor expressed on T cells, has a costimulatory function in activating T cells. In a mouse model, down-regulation of CD26 prevented graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) but preserved graft-versus-tumor effects. Whether inhibition of DPP-4 with sitagliptin may prevent acute GVHD after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage, phase 2 clinical trial to test whether sitagliptin plus tacrolimus and sirolimus would reduce the incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD from 30% to no more than 15% by day 100. Patients received myeloablative conditioning followed by mobilized peripheral-blood stem-cell transplants. Sitagliptin was given orally at a dose of 600 mg every 12 hours starting the day before transplantation until day 14 after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients who could be evaluated, with a median age of 46 years (range, 20 to 59), received transplants from matched related or unrelated donors. Acute GVHD occurred in 2 of 36 patients by day 100; the incidence of grade II to IV GVHD was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1 to 16), and the incidence of grade III or IV GVHD was 3% (95% CI, 0 to 12). Nonrelapse mortality was zero at 1 year. The 1-year cumulative incidences of relapse and chronic GVHD were 26% (95% CI, 13 to 41) and 37% (95% CI, 22 to 53), respectively. GVHD-free, relapse-free survival was 46% (95% CI, 29 to 62) at 1 year. Toxic effects were similar to those seen in patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized trial, sitagliptin in combination with tacrolimus and sirolimus resulted in a low incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD by day 100 after myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02683525.).

Serum thrombospondin-2 level changes with liver stiffness improvement in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Baseline circulating thrombospondin-2 (TSP2) level was identified as a potential novel hepatic fibrosis biomarker that associates with development and progression of hepatic fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes. Here, we investigated whether circulating TSP2 levels changed with improvement in liver stiffness (LS), which reflects liver fibrosis on transient elastography. DESIGN: Serum TSP2 levels were measured in participants from a randomized, open-label intervention study, at baseline and after 24-weeks treatment of either dapagliflozin 10 mg (N = 30) or sitagliptin 100 mg daily (N = 30). Vibration-controlled transient elastography was performed to evaluate the severity of hepatic fibrosis and steatosis using LS and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), respectively. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Among all 60 participants with similar clinical characteristics at baseline (mean HbA1c 8.9%, CAP 289 dB/m and LS 5.8 kPa), despite similar HbA1c lowering, treatment with dapagliflozin, but not sitagliptin, led to significant improvements in body weight (BW) (p = .012), CAP (p = .015) and LS (p = .011) after 24 weeks. RESULTS: Serum TSP2 level decreased significantly from baseline in dapagliflozin-treated participants (p = .035), whereas no significant change was observed with sitagliptin. In correlation analysis, change in serum TSP2 levels only positively correlated with change in LS (r = .487, p = .006), but not with changes in BW, CAP or HbA1c after dapagliflozin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Serum TSP2 level decreased with LS after dapagliflozin treatment, and was independent of improvements in BW, glycemic control and hepatic steatosis, further supporting the potential of serum TSP2 level as a novel hepatic fibrosis biomarker in type 2 diabetes.

Impact of baseline characteristics on the efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide among participants with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of SUSTAIN China.

AIMS: To investigate the impact of baseline characteristics on the efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SUSTAIN China trial. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, data for semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg were analysed in the total (n = 868) and Chinese-only (n = 605) populations. Changes from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight were analysed by baseline age, sex, body mass index, HbA1c, diabetes duration, and homeostatic model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) tertile. Proportions of participants achieving HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) by baseline HbA1c, change from baseline to EOT in standard deviation of seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), derived time-in-range (dTIR) of seven-point SMPG at Week 30, and HOMA-ß ratio to baseline at Week 30 were assessed for both populations. RESULTS: In both populations the efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus sitagliptin was not significantly affected by most of the baseline characteristics studied. The proportion of participants achieving the target HbA1c <7% was not affected by baseline HbA1c (pinteraction > 0.05). SMPG fluctuation and dTIR indicated less glucose variability in participants treated with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus sitagliptin, and the HOMA-ß ratios to baseline at EOT were greater with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus sitagliptin (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the effectiveness of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg across a broad range of baseline characteristics, in participants with T2D from SUSTAIN China.

