Albuterol-Budesonide Fixed-Dose Combination Rescue Inhaler for Asthma.

BACKGROUND: As asthma symptoms worsen, patients typically rely on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) rescue therapy, but SABAs do not address worsening inflammation, which leaves patients at risk for severe asthma exacerbations. The use of a fixed-dose combination of albuterol and budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication might reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol-budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies, which were continued throughout the trial. Adults and adolescents (≥12 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three trial groups: a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 160 µg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg and 80 µg, respectively [the higher-dose combination group]), a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 80 µg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg and 40 µg, respectively [the lower-dose combination group]), or 180 µg of albuterol (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg [the albuterol-alone group]). Children 4 to 11 years of age were randomly assigned to only the lower-dose combination group or the albuterol-alone group. The primary efficacy end point was the first event of severe asthma exacerbation in a time-to-event analysis, which was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 3132 patients underwent randomization, among whom 97% were 12 years of age or older. The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower, by 26%, in the higher-dose combination group than in the albuterol-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The hazard ratio in the lower-dose combination group, as compared with the albuterol-alone group, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = 0.052). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the three trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower with as-needed use of a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 160 µg of budesonide than with as-needed use of albuterol alone among patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving a wide range of inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies. (Funded by Avillion; MANDALA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03769090.).

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of half-life extended SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) in healthy Japanese adults.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) in healthy Japanese adults. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, AZD7442 was administered intramuscularly (300 or 600 mg) or intravenously (300 or 1000 mg) to healthy Japanese adults. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibody activities were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants were randomized to receive AZD7442 (n = 30) or placebo (n = 10). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 12 (40%) and 3 (30%) participants, respectively; there were no deaths, serious AEs, or AEs leading to study withdrawal. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab had mean half-lives of 82.1-95.9 and 77.9-92.0 days, respectively, which were generally similar regardless of administration route. SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibody titers were >4-fold higher than baseline levels from Day 8 to Day 211 in participants receiving AZD7442. CONCLUSIONS: AZD7442 was well tolerated in healthy Japanese adults, with predictable pharmacokinetics and an extended half-life, consistent with previous studies. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04896541.

Albuterol/budesonide for the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma: The TYREE study.

BACKGROUND: PT027 is a fixed-dose combination of albuterol (salbutamol) and budesonide in a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol/budesonide compared with placebo in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, single-dose crossover study, adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB (defined by ≥20% decrease from pre-exercise challenge forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) were randomized to albuterol/budesonide (180/160 µg) followed by placebo (n = 29) or the reverse sequence (n = 31). Subjects were stratified by background therapy (as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist alone or low-to-medium dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist). FEV1 was measured 5 minutes pre-dose, 30 minutes postdose (5 minutes pre-exercise challenge [baseline]), and 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall from baseline in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge. RESULTS: Least squares mean maximum percentage fall in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge was 5.45% with albuterol/budesonide vs 18.97% with placebo (difference, -13.51% [95% confidence interval, -16.94% to -10.09%]; P < .001). More subjects were fully protected (maximum percentage fall in FEV1 post-exercise challenge < 10%) with albuterol/budesonide than with placebo (78.3% vs 28.3%; P < .001). The treatment effect was consistent irrespective of background inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and albuterol/budesonide was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB, a single dose of albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg taken approximately 30 minutes before exercise was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing EIB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04234464.

Effect of Intensive Urate Lowering With Combined Verinurad and Febuxostat on Albuminuria in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Hyperuricemia has been implicated in the development and progression of chronic kidney disease. Verinurad is a novel, potent, specific urate reabsorption inhibitor. We evaluated the effects on albuminuria of intensive urate-lowering therapy with verinurad combined with the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat in patients with hyperuricemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). STUDY DESIGN: Phase 2, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years or older with hyperuricemia, albuminuria, and T2DM. INTERVENTION: Patients randomly assigned 1:1 to verinurad (9mg) plus febuxostat (80mg) or matched placebo once daily for 24 weeks. OUTCOMES: The primary end point was change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline after 12 weeks' treatment. Secondary end points included safety and tolerability and effect on glomerular filtration. RESULTS: 60 patients were enrolled (n=32, verinurad and febuxostat; n=28, placebo). UACRs after treatment with verinurad plus febuxostat were lower than after placebo at 1, 12, and 24 weeks: -38.6% (90% CI, -60.9% to-3.6%), -39.4% (90% CI, -61.8% to-3.8%), and-49.3% (90% CI, -68.2% to-19.0%), respectively. Serum urate levels after treatment with verinurad plus febuxostat were 59.6% and 63.7% lower than after placebo at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. No clinically meaningful changes were observed in estimated glomerular filtration rate or serum creatinine or serum cystatin C concentrations. Verinurad plus febuxostat was well tolerated. LIMITATIONS: Sample size and study duration were insufficient to evaluate definitive effects of verinurad plus febuxostat on UACR and glomerular filtration. Generalizability was limited by exclusion of patients with stages 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Verinurad plus febuxostat reduced albuminuria and lowered serum urate concentrations in patients with T2DM, albuminuria, and hyperuricemia. Definitive assessment of their combined impact on preservation of kidney function awaits larger clinical studies. FUNDING: This study was supported by AstraZeneca. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03118739.

