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

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

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend adding an oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on metformin. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that adding dual AHAs instead of a single AHA provided more effective glycemic control. However, the comparative efficacy of approved single and dual initiation strategies is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of dual and single add-on oral AHAs in patients uncontrolled on metformin. METHODS: A systematic literature review of RCTs was conducted following Cochrane and ISPOR guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 19, 2019. Approved oral doses of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in single or dual initiation therapies were indirectly compared. Outcomes focused on efficacy and included mean change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and achieving HbA1c target < 7% at 24-26 weeks. Fixed and random effects models with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations were used. RESULTS: Of 1955 unique records screened, 25 RCTs (14,264 participants) were included. In patients uncontrolled on metformin, dual AHA added to metformin had statistically significant or a trend of greater reduction in HbA1c compared to single AHAs, with ertugliflozin + sitagliptin showing the greatest improvement. Statistically significant reductions in weight and SBP were observed with ertugliflozin + sitagliptin, ertugliflozin, or canagliflozin compared to single initiation DPP-4 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: For reduction of HbA1c, weight, and SBP in patients uncontrolled on metformin, add-on dual AHAs showed greater improvement compared to single AHAs. These findings can further inform the treatment of T2DM patients uncontrolled on metformin.

[Adherence to Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents (Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Biguanides) and Its Associated Factors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes].

To investigate medication adherence to oral antihyperglycemic agents and its associated factors in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients, a questionnaire survey was conducted in 983 adult patients receiving once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitor) or BID biguanides (BG) as monotherapy at 502 pharmacies in Japan. The percentage of patients with good adherence (the proportion of days in which patients took all pills as prescribed in the past 7 days ≥80%) was high (≥90%) in any dosing regimen with no significant difference among the groups. The following factors were identified as associating with good adherence: the longer duration of type 2 diabetes (≥1 year) (p=0.002), "Feeling your disease gets worse if you don't take medications" (p=0.031), "Not forgetting to bring along your medicine when you leave home" (p=0.007), "Feeling anxiety on taking medications for long period of time" (p=0.042), "Neither feeling nor not feeling anxiety on taking medications for a long period of time" (p=0.004), "Never run out of your medicine because you get a refill on time" (p=0.035), and the lower MMAS-4 score (p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed that adherence of younger patients (<65 years) with BG (BID) was lower than those with DPP-4 inhibitor (QD) (p=0.021). Additionally, around 60% of patients currently prescribed with QD preferred QD regimen, and ≥80% patients prescribed with BID equally preferred once-weekly or QD regimen, suggesting a large discrepancy exists between their preference and the actual regimen in patients on BID.

Factors associated with reluctance to initiate or continue oral antihyperglycemic agent (OAHA) treatments in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Japan: An observational patient-reported study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is undertreated in Japan. We sought to understand the potential factors associated with reluctance to initiate/continue oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAHA) treatment in Japan. METHODS: A two-phase study was conducted which included cognitive interviews in the first phase (N = 12) to ensure retrieval from memory of relevant information to respond to questions. The second phase included recruitment of respondents from an internet re-contact survey (N = 560) using NHWS or other Lightspeed panels. Patients' self-reported measures were collected to identify the potential barriers to T2DM treatment initiation or continuation. All measured variables were summarized descriptively using means and standard deviations for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 560 respondents were assessed. Of those who were drug-naïve and ever been recommended prescription medication, only 17.3% were satisfied with how physicians presented the treatment options compared to current users or those who discontinued treatment (47.2% and 47.6% respectively). More than 50% of respondents did not realize neuropathic pain and end organ damage as potential consequences of untreated T2DM. 34.8% and 47.6% of drug-naïve and T2DM respondents who discontinued treatment were likely to start/restart treatment after realizing potential complications. Among those who discontinued treatment, 23.1% were extremely dissatisfied with their dosing frequency and less than 15% reported that their physicians discussed the importance of staying on medication long-term. CONCLUSION: The potential barriers addressed in this study should be considered when planning intervention strategies targeted at T2DM patients to promote their treatment in Japan.

A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin, a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (n = 376) or glimepiride up to 6 mg once daily (n = 375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at week 54. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.30% in the omarigliptin group and -0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.4 kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5 kg). CONCLUSIONS: After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss vs weight gain.

Efficacy and safety of metformin and sitagliptin based triple antihyperglycemic therapy (STRATEGY): a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial.

