Efficacy and safety of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin in elderly Japanese adults (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week clinical trial (EMPA-ELDERLY).

AIM: Use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) for glycaemic control is increasing in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) for their additional benefits on heart failure and chronic kidney disease. However, SGLT2is generally reduce body weight, which might promote sarcopenia in older individuals. We evaluated the effects of the SGLT2i empagliflozin on muscle mass and strength in addition to glucose control in elderly adults with T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals with T2D aged ≥65 years with body mass index ≥22 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0%-10.0% were randomized 1:1 to once-daily empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in muscle mass and strength. RESULTS: Of the 129 individuals randomized, 72.4% were men, mean age 74.1 years, body mass index 25.6 kg/m2 and HbA1c 7.6%. The placebo-adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 with empagliflozin was -0.57% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78, -0.36]. Change in body weight was -3.26 kg and -0.90 kg with empagliflozin and placebo, respectively (placebo-adjusted difference: -2.37 kg; 95% CI -3.07, -1.68). Placebo-adjusted change in muscle mass was -0.61 kg (95% CI -1.61, 0.39), fat mass -1.84 kg (95% CI -2.65, -1.04) and grip strength -0.3 kg (95% CI -1.1, 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin improved glucose control and reduced body weight without compromising muscle mass or strength in elderly adults with T2D in this trial.

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in combination with insulin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and insufficient glycaemic control: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in combination with insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) over 24 weeks, in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had insufficient glycaemic control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicentre phase III study. Adult patients with T2D and insufficient glycaemic control who received insulin ± up to two OADs were randomized (1:1:1) to receive empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: Of 219 randomized patients, 73 patients were in each treatment group; baseline characteristics were comparable among the groups. There was a significantly larger decrease from baseline in HbA1c (adjusted mean treatment difference -0.99 and -0.98 for in the empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg groups, respectively; P < .0001) with both doses of empagliflozin than with placebo. There were also significantly larger decreases from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial glucose and body weight with both empagliflozin doses than with placebo. Among patients in the empagliflozin 10 mg, 25 mg and placebo groups, 17.8%, 9.6% and 11.0% reported confirmed hypoglycaemic events, respectively (nominal P = .2422 and .7661 in the empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg groups, respectively), and no Clinical Events Committee-confirmed diabetic ketoacidosis events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese patients with T2D, empagliflozin combined with insulin ± OADs improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Empagliflozin and uric acid metabolism in diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of empagliflozin on uric acid (UA) levels, antigout medication and gout episodes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (NCT01131676). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 7020 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were randomized to either empagliflozin (10 or 25 mg) or placebo. The effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on UA concentration were assessed using mixed linear models. A composite outcome of new prescription of antigout medication or gout episode was studied with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced serum UA levels versus placebo: week 52 adjusted mean treatment difference = -0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.42, -0.31) mg/dL; this was more pronounced in patients with baseline UA ≥ 7.0 mg/dL versus <7.0 mg/dL: week 52 adjusted mean treatment difference = -0.56 (95% CI -0.68, -0.43) and -0.30 (95% CI -0.37, -0.24) mg/dL, respectively. Among 6607 patients not taking antigout medications at baseline, 5.2% had a gout episode or initiated antigout treatment versus 3.6% in the placebo and empagliflozin groups, respectively: hazard ratio 0.67 (95% CI 0.53, 0.85; P = 0.001). Both components of the composite outcome contributed to the reduction with empagliflozin in the composite. Risk reduction was similar with both empagliflozin doses. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced UA levels and the composite of gout episodes or prescription of antigout medication. These clinically important findings expand the utility of empagliflozin as a potential antigout treatment in patients with T2D, beyond its well-established cardio-renal benefits.