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus insulin glargine over 52 weeks as add-on to metformin with or without sulphonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, parallel-design, open-label, Phase 3 trial.

AIM: Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin (DAPA + SAXA) were compared with insulin glargine (INS) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a 52-week extension study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This international Phase 3 study randomized adults with T2D on metformin with/without sulphonylurea. They received DAPA + SAXA or INS for 24 weeks (short-term) with a 28-week (long-term) extension. Week 52 exploratory endpoints included adjusted mean change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight, and a proportion of patients achieving optimal glycaemic response without hypoglycaemia and without requiring rescue medication. RESULTS: Of the 1163 patients enrolled, 643 received treatment; 600 (DAPA + SAXA, 306; INS, 294) entered the long-term phase. At 52 weeks, HbA1c [adjusted least squares (LS) mean; 95% confidence interval (CI)] decreased more with DAPA + SAXA (-1.5% [-1.6%, -1.4%]) than with INS (-1.3% [-1.4%, -1.1%]); the LS mean difference (95% CI) was -0.25% (-0.4%, -0.1%; P = 0.009). Total body weight reduced with DAPA + SAXA [LS mean (95% CI): -1.8 kg (-2.4, -1.3)] and increased with INS [LS mean (95% CI): +2.8 kg (2.2, 3.3)]. More patients on DAPA + SAXA (17.6%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% without hypoglycaemia versus those on INS (9.1%). Rescue medication was required by 77 patients (23.8%) and 97 patients (30.4%) in the DAPA + SAXA and INS groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: DAPA + SAXA treatment was non-inferior to INS in reducing HbA1c and body weight, and in achieving optimal glycaemic control without hypoglycaemia in patients with T2D 52 weeks after initiation.

Dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin add-on to metformin reduces liver fat and adipose tissue volume in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the effects of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin plus metformin versus glimepiride plus metformin on liver fat (proton density fat fraction) and visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue volumes over 52 weeks of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a magnetic resonance imaging substudy of a 52-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin 10 mg/day plus saxagliptin 5 mg/day versus titrated glimepiride 1-6 mg (1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 mg) in 82 patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7.5%-10.5%) on metformin ≥1500 mg/day background. Analyses were exploratory and not controlled for multiplicity; P-values are nominal. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on 59 patients; liver fat and adipose tissue volumes were analysed for 59 and 57 patients, respectively. There was a significant >30% reduction from baseline in liver fat (P = 0.007) and >10% reduction in adipose tissue volumes (P < 0.01) with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin plus metformin at week 52 versus glimepiride plus metformin. In the full-study population, dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin plus metformin decreased body weight and serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels over 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin significantly decreased liver fat and adipose tissue volume versus glimepiride, and reduced serum liver enzyme levels, indicating a favourable metabolic profile of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin therapy.