Despite the current guideline's recommendation of a timely stepwise intensification therapy, the "clinical inertia", termed as the delayed treatment intensification, commonly exists in the real world, which may be partly due to the relatively little substantial evidence and no clear consensus regarding the efficacy and safety of triple oral agents in patients inadequately controlled with dual therapy. In this clinical trial performed in 237 centers in China, 5,535 type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled by previous therapies were treated with a stable metformin/sitagliptin dual therapy for 20 weeks. The patients who did not reach the glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) goal were then further randomized into glimepiride, gliclazide, repaglinide, or acarbose group for an additional 24-week triple therapy. A mean HbA1c reduction of 0.85% was observed when sitagliptin was added to the patients inadequately controlled with metformin in 16 weeks. Further HbA1c reductions in the 24-week triple therapy stage were 0.65% in glimepiride group, 0.70% in gliclazide group, 0.61% in repaglinide group, and 0.45% in acarbose group. The non-inferiority criterion for primary hypotheses was met for gliclazide and repaglinide, but not for acarbose, compared with glimepiride, when added to metformin/sitagliptin dual therapy. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 29.2% in the dual therapy stage and 30.3% in the triple therapy stage. Metformin/sitagliptin as baseline therapy, with the addition of a third oral antihyperglycemic agent, including glimepiride, gliclazide, repaglinide, or acarbose, was effective, safe and well-tolerated for achieving an HbA1c <7.0% goal in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with previous therapies. The timely augmentation of up to three oral antihyperglycemic agents is valid and of important clinical benefit to prevent patients from exposure to unnecessarily prolonged hyperglycemia.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Adding Omarigliptin to Antihyperglycemic Therapies in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Inadequate Glycemic Control.

INTRODUCTION: Daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are commonly used with other orally administered antihyperglycemic agents (AHA), as combination therapy, to treat Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. When combination therapy is indicated, use of a once-weekly (q.w.) orally administered DPP-4 inhibitor might be an appropriate therapeutic option for some patients. METHODS: A 52-week trial was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability (primary objectives) and glycemic efficacy (secondary objectives) of the q.w. DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin as add-on therapy to five different classes of orally administered AHA [sulfonylurea (SU), glinide (GL), biguanide (BG), thiazolidinedione (TZD), or α-glucosidase inhibitor (AGI)] commonly used in Japan and having different mechanisms of drug action from DPP-4 inhibitors. The trial consisted of an initial 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period during which patients (stratified by background AHA) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or placebo, followed by a 28-week open-label period during which patients on placebo were switched to omarigliptin. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, the percentages of patients with adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs, AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia, or who discontinued from trial medication because of an AE were generally similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups, in all background AHA strata and in the overall population. From a mean baseline HbA1c of approximately 8.0%, the placebo-adjusted least-squares mean changes from baseline ranged from -0.80% (AGI stratum) to -1.16% (TZD stratum); p < 0.001 for all background AHA strata. During the open-label period, no safety signals emerged with longer-term treatment. At week 52, the change from baseline in HbA1c in the omarigliptin/omarigliptin group was similar to that of the placebo/omarigliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of once-weekly omarigliptin to AHA therapy with an SU, GL, BG, TZD, or AGI for up to 52 weeks was generally safe and well tolerated, and provided persistent efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01697592. FUNDING: MSD K.K., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Use of Prohibited Medication, a Potentially Overlooked Confounder in Clinical Trials: Omarigliptin (Once-weekly DPP-4 Inhibitor) Monotherapy Trial in 18- to 45-year-olds.

PURPOSE: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin monotherapy in young adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Unexpected efficacy results in this trial led to a series of investigations that identified the use of prohibited medication by a substantial number of trial patients. METHODS: Patients with T2DM who were ≥18 to <45 years of age and either drug-naive or not on an antihyperglycemic agent for ≥12 weeks with inadequate glycemic control were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 102) or placebo once weekly (n = 101) for 24 weeks. The objectives of the trial were to assess the effect of treatment with omarigliptin on glycemic parameters, including levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 2-hour postmeal glucose, and fasting plasma glucose, and to assess the safety and tolerability of omarigliptin. Additional investigations into trial conduct included the measurement of drug levels for omarigliptin and metformin in blood samples collected for future biomedical research, available for approximately one half of the patients. FINDINGS: The mean age of trial participants was 39.2 years, approximately 60% were male, mean body mass index was 32.5 kg/m2, and mean duration of diabetes was 3.1 years. The mean baseline HbA1c value was 7.9% in the omarigliptin group and 8.1% in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, the least squares mean change (95% CI) in HbA1c value from baseline was -0.33% (-0.60 to -0.06) in the omarigliptin group and -0.45% (-0.72 to -0.18) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference of 0.12% (-0.26 to 0.49; P = 0.535). Similarly, no between-group difference was observed for the other glycemic parameters (2-hour postmeal glucose and fasting plasma glucose levels). No issues were identified in drug allocation, dispensing or supply, patient compliance with trial medication, sample handling or analysis, or site trial conduct that explained the observed results. Measurement of drug levels from future biomedical research samples uncovered the use, with no investigator knowledge, of an antihyperglycemic agent that was prohibited by the protocol (ie, metformin) by 42.4% (39 of 92) of patients. Metformin was used by more patients in the placebo group (57% [25 of 44]) than in the omarigliptin group (29% [14 of 48]). IMPLICATIONS: The use of prohibited metformin in a trial of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, introduced a confounding factor that invalidated the results of the trial. This behavior may have been encouraged in the trial by protocol-specified self-monitoring of blood glucose levels. Use of prohibited medication may be an underappreciated confounder in clinical trial research. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: MK-3102-028 (US); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01814748; EudraCT number, 2012-004303-12 (EU).