Rationale and design of the EMPA-ELDERLY trial: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin in elderly Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Elderly people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are becoming increasingly prevalent, notably in Japan. As cardiovascular (CV) risk increases with age and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce CV risk, elderly patients with T2DM are increasingly likely to be prescribed these glucose-lowering drugs. There is controversy surrounding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on muscle mass, particularly in elderly patients for whom loss of muscle is especially undesirable; however, robust evidence on this important issue is lacking. Consequently, we have designed a clinical trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in elderly Japanese patients with T2DM (Empagliflozin in Elderly T2DM Patients (EMPA-ELDERLY)) to assess its effects on body composition as well as glycaemic control. EMPA-ELDERLY will be the first randomised clinical trial of an SGLT2 inhibitor in elderly patients with T2DM to evaluate effects on skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance concurrently. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EMPA-ELDERLY is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial to be conducted in Japan. Patients with T2DM aged ≥65 years are eligible if they are Japanese with a body mass index of ≥22 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from ≥7.0% to ≤10.0% from either diet and exercise alone or treatment with oral glucose-lowering drugs. Approximately 128 participants will be randomised 1:1 to once per day, oral, double-blind treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg or matching placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint is the change in HbA1c level from baseline at week 52. Secondary endpoints include changes from baseline to 52 weeks in body composition, including muscle mass and body fat, measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis, as well as skeletal muscle index, grip strength and time in the five-time chair stand test. Other endpoints include changes in patient-reported outcomes (including quality of life), cognitive function and safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will submit the trial results to conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04531462.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

This 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in 206 Chinese patients with inadequately controlled (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5%-10.0%) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving insulin (basal or premixed) ± metformin. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg/d or placebo. The decrease from baseline in HbA1c (primary endpoint) was greater with linagliptin than with placebo (-0.61% vs. -0.20%, adjusted mean difference -0.40%; P = 0.0016). Linagliptin demonstrated significantly greater improvement in 2-hour postprandial glucose (-1.77 mmol/L [-31.95 mg/dL]; P < 0.001), and a numerical reduction in fasting plasma glucose (-0.34 mmol/L [-6.2 mg/dL]; P = 0.2241) versus placebo. Proportionally more patients on linagliptin achieved a HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% versus those on placebo (odds ratio 2.293, P < 0.01). Adverse events in both groups were similar, with no new safety findings or clinically relevant changes in body weight. Among investigator-defined hypoglycaemic events (linagliptin: 17.3%; placebo: 12.7%; odds ratio 1.48, P = 0.337), none were severe. In Chinese patients with T2DM, linagliptin add-on to insulin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated, without increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Effects of Linagliptin on Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes in People With Normal and Reduced Kidney Function: Secondary Analysis of the CARMELINA Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of kidney failure, but few outcome trials proactively enrolled individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed secondary analyses of cardiovascular (CV) and kidney outcomes across baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories (≥60, 45 to <60, 30 to <45, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) in Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA), a cardiorenal placebo-controlled outcome trial of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor linagliptin (NCT01897532). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants with CV disease and/or CKD were included. The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (three-point major adverse CV event [3P-MACE]), with a secondary outcome of renal death, end-stage kidney disease, or sustained ≥40% decrease in eGFR from baseline. Other end points included progression of albuminuria, change in HbA1c, and adverse events (AEs) including hypoglycemia. RESULTS: A total of 6,979 subjects (mean age 65.9 years; eGFR 54.6 mL/min/1.73 m2; 80.1% albuminuria) were followed for 2.2 years. Across eGFR categories, linagliptin as compared with placebo did not affect the risk for 3P-MACE (hazard ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.89, 1.17]) or the secondary kidney outcome (1.04 [0.89, 1.22]) (interaction P values >0.05). Regardless of eGFR, albuminuria progression was reduced with linagliptin, as was HbA1c, without increasing risk for hypoglycemia. AEs were balanced among groups overall and across eGFR categories. CONCLUSIONS: Across all GFR categories, in participants with type 2 diabetes and CKD and/or CV disease, there was no difference in risk for linagliptin versus placebo on CV and kidney events. Significant reductions in risk for albuminuria progression and HbA1c and no difference in AEs were observed.