Efficacy and tolerability of initial triple combination therapy with metformin, dapagliflozin and saxagliptin compared with stepwise add-on therapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (TRIPLE-AXEL study): A multicentre, randomized, 104-week, open-label, active-controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of an initial triple combination therapy (TCT) compared with conventional stepwise add-on therapy (SAT) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, 104-week, open-label trial randomized 105 patients with drug-naïve T2D (with HbA1c level ≥ 8.0%, < 11.0%) to the TCT (1000 mg of metformin, 10 mg of dapagliflozin and 5 mg of saxagliptin once daily) or SAT (initiated with metformin, followed by glimepiride and sitagliptin) groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved an HbA1c level of less than 6.5% without hypoglycaemia, weight gain of 5% or higher, or discontinuation of drugs because of adverse events at week 104. RESULTS: HbA1c reduction from baseline at week 104 was similar between the groups (the least squares mean change was -2.56% in the TCT group vs. -2.75% in the SAT group). The primary outcome was achieved in 39.0% and 17.1% of the TCT and SAT groups, respectively, with a risk difference of 22.0 (95% confidence interval 3.0, 40.8; P = .027). HbA1c level less than 6.5% at week 104 was 46.3% in both the TCT and SAT groups, whereas the incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain, or discontinuation of drugs was 16.7% and 62.0% in the TCT and SAT groups, respectively (P < .001). TCT was well-tolerated and had fewer adverse events than SAT. CONCLUSIONS: Among newly diagnosed patients with T2D, initial TCT effectively lowered HbA1c levels with higher tolerability and safety than SAT for 104 weeks, suggesting a novel strategy for initial combination therapy in T2D patients.

Combination of spironolactone and sitagliptin improves clinical outcomes of outpatients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are evidences showing that sitagliptin and spironolactone can potentially improve the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 cases. In this observational study on acutely symptomatic outpatient COVID-19 cases, we investigated the effects of spironolactone and sitagliptin on the outcomes of the disease. METHODS: This is a prospective, naturally randomized cohort study. We followed mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 patients, who were treated with either combination (spironolactone 100 mg daily and sitagliptin 100 mg daily) or standard (steroid, antiviral and/or supportive care) therapy up to 30 days. The primary outcome was hospitalization rate. The secondary outcomes included ER visit, duration of disease, and complications, such as hypoglycemia, low blood pressure or altered mental status. RESULTS: Of the 206 patients referred to clinics randomly, 103 received standard therapy and 103 treated with combination therapy. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, except for slightly higher clinical score in control group (6.92 ± 4.01 control, 4.87 ± 2.92 combination; P < 0.0001). Treatment with combination therapy was associated with lower admission rate (5.8% combination, 22.3% control; P = 0.0011), ER visits (7.8% combination, 23.3% control; P = 0.0021) and average duration of symptoms (6.67 ± 2.30 days combination, 18.71 ± 6.49 days control; P ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of sitagliptin and spironolactone reduced duration of COVID infection and hospital visits better than standard therapeutic approaches in outpatients with COVID-19. The effects of combination of sitagliptin and spironolactone in COVID-19 patients should be further verified in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

In type 2 diabetes, glargine and liraglutide each improved glycemic outcomes at 5 y vs. glimepiride or sitagliptin.

SOURCE CITATION: GRADE Study Research Group; Nathan DM, Lachin JM, Balasubramanyam A, et al. Glycemia reduction in type 2 diabetes-glycemic outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1063-74. 36129996.

In type 2 diabetes, liraglutide reduced CV events at 5 y vs. glargine, glimepiride, or sitagliptin.

SOURCE CITATION: GRADE Study Research Group; Nathan DM, Lachin JM, Buse JB, et al. Glycemia reduction in type 2 diabetes-microvascular and cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1075-88. 36129997.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs. sitagliptin in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study.