Effect of antihyperglycemic drug monotherapy to prevent the progression of mild hyperglycemia in early type 2 diabetic patients: the Japan Early Diabetes Intervention Study (JEDIS).

To effectively prevent the worsening of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus, it is of interest to see the clinical efficacy of early introduction of pharmacotherapy in addition to lifestyle intervention which is not always easy to continue throughout life. This is a randomized unblinded comparative clinical study on suppressive effects of lifestyle intervention alone and additional monotherapies for mild hyperglycemia at an early stage of treatment-naïve type 2 diabetic patients, whose fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) are less than 140 mg/dl and 7.4%, respectively. The control group (group N = arm N) received conventional lifestyle intervention assisted by routine facilities, while the pharmacological intervention group (group D composed of 4 arms) was additionally treated by monotherapy with one of four kinds of oral antihyperglycemic agents i.e., sulfonylurea (SU), α-glucosidase inhibitor, biguanide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The participants were scheduled to follow up for 3 years to maintain glycemic control below primary endpoint which was defined as the first occurrence of FPG ≥140 mg/dl and HbA1c ≥7.4% simultaneously even by increasing doses of oral drug in group D, if necessary. The outcomes of occurrences of primary endpoint were not different between group N and group D composed of 4 arms during 3 years by Kaplan-Meyer plots (p = 0.405). On the other hand, ΔFPG (Δ: incremental change from baseline) and ΔHbA1c in group D significantly decreased when compared to those of group N during 3 years (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively). Significant reductions of ΔBMI were seen similarly in both groups throughout the study (p < 0.05), but did not differ between two groups. Among these 5 arms, significant decreases of ΔHbA1c were observed in three monotherapy arms of group D compared to arm N for 3 years (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01), except for arm SU in which ΔBMI and ΔHbA1c tended to increase at the latter half of the study. The final achievement rates of target HbA1c less than 7.4, 7.0 and 6.5% in all the participants tended to be higher in group D than in group N (p < 0.047 for 7.4%, but not significant for others). In conclusion, the early introduction of pharmacological monotherapy in addition to lifestyle intervention seem to suppress mild hyperglycemia with small doses of antihyperglycemic agents for 3 years, except for the use of SU drug. Although a larger scale of trial will be necessary to conclude, the early treatment with suitable monotherapy could be effective to bring and keep "safe level of glycemia".

Management of dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia with a fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and simvastatin.

The risk of death due to heart disease and stroke is up to four times higher in individuals with diabetes compared to individuals without diabetes. Most guidelines that address treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes consider diabetes a cardiovascular disease (CVD) "risk equivalent" and recommend intensive treatment of dyslipidemia for the purpose of CVD prevention. Statins (3-hydroxy 3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase [HMG-CoA reductase] inhibitors) are first-line agents in achieving lipid goals as an adjunct to diet and exercise and should be used in most patients. In addition to lipid management and blood pressure control, glycemic control is a basic component in the management of diabetes. Glycemic control is achieved by combining diabetes self-management education, diet and exercise, and, where required, antihyperglycemic agents (OHAs). Persistence and adherence to therapy are critical in achieving recommended treatment goals. However, overall compliance with concomitantly prescribed OHAs and statins is low in patients with type 2 diabetes. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies have been shown to improve adherence by reducing pill burden, the complexity of treatment regimen, and, potentially, cost. Based on the available evidence regarding the pharmacokinetics and the efficacy and safety profiles of each component drug, the sitagliptin/simvastatin FDC may provide a rational and well-tolerated approach to achieving better adherence to multiple-drug therapy and improved lipid lowering and glycemic control, with consequent reduction in cardiovascular risk, diabetic microvascular disease, and mortality in diabetic patients for whom treatment with both compounds is appropriate.