Effect of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The CAROLINA Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In placebo-controlled cardiovascular safety trials, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin demonstrated noninferiority, but it has not been tested against an active comparator. OBJECTIVE: This trial assessed cardiovascular outcomes of linagliptin vs glimepiride (sulfonylurea) in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes and risk factors for or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from November 2010 to December 2012, conducted at 607 hospital and primary care sites in 43 countries involving 6042 participants. Adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin of 6.5% to 8.5%, and elevated cardiovascular risk were eligible for inclusion. Elevated cardiovascular risk was defined as documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple cardiovascular risk factors, aged at least 70 years, and evidence of microvascular complications. Follow-up ended in August 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of linagliptin once daily (n = 3023) or 1 to 4 mg of glimepiride once daily (n = 3010) in addition to usual care. Investigators were encouraged to intensify glycemic treatment, primarily by adding or adjusting metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or insulin, according to clinical need. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.47% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to glimepiride of less than 1.3. RESULTS: Of 6042 participants randomized, 6033 (mean age, 64.0 years; 2414 [39.9%] women; mean glycated hemoglobin, 7.2%; median duration of diabetes, 6.3 years; 42% with macrovascular disease; 59% had undergone metformin monotherapy) were treated and analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 356 of 3023 participants (11.8%) in the linagliptin group and 362 of 3010 (12.0%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76). Adverse events occurred in 2822 participants (93.4%) in the linagliptin group and 2856 (94.9%) in the glimepiride group, with 15 participants (0.5%) in the linagliptin group vs 16 (0.5%) in the glimepiride group with adjudicated-confirmed acute pancreatitis. At least 1 episode of hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in 320 (10.6%) participants in the linagliptin group and 1132 (37.7%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.26]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with relatively early type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, the use of linagliptin compared with glimepiride over a median 6.3 years resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243424.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial.

AIM: To assess the addition of linagliptin as an alternative to insulin uptitration in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 4, randomized, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 24-week study recruited individuals on stable insulin, with baseline HbA1c 7.0%-10.0%, aged ≥60 years and body mass index ≤45 kg/m2 . HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose were measured at study visits, and participants assessed glycaemic control with a self-monitoring blood glucose device. Adverse events (AEs) were reported during the study. RESULTS: Three hundred and two participants were randomized 1:1 to linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo, with one third of patients from Japan. Study population age and HbA1c (baseline mean ± SD) were 72.4 ± 5.4 years and 8.2 ± 0.8%, respectively; ~80% of participants were aged ≥70 years; 80% had macrovascular complications, one third had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ; and half had been diagnosed with diabetes for >15 years. Linagliptin significantly improved glucose control at 24 weeks (HbA1c-adjusted mean change vs. placebo: -0.63%; P <0.0001) and the probability of achieving predefined HbA1c targets without hypoglycaemia (HbA1c <8.0%: OR 2.02; P <0.05 and HbA1c <7.0%: OR 2.44; P <0.01). Linagliptin versus placebo was well tolerated, with similar incidences of AEs, including clinically important hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of linagliptin improves glucose control without an excess of hypoglycaemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