AIMS: The effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) in routine clinical practice is not extensively studied. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes and to investigate whether there were any differences between agents within the SGLT2i class or for reduced and preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Medicare claims data (April 2013 to December 2019), 16 253 SGLT2i initiators vs. 43 352 initiators of sitagliptin aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and HF were included. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for HF or urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics; secondary outcomes included its individual components. Propensity score fine stratification weighted Cox regression was used to adjust for 100 pre-exposure characteristics. Mean age was 74 years; 49.8% were women. Initiation of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.77]. The adjusted HRs were 0.70 (0.63-0.78) for all-cause mortality, 0.64 (0.58-0.70) for hospitalization for HF, and 0.77 (0.69-0.86) for urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics. Similar associations with the primary composite outcome were observed for all three agents within the SGLT2i class, for reduced and preserved ejection fraction, and subgroups based on demographics, comorbidities, and other HF treatments. Bias-calibrated HRs for the primary endpoint using negative and positive control outcomes ranged between 0.81 and 0.89, suggesting that the observed benefit could not be fully explained by residual confounding. CONCLUSION: In routine US clinical practice, SGLT2i demonstrated robust clinical effectiveness in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes compared with sitagliptin, with no evidence of heterogeneity across the SGLT2i class or across ejection fraction.

Preclinical Repurposing of Sitagliptin as a Drug Candidate for Colorectal Cancer by Targeting CD24/CTNNB1/SOX4-Centered Signaling Hub.

Despite significant advances in treatment modalities, colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a poorly understood and highly lethal malignancy worldwide. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) and the tumor microenvironment (TME) have been shown to play critical roles in initiating and promoting CRC progression, metastasis, and treatment resistance. Therefore, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms contributing to the generation and maintenance of CSCs is crucial to developing CSC-specific therapeutics and improving the current standard of care for CRC patients. To this end, we used a bioinformatics approach to identify increased CD24/SOX4 expression in CRC samples associated with poor prognosis. We also discovered a novel population of tumor-infiltrating CD24+ cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), suggesting that the CD24/SOX4-centered signaling hub could be a potential therapeutic target. Pathway networking analysis revealed a connection between the CD24/SOX4-centered signaling, ß-catenin, and DPP4. Emerging evidence indicates that DPP4 plays a role in CRC initiation and progression, implicating its involvement in generating CSCs. Based on these bioinformatics data, we investigated whether sitagliptin, a DPP4 inhibitor and diabetic drug, could be repurposed to inhibit colon CSCs. Using a molecular docking approach, we demonstrated that sitagliptin targeted CD24/SOX4-centered signaling molecules with high affinity. In vitro experimental data showed that sitagliptin treatment suppressed CRC tumorigenic properties and worked in synergy with 5FU and this study thus provided preclinical evidence to support the alternative use of sitagliptin for treating CRC.

[Cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin added to metformin in real world patients with type 2 diabetes].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of sitagliptin added to metformin on cardiovascular adverse events in real world patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Real world data from Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database were used to select T2DM patients with diagnosis and treatment records in the platform from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2022. According to drug prescription records, the patients were divided into metformin plus sitagliptin group (combination group) and metformin monotherapy group(monotherapy group). A series of retrospective cohorts were constructed according to the index date.Finally, full retrospective cohorts were constructed according to propensity score model, including baseline covariates that might be related to outcomes, to match the subjects in the combination group and monotherapy group for the purpose of increasing the comparability of baseline characteristics. The participants were followed up from the index date until the first occurrence of the following events: Diagnosis of outcomes, death, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2022). Cox proportional risk model was used to estimate the hazard ratio(HR)and 95% confidence interval (CI) of sitagliptin added to metformin on 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE) combination outcome and secondary cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: Before propensity score matching, the proportion of the patients in combination group using insulin, α glucosidase inhibitors, sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2I) and glienides at baseline was higher than that in monotherapy group, and the baseline fasting blood glucose (FBG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in combination group were higher than those in monotherapy group. After propensity score matching, 5 416 subjects were included in the combination group and the monotherapy group, and baseline characteristics were effectively balanced between the groups. The incidence densities of 3P-MACE were 6.41/100 person years and 6.35/100 person years, respectively. Sitagliptin added to metformin did not increase or decrease the risk of 3P-MACE compared with the metformin monotherapy (HR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10). In secondary outcomes analysis, the incidence of cardiovascular death was lower in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.85), and no association was found between sitagliptin and the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke (HR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.89-1.41; HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.91-1.12). CONCLUSION: In T2DM patients in Yinzhou district of Ningbo, compared with metformin alone, sitagliptin added to metformin may reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, and do not increase the incidence of overall cardiovascular events. The results of this study can provide real-world evidence for post-marketing cardiovascular safety evaluation of sitagliptin.