Efficacy and safety of dual add-on therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus glimepiride in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin: Results from a 52-week, randomized, active-controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin (DAPA) + saxagliptin (SAXA) compared with glimepiride (GLIM) in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5-10.5% (58-91 mmol/mol)] on metformin monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled study (NCT02419612) randomized (1:1) patients on metformin to add-on DAPA 10 mg + SAXA 5 mg (n = 227) or GLIM 1-6 mg (titrated; n = 217). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52. RESULTS: Baseline mean ± standard deviation of age, duration of diabetes and HbA1c were 56.1 ± 9.7 years, 7.8 ± 6.4 years and 8.5% ± 0.8% (69 ± 9.0 mmol/mol), respectively. Adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -1.35% (-14.8 mmol/mol) with DAPA + SAXA versus -0.98% (-10.7 mmol/mol) with GLIM (P <0.001). Changes from baseline in body weight and systolic blood pressure were -3.1 kg and -2.6 mmHg with DAPA + SAXA versus +1.0 kg (P <0.001) and +1.0 mmHg (P = 0.007) with GLIM. More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) (44.3% vs. 34.3%; P = 0.044), and fewer patients required treatment intensification (1.3% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.002) with DAPA + SAXA than with GLIM. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with GLIM, concurrent addition of DAPA + SAXA significantly improved glycaemic control, body weight and other metabolic parameters in patients inadequately controlled on metformin. Trial: NCT02419612, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Triple therapy with low-dose dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus dual therapy with each monocomponent, all added to metformin, in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with low-dose dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin added to metformin in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 24-week, double-blind trial (NCT02681094) randomized 883 patients (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5-10.0%) on metformin ≥1500 mg/d to add-on dapagliflozin 5 mg/d plus saxagliptin 5 mg/d or to add-on of either monocomponent. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline. RESULTS: Baseline mean ± SD patient characteristics were: age 56.7 ± 10.5 years; HbA1c 8.2 ± 0.9%; and diabetes duration 7.6 ± 6.1 years. Triple therapy significantly decreased HbA1c versus dual therapy (-1.03% vs. -0.63% [dapagliflozin] vs. -0.69% [saxagliptin]; P < .0001). More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with triple versus dual therapy (41.6% vs. 21.8% [dapagliflozin; P < .0001] vs. 29.8% [saxagliptin; P = .0018]). Triple therapy significantly decreased fasting plasma glucose (-1.5 mmol/L vs. -1.1 mmol/L [dapagliflozin; P = .0135] vs. -0.7 mmol/L [saxagliptin; P < .0001]) and body weight (-2.0 kg vs. -0.4 kg [saxagliptin; P < .0001]), and ß-hydroxybutyrate levels were lower than with dapagliflozin plus metformin (mean difference -0.51; P = .0009). Urinary tract/genital infections and hypoglycaemia occurred in <5.0% and 5.8% of patients, respectively, with triple therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with once-daily dapagliflozin 5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg and metformin significantly improved glycaemic control versus dual therapy with either agent added to metformin in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and was generally well tolerated.

Sustained 52-week efficacy and safety of triple therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus dual therapy with sitagliptin added to metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of an intensification strategy of early triple combination therapy with dapagliflozin (DAPA) plus saxagliptin (SAXA) to a dual therapy strategy with sitagliptin (SITA) in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin (MET) monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational, active-controlled, parallel-group phase 3b trial randomized 461 patients, at least 18 years of age, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8%-10.5% (64-91 mmol/mol), to either DAPA plus SAXA or SITA, added to MET, for a 26-week double-blind treatment period and an extension of a 26-week blinded treatment period. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) baseline HbA1c was 8.8% ± 0.9% (73.0 ± 9.3 mmol/mol). DAPA plus SAXA (n = 232) provided a greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c at Weeks 26 and 52 compared with SITA (n = 229) (adjusted mean ± SE change, Week 26: -1.41 ± 0.07% vs -1.07 ± 0.07% [-15.4 ± 0.8 mmol/mol vs 11.7 ± 0.8 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0008; Week 52: -1.29 ± 0.08% vs -0.81 ± 0.09% [14.1 ± 0.9 mmol/mol vs 8.9 ± 1.0 mmol/mol]). The between-group difference in adjusted mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c increased from -0.34 (-0.54, -0.14) at Week 26 to -0.48 (-0.71, -0.25) at Week 52. DAPA plus SAXA was generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Early intensification to triple therapy with DAPA plus SAXA results in better, more durable glycaemic control than addition of SITA only (dual therapy) in patients with high HbA1c levels who are uncontrolled with MET monotherapy.

Safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin, saxagliptin and metformin in combination: Post-hoc analysis of concomitant add-on versus sequential add-on to metformin and of triple versus dual therapy with metformin.