Effect of Linagliptin vs Placebo on Major Cardiovascular Events in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes and High Cardiovascular and Renal Risk: The CARMELINA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Prior trials have demonstrated CV safety of 3 dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors but have included limited numbers of patients with high CV risk and chronic kidney disease. Objective: To evaluate the effect of linagliptin, a selective DPP-4 inhibitor, on CV outcomes and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of CV and kidney events. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter noninferiority trial conducted from August 2013 to August 2016 at 605 clinic sites in 27 countries among adults with type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin A1c of 6.5% to 10.0%, high CV risk (history of vascular disease and urine-albumin creatinine ratio [UACR] >200 mg/g), and high renal risk (reduced eGFR and micro- or macroalbuminuria). Participants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were excluded. Final follow-up occurred on January 18, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive linagliptin, 5 mg once daily (n = 3494), or placebo once daily (n = 3485) added to usual care. Other glucose-lowering medications or insulin could be added based on clinical need and local clinical guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to first occurrence of the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Criteria for noninferiority of linagliptin vs placebo was defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to placebo being less than 1.3. Secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of adjudicated death due to renal failure, ESRD, or sustained 40% or higher decrease in eGFR from baseline. Results: Of 6991 enrollees, 6979 (mean age, 65.9 years; eGFR, 54.6 mL/min/1.73 m2; 80.1% with UACR >30 mg/g) received at least 1 dose of study medication and 98.7% completed the study. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, the primary outcome occurred in 434 of 3494 (12.4%) and 420 of 3485 (12.1%) in the linagliptin and placebo groups, respectively, (absolute incidence rate difference, 0.13 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.90] per 100 person-years) (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17; P < .001 for noninferiority). The kidney outcome occurred in 327 of 3494 (9.4%) and 306 of 3485 (8.8%), respectively (absolute incidence rate difference, 0.22 [95% CI, -0.52 to 0.97] per 100 person-years) (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.22; P = .62). Adverse events occurred in 2697 (77.2%) and 2723 (78.1%) patients in the linagliptin and placebo groups; 1036 (29.7%) and 1024 (29.4%) had 1 or more episodes of hypoglycemia; and there were 9 (0.3%) vs 5 (0.1%) events of adjudication-confirmed acute pancreatitis. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with type 2 diabetes and high CV and renal risk, linagliptin added to usual care compared with placebo added to usual care resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite CV outcome over a median 2.2 years. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01897532.

Hemodynamic effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in type 2 diabetic patients with albuminuria.

OBJECTIVE: Concomitant treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors is increasingly common. Pharmacological studies have suggested a potential adverse drug interaction between ACE inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors resulting in unfavorable hemodynamic changes; very few studies have examined such an interaction between angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and DPP-4 inhibitors. We investigated blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) during treatment with the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin in individuals receiving either ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the MARLINA-T2D trial. METHODS: In this study, 360 individuals with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria receiving unchanged doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs were randomized to linagliptin or placebo. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, an exploratory endpoint, was conducted at baseline and after 24 weeks. RESULTS: Ambulatory BP monitoring data were available for 208 individuals (linagliptin: n = 111; placebo: n = 97). Baseline mean ±â€ŠSD 24-h SBP and DBP were 132.5 ±â€Š12.4 mmHg and 75.9 ±â€Š9.4 mmHg, respectively; mean 24-h HR was 76.3 ±â€Š10.1 bpm. At week 24, no overall effect of the DPP-4 inhibitor versus placebo was seen on mean 24-h SBP, DBP, or HR. Furthermore, in the subgroups receiving either an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, no effect on these hemodynamic parameters was seen as a result of concomitant DPP-4 inhibitor treatment. CONCLUSION: Adding linagliptin to treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs was not associated with any hemodynamic changes, supporting their concomitant use in individuals with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria.

Linagliptin Effects on Heart Failure and Related Outcomes in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at High Cardiovascular and Renal Risk in CARMELINA.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for heart failure (HF), particularly those with coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease. Some but not all dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been associated with increased HF risk. We performed secondary analyses of HF and related outcomes with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus placebo in CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), a cardiovascular outcomes trial that enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease. METHODS: Participants in 27 countries with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily oral linagliptin 5 mg or placebo, on top of standard of care. All hospitalization for HF (hHF), cardiovascular outcomes, and deaths were prospectively captured and centrally adjudicated. In prespecified and post hoc analyses of HF and related events, Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for region and baseline history of HF were used. Recurrent hHF events were analyzed using a negative binomial model. In a subset of participants with left ventricular ejection fraction captured within the year before randomization, HF-related outcomes were assessed in subgroups stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction > or ≤50%. RESULTS: CARMELINA enrolled 6979 participants (mean age, 65.9 years; estimated glomerular filtration rate, mL/min per 1.73m2; hemoglobin A1c, 8.0%; 62.9% men; diabetes mellitus duration, 14.8 years), including 1873 (26.8%) with a history of HF at baseline. Median follow-up was 2.2 years. Linagliptin versus placebo did not affect the incidence of hHF (209/3494 [6.0%] versus 226/3485 [6.5%], respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.08), the composite of cardiovascular death/hHF (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08), or risk for recurrent hHF events (326 versus 359 events, respectively; rate ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20). There was no heterogeneity of linagliptin effects on hHF by history of HF at baseline, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate or urine albumin-creatinine ratio, or prerandomization left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, international cardiovascular outcome trial in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease, linagliptin did not affect the risk of hHF or other selected HF-related outcomes, including among participants with and without a history of HF, across the spectrum of kidney disease, and independent of previous left ventricular ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01897532.