(NDMA) METFORMIN AND (NTTP) SITAGLIPTIN INDUCED CUTANEOUS MELANOMAS: LINKS TO NITROSOGENESIS, NITROSO-PHOTOCARCINOGENESIS, ONCOPHARMACOGENESIS AND THE METABOLIC REPROGRAMMING.

Changing the vision, understanding, interpretation and analysis of certain data or scientific dilemmas is what is able to change the status quo and revitalize a mission, an impulse or important thoughts, thus creating the conditions for it to increase immensely the chances of bringing it to success. Or, following Albert Einstein's postulate: ˝We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them˝, we should think: ˝Where does the road to success start? How do we solve or neutralize a problem? ˝ And the answer is: ˝ By taking a consistent and systematic approach, analyzing each component! And we eliminate every possibility of negative influence.˝ These thoughts apply with full force to cancer rates in general, but also to melanoma rates in particular: the murderous tempo of globalization and modernization in medicine has not yet led to the desired decrease in these rates; on the contrary, they are rising headlong and remain largely unpredictable and difficult to regulate. The conclusion is that a solution should be sought by refracting light through another prism: that of Nitrosogenesis and Pharmaco-Oncogenesis. A step-by-step and systematic approach to solving a problem requires patience, determination, and perseverance. As this perseverance is needed mainly to overcome the general ignorance, neglect, disinterest, uneducation and uncertainty of others, rather than doubt in one's own thesis, analysis, and the need for an active approach. Careful analysis of concepts such as ˝Drug Mediated Nitrosogenesis˝ and ˝Onco-pharmacogenesis/Pharmaco-oncogenesis˝ of skin cancer would certainly contribute to the elucidation of skin carcinogenesis in the context of polymedication of the contamination and polymorbidity worldwide. The FDA has already in 2019 taken this much needed first step of universal awareness and its ˝arm˝ has been taken seriously and responsibly solely by dermatologists and dermatosurgeons. It was this guild and only this guild that launched its independent, never-ending observations, logically grounded (hypo)theses, remaining to date confirmatory, unshakable, and enigmatic regarding the unit: intake of potentially contaminated medication and subsequent development of melanomas. It is this and only this branch of the medical guild that has also become the guarantor of safety and objectivity in science, and thus of safety in the fight for survival of a huge number of skin cancer patients. Contaminated oral antidiabetic drugs in the face of Metformin and Sitagliptin do not make an exception in this respect. Similarly to cutaneous melanomas occurring (and published in the scientific literature) after combined intake (or monomedication) of/ between ranitidine, valsartan, olmesartan, candesartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, losartan, enalapril, lisinopril, perindopril, hydrochlorothiazide, nifedipine, amlodipine, propafenone, bisoprolol, nebivolol, melitracen and a number of others, we inform about another rare but not unexpected clinical observation: occurrence of cutaneous melanomas after taking another class of drugs- oral antidiabetic ones. Or after the intake of nitrosamine-contaminated antidiabetic drugs. And whether this contamination is "real or potential" is left to regulators and manufacturers to decide. We accept it as `real-potential' or `potentially-real' because of the fact that neither the regulators nor the manufacturers know what it is or whether it is there or how it arose. The data shared in patients one and two in the presented scientific work are confirmatory in relation to the potential pathogenetic action of nitrosamine contaminated drugs such as 1) bisoprolol/ nebivolol/ candesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine, as well as 2) furosemide in the direction of cutaneous melanoma. Patient 3 in fact also represents the first formally described patient with subsequent melanoma development worldwide, having developed it following intake of potentially/actually nitrosamine-contaminated metformin and metformin/sitagliptin (both drugs are themed in the FDA's Potentially Contaminated Drug Bulletin: 1) metformin, multiple times between 2020-21, due to its contamination with NDMA and 2) sitagliptin, as of September 2022, due to its contamination with NTTP). It should not be seen as surprising to anyone that the intake of relatively similar carcinogens/nitrosamines or NDSRIs, but as an unofficial component of heterogeneous drugs, produces a relatively monomorphic clinical picture- that of cutaneous melanoma. Or to put it metaphorically: ˝The wolf changes its hair, but not its mood˝. A carcinogen remains a carcinogen, regardless of whether it is ingested in a lemonade, a tablet, a sandwich, or a bonbon. Similarly to the intake of nitrosamines in food. Future studies should address the important tasks/dilemmas to elucidate 1) the phototoxic/photocarcinogenic effect of unmetabolized nitrosamines identified in drug formulations; 2) the phototoxic/photocarcinogenic effect of DNA adducts generated after their metabolization, and 3) the availability of specific DNA adducts in lesional/tumor tissue and blood of patients after ingestion of nitroso-containing drug formulations. This level of evidence is likely to lead to a reconsideration of the arguments for the introduction of permanent elimination regimes for nitrosamines in medicines. Metabolic reprogramming (and its relationship to UVB radiation) due to the availability of nitrosamines in cigarette smoke is also currently a proven reality. Based on the available clinicopathological correlations, we believe that nitrosamines in drugs have a similar effect and are part of the key pathway activating skin carcinogenesis under the influence of solar radiation. Intake of contaminated medication is associated with skin cancer generation and progression. It is up to regulators and manufacturers to justify the merits and benefits of the self-imposed presence of carcinogens in drugs or the benefits of such drugs. Apart from the "cancer-generating benefit", of course, which is already widely known. And let us not forget that: "A lie stops being a lie and becomes a truth the moment it is officially refuted".