The safety of triple oral therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin plus metformin versus dual therapy with dapagliflozin or saxagliptin plus metformin was compared in a post-hoc analysis of 3 randomized trials of sequential or concomitant add-on of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin to metformin. In the concomitant add-on trial, patients with type 2 diabetes on stable metformin received dapagliflozin 10 mg/d plus saxagliptin 5 mg/d. In sequential add-on trials, patients on metformin plus either saxagliptin 5 mg/d or dapagliflozin 10 mg/d received dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or saxagliptin 5 mg/d, respectively, as add-on therapy. After 24 weeks, incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between triple and dual therapy and between concomitant and sequential add-on regimens. Urinary tract infections were more common with sequential than with concomitant add-on therapy; genital infections were reported only with sequential add-on of dapagliflozin to saxagliptin plus metformin. Hypoglycaemia incidence was <2.0% across all analysis groups. In conclusion, the safety and tolerability of triple therapy with dapagliflozin, saxagliptin and metformin, as either concomitant or sequential add-on, were similar to dual therapy with either agent added to metformin.

Metformin extended-release versus immediate-release: An international, randomized, double-blind, head-to-head trial in pharmacotherapy-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

This international, randomized, double-blind trial (NCT01864174) compared the efficacy and safety of metformin extended-release (XR) and immediate-release (IR) in patients with type 2 diabetes. After a 4-week placebo lead-in, pharmacotherapy-naïve adults with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 7.0% to 9.2% were randomized (1:1) to receive once-daily metformin XR 2000 mg or twice-daily metformin IR 1000 mg for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints were change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), mean daily glucose (MDG) and patients (%) with HbA1c <7.0% after 24 weeks. Overall, 539 patients were randomized (metformin XR, N = 268; metformin IR, N = 271). Adjusted mean changes in HbA1c, FPG, MDG and patients (%) with HbA1c <7.0% after 24 weeks were similar for XR and IR: -0.93% vs -0.96%; -21.1 vs -20.6 mg/dL (-1.2 vs -1.1 mmol/L); -24.7 vs -27.1 mg/dL (-1.4 vs -1.5 mmol/L); and 70.9% vs 72.0%, respectively. Adverse events were similar between groups and consistent with previous studies. Overall, metformin XR demonstrated efficacy and safety similar to that of metformin IR over 24 weeks, with the advantage of once-daily dosing.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in combination with metformin as initial therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Results from the START study, a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin plus metformin over 24 weeks in pharmacotherapy-naïve Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c, 8.0%-12.0%). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled study (The START study: NCT02273050, clinicaltrials.gov), patients were randomized (1:1:1) to saxagliptin 5 mg plus metformin, saxagliptin 5 mg plus placebo or metformin plus placebo. Saxagliptin was taken once daily; metformin was taken once/twice daily and was titrated from 500 mg to a maximum of 2000 mg/d over 8 weeks. The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. RESULTS: Data from 630 patients (66.5% men; mean age, 50.1 years; mean body mass index, 26.6 kg/m2 ; mean HbA1c, 9.4%; mean diabetes duration, 0.81 years) were analysed. Mean reduction in HbA1c was greater with saxagliptin plus metformin (-3.0%) than with saxagliptin plus placebo (-2.1%; P < .001) or metformin plus placebo (-2.8%; P = .034). Changes in mean fasting plasma glucose, 120-minute postprandial glucose, and 180-minute postprandial glucose area under the curve were greater, and more patients achieved a therapeutic glycaemic response, with saxagliptin plus metformin than with either monotherapy. Hypoglycaemic events were infrequent (<2%). Incidence of adverse events was similar among groups; upper respiratory tract infection and diarrhoea were most common. CONCLUSIONS: Saxagliptin 5 mg plus metformin significantly improved glycaemic control compared with either monotherapy in treatment-naïve Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, and was well tolerated.

Saxagliptin add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin with or without metformin: Results from the SUPER study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

This prospective, multicentre, phase III study (NCT02104804) evaluated the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin ± metformin. Patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.5% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL) on stable insulin therapy (20-150 U/d) were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin 5 mg once daily (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230) for 24 weeks, stratified by metformin use. The primary efficacy measure was change in HbA1c. Saxagliptin treatment resulted in a greater adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 than placebo (-0.58%; P < .001), irrespective of metformin use, and a greater mean change in FPG (0.9 mmol/L [-15.9 mg/dL]; P < .001). More patients achieved HbA1c <7% with saxagliptin (11.4%) than with placebo (3.5%, P = .002). Adverse events and incidence of hypoglycaemia were similar in both groups. Overall, add-on saxagliptin 5 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk and was well tolerated in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin (± metformin).