Linagliptin and its effects on hyperglycaemia and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and renal dysfunction: the randomized MARLINA-T2D trial.

AIMS: The MARLINA-T2D study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01792518) was designed to investigate the glycaemic and renal effects of linagliptin added to standard-of-care in individuals with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. METHODS: A total of 360 individuals with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c 6.5% to 10.0% (48-86 mmol/mol), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) 30-3000 mg/g despite single agent renin-angiotensin-system blockade were randomized to double-blind linagliptin (n = 182) or placebo (n = 178) for 24 weeks. The primary and key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 and time-weighted average of percentage change from baseline in UACR over 24 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: Baseline mean HbA1c and geometric mean (gMean) UACR were 7.8% ± 0.9% (62.2 ± 9.6 mmol/mol) and 126 mg/g, respectively; 73.7% and 20.3% of participants had microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria, respectively. After 24 weeks, the placebo-adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.60% (-6.6 mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.78 to -0.43 [-8.5 to -4.7 mmol/mol]; P < .0001). The placebo-adjusted gMean for time-weighted average of percentage change in UACR from baseline was -6.0% (95% CI, -15.0 to 3.0; P = .1954). The adverse-event profile, including renal safety and change in eGFR, was similar between the linagliptin and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals at early stages of diabetic kidney disease, linagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control but did not significantly lower albuminuria. There was no significant change in placebo-adjusted eGFR. Detection of clinically relevant renal effects of linagliptin may require longer treatment, as its main experimental effects in animal studies have been to reduce interstitial fibrosis rather than alter glomerular haemodynamics.

Initial Combination of Empagliflozin and Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of initial combinations of empagliflozin + metformin with empagliflozin and metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study randomized 1,364 drug-naïve patients (HbA1c >7.5 to ≤12% [>58 to ≤108 mmol/mol]) for 24 weeks to empagliflozin 12.5 mg b.i.d. + metformin 1,000 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 12.5 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 5 mg b.i.d + metformin 1,000 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 5 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 25 mg q.d., empagliflozin 10 mg q.d., metformin 1,000 mg b.i.d., or metformin 500 mg b.i.d. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: At week 24, reductions in HbA1c (mean baseline 8.6-8.9% [70-73 mmol/mol]) were -1.9 to -2.1% with empagliflozin + metformin twice-daily regimens, -1.4% with both empagliflozin once-daily regimens, and -1.2 to -1.8% with metformin twice-daily regimens. Reductions in HbA1c were significantly greater with empagliflozin + metformin twice-daily regimens than with empagliflozin once-daily regimens (P < 0.001) and with metformin twice-daily regimens (P < 0.01). Reductions in weight at week 24 were significantly greater with empagliflozin + metformin twice-daily regimens (range -2.8 to -3.8 kg) than with metformin twice-daily regimens (-0.5 to -1.3 kg) (P < 0.001 for all). Adverse event (AE) rates were similar across groups (56.7-66.3%). No hypoglycemic AEs required assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combinations of empagliflozin + metformin for 24 weeks significantly reduced HbA1c versus empagliflozin once daily and metformin twice daily, without increased hypoglycemia, reduced weight versus metformin twice daily, and were well tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: Analysis of pooled events from 19 clinical trials.