Successful osimertinib rechallenge after severe thrombocytopenia caused by osimertinib combined with sitagliptin: a case report.

Osimertinib is recommended as the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults. The most commonly reported adverse events for osimertinib are skin effects, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, fatigue, paronychia, and stomatitis. Severe thrombocytopenia is rarely reported. We present a case of severe thrombocytopenia in a 70-year-old NSCLC patient caused by osimertinib combined with sitagliptin. After remission of thrombocytopenia, the patient was well tolerated with osimertinib re-administration in the absence of sitagliptin. We speculated that declined platelet count might be related to the interaction between osimertinib and sitagliptin by acting with a synergistic effect on platelets. Osimertinib rechallenge can be considered after discontinuing drugs that may contribute to platelet decline if possible, and making a careful assessment of complete blood count and risk of bleeding.

Empagliflozin versus sitagliptin for ameliorating intrahepatic lipid content and tissue-specific insulin sensitivity in patients with early-stage type 2 diabetes with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A prospective randomized study.

AIM: To compare the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on ectopic fat accumulation and tissue-specific insulin sensitivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial enrolled 44 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They were randomly assigned to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg/day or sitagliptin 100 mg/day for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in intrahepatic lipid content (IHL) measured using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1 H-MRS). The secondary endpoints included intramuscular and extramuscular lipid content seen in 1 H-MRS, body composition seen through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and tissue-specific insulin sensitivity shown through hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp using stable isotopic glucose. Liver biopsy samples were pathologically evaluated at baseline. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean duration of diabetes, HbA1c level and IHL were 3.7 years, 7.2% and 20.9%, respectively. The median NAFLD activity score was 3.0. IHL was significantly more decreased in the empagliflozin group than that in the sitagliptin group (between-group difference was -5.2% ± 1.1% and -1.9% ± 1.2%, respectively, (95% confidence interval); -3.3 (-6.5, -0.1), P = .044). However, there were no significant between-group differences in the change of insulin sensitivity in the liver, muscle or adipose tissues. Interestingly, hepatic insulin sensitivity was significantly increased only in the empagliflozin group and was significantly negatively associated with the change in IHL. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin significantly improves hepatic steatosis compared with sitagliptin, and this may protect against subsequent hepatic insulin resistance. Early administration of SGLT2 inhibitors is preferable for T2D patients with NAFLD.

Comparison of the effects of sitagliptin and dapagliflozin on time in range in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes stratified by body mass index: A sub-analysis of the DIVERSITY-CVR study.