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin vs glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled study (NCT02471404) randomized (1:1:1) patients (n = 939; HbA1c 7.5%-10.5%) on metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) to add-on dapagliflozin 10 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg plus saxagliptin 5 mg, or glimepiride 1 to 6 mg (titrated). The primary efficacy end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 52. RESULTS: Baseline mean age, diabetes duration and HbA1c were 58.4 years, 7.0 years and 8.3%, respectively. Adjusted mean HbA1c change from baseline was -1.20% with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and -0.82% with dapagliflozin, vs -0.99% with glimepiride (mean dose at Week 52, 4.6 mg). Changes in body weight (-3.2 kg and -3.5 kg vs +1.8 kg) and systolic blood pressure (SBP; -6.4 mm Hg and -5.6 mm Hg vs -1.6 mm Hg) were significantly greater with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and dapagliflozin than with glimepiride. FPG decreased significantly with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin compared with glimepiride (-2.1 mmol/L vs -1.5 mmol/L) and was similar with dapagliflozin (-1.6 mmol/L) compared with glimepiride. Confirmed incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower with dapagliflozin regimens than with glimepiride (0 and 1 vs 13 patients) and fewer patients required rescue. Genital infections were more frequent with dapagliflozin; other AE profiles were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin, saxagliptin and metformin improved glycaemic control compared with glimepiride plus metformin; add-on of dapagliflozin alone showed efficacy similar to that of glimepiride. Both dapagliflozin regimens decreased body weight and SBP, with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia compared with glimepiride.

Dapagliflozin once-daily and exenatide once-weekly dual therapy: A 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study examining effects on body weight and prediabetes in obese adults without diabetes.

AIMS: To explore the effects of dual therapy with dapagliflozin and exenatide on body weight, body composition, glycaemic variables and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in obese adults without diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind trial, we randomized 50 obese adults without diabetes (aged 18-70 years; body mass index 30-45 kg/m2 ) to oral dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily plus subcutaneous long-acting exenatide 2 mg once weekly or placebo. MRI was used to assess change in body composition. Participants were instructed to follow a balanced diet and exercise moderately. RESULTS: Of 25 dapagliflozin/exenatide- and 25 placebo-treated participants, 23 (92.0%) and 20 (80.0%) completed 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. At baseline, the mean participant age was 52 years, 61% were female, the mean body weight was 104.6 kg, and 73.5% of participants had prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance). After 24 weeks, for dapagliflozin/exenatide versus placebo: the difference in body weight change was -4.13 kg (95% confidence interval -6.44, -1.81; P < .001), which was mostly attributable to adipose tissue reduction without lean tissue change; 36.0% versus 4.2% of participants achieved ≥5% body weight loss, respectively; and prediabetes was less frequent with active treatment (34.8% vs 85.0%, respectively; P < .01). The difference in SBP change for dapagliflozin/exenatide versus placebo was -6.7 mm Hg. As expected, nausea and injection-site reactions were more frequent with dapagliflozin/exenatide than with placebo. Only two and three participants, respectively, discontinued because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin/exenatide dual therapy reduced body weight, frequency of prediabetes and SBP over 24 weeks and was well tolerated in obese adults without diabetes.

Dapagliflozin once daily plus exenatide once weekly in obese adults without diabetes: Sustained reductions in body weight, glycaemia and blood pressure over 1 year.

AIMS: Dapagliflozin and exenatide reduce body weight by differing mechanisms. Dual therapy with these agents reduces body weight, adipose tissue volume, glycaemia and systolic blood pressure (SBP) over 24 weeks. Here, we examined these effects over 1 year in obese adults without diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Obese adults without diabetes (N = 50; aged 18-70 years; body mass index, 30-45 kg/m2 ) were initially randomized to double-blind oral dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily plus subcutaneous long-acting exenatide 2 mg once weekly or to placebo. They entered an open-label extension from 24 to 52 weeks during which all participants received active treatment. RESULTS: Of the original 25 dapagliflozin + exenatide-treated and 25 placebo-treated participants, respectively, 21 (84%) and 17 (68%) entered the open-label period and 16 (64%) and 17 (68%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.6 kg, and 73.5% of participants had prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance). Reductions with dapagliflozin + exenatide at 24 weeks were sustained at 52 weeks, respectively, for body weight (-4.5 and -5.7 kg), total adipose tissue volume (-3.8 and -5.3 L), proportion with prediabetes (34.8% and 35.3%), and SBP (-9.8 and -12.0 mm Hg). Effects on body weight, SBP and glycaemia at 52 weeks with placebo → dapagliflozin + exenatide were similar to those observed with continuation of dapagliflozin + exenatide. Nausea and injection-site reactions were more frequent with dapagliflozin + exenatide than with placebo and diminished over time. Safety and tolerability were similar to that in previous diabetes trials with these agents. No clear difference in adverse event-related withdrawals between placebo and active treatment periods was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin + exenatide dual therapy produced sustained reductions in body weight, prediabetes and SBP over 52 weeks and was well tolerated in obese adults without diabetes.