AIMS: To examine the safety and efficacy of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD) using pooled data from the global clinical trials program. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin (5mg, monotherapy or combination therapy). Safety/efficacy analyses were conducted for patients with CAD and ≥12 and ≥24weeks of treatment, respectively. RESULTS: The safety analysis included 19 trials (linagliptin, n=451; placebo, n=272) and the efficacy analysis, 12 trials (linagliptin, n=328; placebo, n=198); mean (± standard deviation) exposure to study treatment was 212 (144) days linagliptin and 245 (171) days placebo. Occurrence of cardiac adverse events (AEs) was similar for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (9.1% and 9.2%, respectively); exposure-adjusted incidence rates (per 100 patient-years) were 16.6 and 14.0, respectively. Overall incidence of AEs was numerically lower with linagliptin than placebo. After 24weeks, mean adjusted change (standard error) from baseline glycosylated hemoglobin was -0.64% (0.04) with linagliptin vs. -0.08% (0.05) with placebo (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive pooled analysis showed that addition of linagliptin to treatment regimens of patients with T2DM and CAD was not associated with an increased incidence of cardiac AEs, was well tolerated, and was effective.

Pharmacokinetics of fixed-dose combinations of empagliflozin/metformin compared with individual tablets in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablets of empagliflozin/metformin with individual tablets taken together. METHODS: In 3 randomized, open-label studies, healthy subjects received a single FDC tablet of empagliflozin/metformin in 1 of 6 dose combinations (empagliflozin 12.5 mg or 5 mg; metformin 500 mg, 850 mg, or 1,000 mg) in 1 period and the individual tablets taken together under fed conditions in another period. Empagliflozin 12.5 mg/metformin 1,000 mg FDC and individual tablets were also given under fasted conditions. RESULTS: Adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of empagliflozin area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0-∞)) for the FDCs vs. individual tablets ranged from 97.92 to 106.00%, and 90% CIs ranged from 93.53 to 109.39%. Adjusted GMRs of empagliflozin maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) for the FDCs vs. individual tablets ranged from 100.97 to 106.52%, and 90% CIs ranged from 95.86 to 118.35%. Adjusted GMRs of metformin AUC(0-∞) for the FDCs vs. individual tablets ranged from 96.25 to 101.61%, and 90% CIs ranged from 88.54 to 106.62%. Adjusted GMRs of metformin C(max) for the FDCs vs. individual tablets ranged from 93.83 to 102.95%, and 90% CIs ranged from 88.01 to 109.08%. Bioequivalence was also established under fasted conditions for empagliflozin 12.5 mg/metformin 1,000 mg FDC vs. individual tablets taken together. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin/metformin FDC tablets were found to be bioequivalent to individual tablets taken together at all tested dose strengths.

Empagliflozin as add-on to metformin plus sulphonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes.

