A randomized non-inferiority study comparing the addition of exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin or switching from sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes experiencing inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and sitagliptin.

AIMS: To test the hypothesis that glycaemic control achieved when switching sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily plus metformin is non-inferior to adding exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin and metformin. METHODS: Patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin plus metformin were randomly assigned to 20 weeks of treatment with twice-daily exenatide plus placebo and metformin (SWITCH, n = 127) or twice-daily exenatide plus sitagliptin and metformin (ADD, n = 128). RESULTS: Non-inferiority (0.4% margin) of SWITCH to ADD treatment, measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 20, was not shown {between-treatment difference in least-squares mean [95% CI 3 mmol/mol (0.30%)] [0.8-5.8 (0.07-0.53)]}. A greater reduction (P = 0.012) in HbA(1c) [least-squares mean (se)] was experienced by patients in the ADD group {-7 mmol/mol [-0.68%] [0.9 (0.08)]}, compared with those in the SWITCH group {-4 mmol/mol [-0.38%] [1.0 (0.09)]} and a greater proportion (P = 0.027) of patients in the ADD group (41.7%) reached < 7.0% (< 53 mmol/mol) HbA(1c) target, compared with those in the SWITCH group (26.6%) by week 20. Patients in the ADD group experienced greater fasting serum glucose (P = 0.038) and daily mean postprandial self-monitored blood glucose (P = 0.048) reductions, compared with patients in the SWITCH group, by week 20. Patients in both groups experienced a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting compared with previous exenatide studies. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of SWITCH to ADD treatment was not supported by the results of this study. In patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin plus metformin, adding exenatide provided better glycaemic control than switching to exenatide. These results are consistent with the clinical approach that adding is better than switching to another oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication.

Autoantibodies to a miRNA-binding protein Argonaute2 (Su antigen) in patients with hepatitis C virus infection.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic liver diseases caused by hepatitis B (HBV) or C virus (HCV) are common worldwide. Despite reports on autoimmunity in viral hepatitis, studies on autoantibodies associated with systemic rheumatic diseases are inconsistent. Testing of a small number of selected autoantibody specificities using ELISA appears to be one reason for inconsistency. Sera from patients with viral hepatitis were tested by immunoprecipitation that will allow unbiased screening of autoantibodies found in systemic rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Ninety Mexican patients (37 male, 53 female, 26 HBV, 6 HBV+HCV, 58 HCV) with chronic viral hepatitis, confirmed by nested or RT-nested-PCR, HBsAg and anti-HCV antibodies, were studied. Autoantibodies were tested by immunofluorescence, immunoprecipitation and ELISA. Specificities were verified using reference sera. RESULTS: Antinuclear antibodies were found in 38% HBV, 17% HBV+HCV, and 28% in HCV. Autoantibodies to Argonaute (Ago2, Su antigen), a microRNA binding protein that plays a key role in RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), was found in 5% (4/64) of HCV or HBV+HCV coinfected patients but not in HBV (0/26). Anti-Ago2/Su was found in 1/2 of I-IFN-treated case vs. 3/62 in cases without I-IFN. HCV did not have other lupus autoantibodies whereas 19% (5/26) of HBV had anti-U1RNP+Ku, Ro+La, RNA polymerase II, or possible U5snRNPs. CONCLUSIONS: Lupus autoantibodies were uncommon in HCV except anti-Ago2/Su. HCV and I-IFN have many ways to affect TLR signaling, miRNA and miRNA binding protein Ago2/Su. To understand the mechanism of specific targeting of Ago2 in HCV may provide a clue to understand the mechanism of specific autoantibody production.