AIMS: To compare the effects of baseline background characteristics in patients treated with dapagliflozin and sitagliptin in the DIVERSITY-CVR study and to analyse the time in range (TIR), a metric for glycaemic control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicentre study included 340 Japanese patients with early-stage type 2 diabetes. To examine the effects of dapagliflozin and sitagliptin on glycaemic variability, we re-examined the primary endpoint (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] < 7.0%, body weight loss ≥ 3.0%, and avoidance of hypoglycaemia) achievement rate in participants stratified by baseline background characteristics. RESULTS: Sitagliptin was significantly superior in achieving HbA1c level <7.0% in the lower body mass index (BMI) group (71.1% vs. 43.6%; P < 0.05), with no significant differences in other subgroups. In the lower BMI group, the rate of achievement of TIR > 70% after 24-week treatment was significantly higher with sitagliptin than with dapagliflozin (91.9% vs. 69.4%; P < 0.05). In contrast, dapagliflozin was superior to sitagliptin in achieving TIR > 70% in the higher BMI group (85.7% vs. 52.9%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In Japanese patients with early-stage type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin was associated with improved TIR in patients with a lower BMI. Dapagliflozin was effective in patients with a higher BMI.

Comparative effects of weight loss and incretin-based therapies on vascular endothelial function, fibrinolysis and inflammation in individuals with obesity and prediabetes: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To test the hypothesis that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have beneficial effects on vascular endothelial function, fibrinolysis and inflammation through weight loss-independent mechanisms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals with obesity and prediabetes were randomized to 14 weeks of the GLP-1R agonist liraglutide, hypocaloric diet or the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in a 2:1:1 ratio. Treatment with drug was double blind and placebo-controlled. Measurements were made at baseline, after 2 weeks prior to significant weight loss and after 14 weeks. The primary outcomes were measures of endothelial function: flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). RESULTS: Eighty-eight individuals were studied (liraglutide N = 44, diet N = 22, sitagliptin N = 22). Liraglutide and diet reduced weight, insulin resistance and PAI-1, while sitagliptin did not. There was no significant effect of any treatment on endothelial vasodilator function measured by FMD. Post hoc subgroup analyses in individuals with baseline FMD below the median, indicative of greater endothelial dysfunction, showed an improvement in FMD by all three treatments. GLP-1R antagonism with exendin (9-39) increased fasting blood glucose but did not change FMD or PAI-1. There was no effect of treatment on UACR. Finally, liraglutide, but not sitagliptin or diet, reduced the chemokine monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). CONCLUSION: Liraglutide and diet reduce weight, insulin resistance and PAI-1. Liraglutide, sitagliptin and diet do not change FMD in obese individuals with prediabetes with normal endothelial function. Liraglutide alone lowers the pro-inflammatory and pro-atherosclerotic chemokine MCP-1, indicating that this beneficial effect is independent of weight loss.

Effect of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, compared to caloric restriction, on appetite, dietary intake, body fat distribution and cardiometabolic biomarkers: A randomized trial in adults with obesity and prediabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the hypothesis that weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide alone would lead to a greater reduction in the proportion of fat to lean tissue mass when compared to caloric restriction (CR) alone, as well as when compared to treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, that also enhances GLP-1 activity - to determine the independent effects of each treatment. METHODS: A total of 88 adults with obesity and prediabetes were randomized to 14 weeks of intervention with CR (-390 kcal/d), liraglutide (1.8 mg/d), or the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (100 mg/d) as a weight-neutral comparator. Changes between groups in appetite and hunger ratings measured via visual analogue scales, dietary intakes, body weight, body composition via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, and resting energy expenditure via indirect calorimetry were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test or Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Weight loss ≥5% of baseline body weight occurred in 44% of participants in the CR group, 22% of the liraglutide group and 5% of the sitagliptin group (p = 0.02). The ratio of fat to lean mass decreased by 6.5% in the CR group, 2.2% in the liraglutide group, and 0% in the sitagliptin group (p = 0.02). Visceral fat reduced by 9.5% in the CR group, 4.8% in the liraglutide group, and 0% in the sitagliptin group (p = 0.04). A spontaneous reduction in dietary simple carbohydrates in the CR group was associated with improved homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance score (HOMA-IR). CONCLUSIONS: Although both liraglutide and CR are valuable strategies for cardiometabolic risk reduction, CR was associated with greater weight loss and more favourable improvements in body composition than treatment with liraglutide alone. Differences in the response to each of these interventions enables patients to be stratified to the most optimal intervention for their personal risk factors.