This study investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of empagliflozin as add-on to metformin plus sulphonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Of 666 patients treated with empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg or placebo once daily for 24 weeks, 472 patients (70.9%) were treated in a double-blind extension trial for ≥52 weeks. Pre-specified exploratory endpoints included changes from baseline in HbA(1c), weight and blood pressure at week 76. At week 76, adjusted mean differences versus placebo in change from baseline in HbA(1c) were -0.7% (-8 mmol/mol) with empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg (both p<0.001), in weight were -1.8 kg and -1.6 kg with empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively (both p<0.001), and in systolic blood pressure (SBP) were -2.2 mmHg with empagliflozin 10 mg (p=0.021) and -2.1 mmHg with empagliflozin 25 mg (p=0.029). Sensitivity analyses provided consistent results for HbA1c and weight, but showed no significant difference between empagliflozin and placebo in change from baseline in SBP. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 81.7%, 82.0% and 81.3% of patients on empagliflozin 10 mg, 25 mg and placebo, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemic AEs (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l and/or requiring assistance) were reported in 23.7%, 19.4% and 15.6% of patients on empagliflozin 10 mg, 25 mg and placebo, respectively; one patient each on empagliflozin 10mg and placebo required assistance. In conclusion, empagliflozin as add-on to metformin plus sulphonylurea for 76 weeks was well tolerated and led to sustained reductions in HbA1c and weight versus placebo. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01289990.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Twice Daily and Once Daily Regimens of Empagliflozin in Healthy Subjects.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily (BID) and 10 mg once daily (QD) in healthy subjects. METHODS: In an open-label, 2-way crossover study, subjects (n = 16) received empagliflozin 5 mg BID for 5 days and empagliflozin 10 mg QD for 5 days in a randomized order, with a washout period of ≥6 days between each treatment. The primary objective was the comparison of the overall exposure during a 24-hour period at steady state (AUC0-24,ss) for empagliflozin, based on standard bioequivalence criteria, with BID and QD dose regimens. FINDINGS: The study population comprised 7 (43.8%) men and 9 (56.3%) women with a baseline median age of 38.0 years (range, 23-47 years) and a median body mass index of 23.3 kg/m(2) (range, 19.8-27.8 kg/m(2)). Based on standard bioequivalence criteria, there was no difference in the overall exposure of empagliflozin between BID and QD dose regimens (geometric mean ratio of AUC0-24,ss for empagliflozin 5 mg BID compared with empagliflozin 10 mg QD = 99.36%; 90% CI, 94.29-104.71). For empagliflozin 10 mg QD, mean (%CV) AUC during the dosing interval was 1900 nmol · h/L (20.6%), mean (%CV) Cmax,ss was 330 nmol/L (25.3%), and median (range) Tmax,ss was 1.0 hour (0.7-2.0 hours). For empagliflozin 5 mg BID, mean (%CV) AUC during the dosing interval was 1010 nmol · h/L (15.1%) and 867 nmol · h/L (18.6%) after the morning and evening dose, respectively, mean (%CV) Cmax,ss was 193 nmol/L (16.5%) and 120 nmol/L (21.0%), respectively, and median Tmax,ss was 1.0 hour (range, 0.7-2.0 hours) and 2.0 hours (range, 1.0-4.0 hours), respectively. The mean (%CV) cumulative amount of glucose excreted in urine during 24 hours was 52.1 g (32.1%) with empagliflozin 5 mg BID and 43.9 g (30.3%) with empagliflozin 10 mg QD. Adverse events were reported in six subjects (37.5%) receiving empagliflozin 5 mg BID and four (25.0%) receiving empagliflozin 10 mg QD. Headache was the most frequent AE. No severe, serious, or drug-related AEs were reported. IMPLICATIONS: There were no clinically relevant differences in pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties between BID and QD dose regimens of empagliflozin in healthy subjects. Both dose regimens were well tolerated. EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) number: 2009-012524-90.

Relative bioavailability study of linagliptin/metformin tablets in healthy Chinese subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative bioavailability of single pill combination (SPC) tablets of linagliptin and metformin compared with separate tablets co-administered in healthy Chinese subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-period, crossover study in healthy Chinese subjects with two dose groups: linagliptin 2.5 mg/metformin 850 mg and linagliptin 2.5 mg/metformin 500 mg. Within each group (n=24), subjects received one dose of the SPC tablet in one period and one dose of the separate tablets in the other. Primary endpoints were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC0-72) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for linagliptin, and AUC from 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-tz) and Cmax for metformin. RESULTS: With the linagliptin 2.5 mg/metformin 850 mg dose, the adjusted geometric mean ratio of the SPC to the separate tablets for linagliptin was 99.53% (90% confidence interval (CI): 94.75-104.55) for AUC0-72 and 101.93% (90% CI: 95.36-108.95) for Cmax; for metformin the ratio was 96.99% (90% CI: 90.62-103.81) for AUC0-tz and 94.64% (90% CI: 85.43-104.84) for Cmax. With the linagliptin 2.5 mg/metformin 500 mg dose, the ratio with linagliptin for AUC0-72 and Cmax was 100.81% (90% CI: 95.14-106.82) and 111.37% (90% CI: 100.40-123.54), respectively; the same statistical parameters with metformin for AUC0-tz and Cmax were 102.95% (90% CI: 96.24-110.12) and 102.46% (90% CI: 92.20-113.87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SPC tablets of linagliptin and metformin were bioequivalent to separate tablets co-administered in healthy Chinese subjects.