COMBINED TREATMENT WITH SAXAGLIPTIN PLUS DAPAGLIFLOZIN REDUCES INSULIN LEVELS BY INCREASED INSULIN CLEARANCE AND IMPROVES ß-CELL FUNCTION.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if reduction in serum insulin with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin or dapagliflozin add-on to metformin contributed to increased insulin clearance and to assess the effects of these treatments on ß-cell function. METHODS: Patients (glycated hemoglobin, 8 to 12%; 64 to 108 mmol/mol) were randomized to 24-week, double-blind treatment with saxagliptin 5 mg/day plus dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n = 179), saxagliptin 5 mg/day plus placebo (n = 176), or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day plus placebo (n = 179) added to metformin. C-peptide to insulin ratio was used as an index of insulin clearance during a meal tolerance test, and ß-cell function was evaluated by Homeostasis Model Assessment 2. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, compared with baseline, saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and saxagliptin + placebo increased mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) C-peptide area under the curve (AUC0-180 min) (40.2 [9.2 to 71.3] ng/mL and 95.4 [63.4 to 127.4] ng/mL, respectively); no change was noted with dapagliflozin + placebo (14.5 [-17.6 to 46.8] ng/mL). Insulin AUC was reduced from baseline with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin (-1,120.4 [-1,633.9 to -606.9] µU/mL) and dapagliflozin + placebo (-1,018.6 [-1550.5 to -486.8] µU/mL) but increased with saxagliptin + placebo (661.2 [131.1 to 1,191.3] µU/mL). C-peptide to insulin ratio did not change versus baseline with saxagliptin + placebo but increased after saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo, largely due to decreased insulin AUC with dapagliflozin. All treatments improved ß-cell function (mean change [95% CI] from baseline, saxagliptin+dapagliflozin: 20.6% [16.5% to 24.8%]; dapagliflozin + placebo: 17.0% [12.7% to 21.4%]; saxagliptin + placebo: 11.0% [6.6% to 15.5%]). CONCLUSION: Increased C-peptide to insulin ratio with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo add-on to metformin compared with saxagliptin + placebo add-on to metformin suggests that dapagliflozin increases insulin clearance and may contribute to lower circulating insulin. All treatments improved ß-cell function, with the greatest improvements with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo. ABBREVIATIONS: A1c = glycated hemoglobin AUC0-180 min = area under the curve from 0 to 180 minutes HOMA-2ß = homeostasis model assessment-2 ß-cell function SGLT-2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular effects of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and different risk categories: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A pre-specified meta-analysis of cardiovascular (CV) events from 21 phase 2b/3 dapagliflozin clinical trials was undertaken to characterise the CV profile of dapagliflozin. This showed no increase in CV risk with dapagliflozin compared with control (placebo or comparator treatment) with or without background glucose-lowering therapies. The analysis reported here aimed to characterise the CV profile of dapagliflozin in subgroups of patients in these 21 studies grouped by degree of CV risk, based on both baseline and in-study risk factors (including hypoglycaemic events), with a focus on major adverse CV events (MACE). METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes, both overall and with different levels of CV risk, including CV disease (CVD) history, age and other CV risk factors, were analysed. A further analysis compared CV risk in patients who experienced a hypoglycaemic event prior to MACE and those who did not. Analyses were based on time to first event using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by study comparing dapagliflozin versus control. RESULTS: In total, 9339 patients were included in this meta-analysis; 5936 patients received dapagliflozin 2.5-10 mg (6668 patient-years) and 3403 received control (3882 patient-years). Dapagliflozin is not associated with increased CV risk and results further suggest the potential for a beneficial effect both in the overall population [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.77; 95 % CI (0.54, 1.10) for MACE] and in those with a history of CVD [HR 0.80 (0.53, 1.22)]. These findings were consistent in patients with varying degrees of CV risk, including age, number and type of CVD events in medical history and number of CV risk factors present. Furthermore, there was no increased risk of MACE in patients who experienced a hypoglycaemic event compared with those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: There was no suggestion of increased risk for MACE with dapagliflozin compared with control in any of the populations investigated. In addition, the results suggest the potential for a beneficial CV effect which is consistent with the multifactorial benefits on CV risk factors associated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Albuterol-Budesonide Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Asthma: Results of the DENALI Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 MANDALA trial, as-needed albuterol-budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk vs as-needed albuterol in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing maintenance therapy. This study (DENALI) was conducted to address the US Food and Drug Administration combination rule, which requires a combination product to demonstrate that each component contributes to its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do both albuterol and budesonide contribute to the efficacy of the albuterol-budesonide combination pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This phase 3 double-blind trial randomized patients aged ≥ 12 years with mild-to-moderate asthma 1:1:1:1:1 to four-times-daily albuterol-budesonide 180/160 µg or 180/80 µg, albuterol 180 µg, budesonide 160 µg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual-primary efficacy end points included change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (FEV1 AUC0-6h) over 12 weeks (assessing albuterol effect) and trough FEV1 at week 12 (assessing budesonide effect). RESULTS: Of 1,001 patients randomized, 989 were ≥ 12 years old and evaluable for efficacy. Change from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-6h over 12 weeks was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 µg vs budesonide 160 µg (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 80.7 [95% CI, 28.4-132.9] mL; P = .003). Change in trough FEV1 at week 12 was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 and 180/80 µg vs albuterol 180 µg (LSM difference, 132.8 [95% CI, 63.6-201.9] mL and 120.8 [95% CI, 51.5-190.1] mL, respectively; both P < .001). Day 1 time to onset and duration of bronchodilation with albuterol-budesonide were similar to those with albuterol. The albuterol-budesonide adverse event profile was similar to that of the monocomponents. INTERPRETATION: Both monocomponents contributed to albuterol-budesonide lung function efficacy. Albuterol-budesonide was well tolerated, even at regular, relatively high daily doses for 12 weeks, with no new safety findings, supporting its use as a novel rescue therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03847896; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Outpatient Treatment with AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) Prevented COVID-19 Hospitalizations over 6 Months and Reduced Symptom Progression in the TACKLE Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed effects of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) on deaths from any cause or hospitalizations due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptom severity and longer-term safety in the TACKLE adult outpatient treatment study. METHODS: Participants received 600 mg AZD7442 (n = 452) or placebo (n = 451) ≤ 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset. RESULTS: Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 (key secondary endpoint) occurred in 20/399 (5.0%) participants receiving AZD7442 versus 40/407 (9.8%) receiving placebo [relative risk reduction (RRR) 49.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.5, 69.7; p = 0.009] or 50.7% (95% CI 17.5, 70.5; p = 0.006) after excluding participants unblinded before day 169 for consideration of vaccination). AZD7442 reduced progression of COVID-19 symptoms versus placebo through to day 29 (RRR 12.5%; 95% CI 0.5, 23.0) and improved most symptoms within 1-2 weeks. Over median safety follow-up of 170 days, adverse events occurred in 174 (38.5%) and 196 (43.5%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively. Cardiac serious adverse events occurred in two (0.4%) and three (0.7%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AZD7442 was well tolerated and reduced hospitalization and mortality through 6 months, and symptom burden through 29 days, in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://beta. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT04723394 ).

Antibodies are proteins produced by the body's immune system to specifically combat foreign substances, such as viruses. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab are a pair of antibodies that bind to a specific part of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). When they bind to the virus, they reduce its ability to cause disease. These antibodies were tested in a clinical trial to see if they could prevent people with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying. Around 900 adults took part in this clinical trial. These people all had COVID-19 but were not sick enough to be in hospital. Half of this group were treated with a dose of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, given as two injections. The other half received a placebo (injections that look exactly like the tixagevimab and cilgavimab injections but contain no medicine). The study found that, over 6 months, people with COVID-19 who received tixagevimab and cilgavimab were less likely to need to go to hospital than people who received the placebo. They were also less likely to die of COVID-19. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab also helped to improve COVID-19 symptoms. People who received the antibodies saw their symptoms improve faster than people who received the placebo. They were also less likely to have symptoms that got worse. Most people felt better within 1­2 weeks of getting treatment. No safety issues were found with tixagevimab and cilgavimab compared with placebo.