Linagliptin fixed-dose combination with metformin is bioequivalent to co-administration of linagliptin and metformin as individual tablets.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate bioequivalence of linagliptin/metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablets and the corresponding combination of individual tablets taken together, i.e., free-pill (FP) treatment. METHODS: Three dosing combinations were evaluated in three separate randomized studies: linagliptin 2.5 mg with 500 mg, 850 mg, or 1,000 mg metformin. These studies used a prospective, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover design to evaluate bioequivalence in healthy volunteers (n = 287). After an overnight fast, participants received an FDC tablet once, and on a separate visit received the corresponding FP treatment. The two possible treatment sequences (FDC/FP and FP/FDC) were randomly allocated to the participants. A washout period of 35 days separated the two study treatments. The primary endpoints were maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of linagliptin and metformin, area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC0-72) for linagliptin, and from 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf) for metformin. RESULTS: The 90% confidence intervals of the adjusted geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC (calculated as FDC/ FP) were within the bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. The number of participants reporting at least one adverse event following FDC treatments was comparable to, or less than, that following FP treatments. Evaluation of vital signs and clinical laboratory tests revealed no safety issues. CONCLUSIONS: FDC tablets of linagliptin and metformin are bioequivalent to individual tablets of respective dose strengths taken together. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Effect of food and tablet-dissolution characteristics on the bioavailability of linagliptin fixed-dose combination with metformin: evidence from two randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the studies reported here were to determine the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin when administered in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet with and without food, and to investigate the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin FDC tablets from two treatment batches with different dissolution behavior. METHODS: These studies were open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-way crossover trials. After an overnight fast, healthy volunteers received an FDC tablet once (with/without food in the food-effect study; or from one of two batches with differing dissolution behavior in the tablet-dissolution study). On a separate visit, following a washout period of 35 days, participants received the alternative treatment. In the food-effect study the primary endpoints were maximum measured concentration in plasma (C(max)) for linagliptin and metformin, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC(0-72)) for linagliptin and from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-inf)) for metformin. In the tablet-dissolution study the primary endpoints were Cmax for both analytes, AUC(0-72) for linagliptin, and from 0 to the time of the last quantifiable data point (AUC(0-t)) for metformin. RESULTS: The administration of the FDC tablet with food had no influence on the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin with regard to the extent of exposure as determined by AUC(0-72) (linagliptin) and AUC(0-inf) (metformin) compared with FDC tablet administration while fasting. After food intake, peak plasma concentrations of linagliptin were slightly lowered (from 4.99 to 4.56 nmol L⁻¹), but the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean test/reference ratio was still located within the generally applied bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. The median time from dosing to the maximum concentration of linagliptin in plasma (t(max)) was similar under both conditions. Administration with food reduced the rate of absorption of metformin indicated by a prolongation in median tmax (from 2 to 4 hours) and a decrease in Cmax by ~ 18%. There were no notable differences between the two treatment groups with respect to safety and tolerability. In the tablet-dissolution study, bioequivalence was demonstrated between linagliptin/metformin FDC tablets with normal and slower dissolution characteristics. For both linagliptin and metformin, the 90% CI of all pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were well within the bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. Tablets from both batches were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Food did not have a relevant impact on the bioavailability of linagliptin from the FDC tablet. The effect of food on the metformin component was comparable to that previously demonstrated. Furthermore, differences in tablet-dissolution characteristics did not have an impact on the bioavailability of linagliptin or metformin from the FDC tablet.