Long-term efficacy of sitagliptin as either monotherapy or add-on therapy to metformin: improvement in glycemic control over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of once daily sitagliptin 100 mg as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 2 years of treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The monotherapy analysis used pooled 104 week data from 64 patients in two randomized, double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin monotherapy. Data used were from patients who were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day, were not on an antihyperglycemic agent at the screening visit, had baseline A1C of 7.0%-10.0%, and had Week 104 A1C measurements. The add-on to metformin analysis used pooled data from 347 patients in two randomized double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin + metformin combination therapy. Data used were from patients who were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day + metformin ≥1500 mg/day, had baseline A1C of 7%-10%, and had Week 104 A1C measurements. Excluded from either analysis were patients who discontinued prior to 2 years (e.g., due to lack of efficacy, a need for rescue medications, or adverse experiences). Analysis endpoints were A1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HOMA-ß, proinsulin/insulin (P/I) ratio, and for monotherapy, 2 hour post-meal plasma glucose (PMG). RESULTS: For the pooled monotherapy cohort, after 2 years of treatment, mean A1C, FPG, and 2 hour PMG decreased from baseline values of 7.9%, 156 mg/dL, and 223 mg/dL to 6.9%, 143 mg/dL, and 191 mg/dL, respectively, while HOMA-ß increased from 67% to 85% and P/I ratio improved from 0.57 to 0.28. For the pooled add-on to metformin cohort, after 2 years of treatment, mean A1C and FPG decreased from baseline values of 7.7% and 160 mg/dL to 6.9% and 140 mg/dL, respectively, while HOMA-ß increased from 50% to 62% and P/I ratio improved from 0.33 to 0.28. These analyses are limited in that only patients who were able to complete 104 weeks of study were included. CONCLUSION: In the subset of patients with T2DM who maintained and completed treatment for 2 years with sitagliptin as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin, improvements in glycemic control and measures of ß-cell function were observed over the course of treatment.

A comparison of glycaemic effects of sitagliptin and sulfonylureas in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, 45% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are elderly (≥ 65 years old). In general, use of sulfonylurea increases with patient age as does the associated risk for hypoglycaemia, and the consequences of hypoglycaemia can be more pronounced in elderly patients. Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, improves glycaemic control in adult patients of all ages with T2DM, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia when used alone or in combination with other antidiabetic agents that are not generally associated with hypoglycaemia when used independently. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis, pooled data from elderly patients who participated in one of three double-blind studies comparing the effects of therapy with sitagliptin (100 mg/day) vs. sulfonylurea (in titrated doses) were analysed for changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight and for the incidence of reported symptomatic hypoglycaemia. In these studies, patients on diet alone or metformin were randomised to sitagliptin or glipizide for 104 weeks (studies 1 and 2) or glimepiride for 30 weeks (study 3). The analysis included 372 elderly patients who completed a trial through 25 or 30 weeks. RESULTS: Both HbA1c and FPG decreased from baseline with each treatment, with no statistically significant differences between treatments. A significantly lower incidence of reported hypoglycaemia was observed with sitagliptin compared with sulfonylurea (6.2% vs. 27.8%; p < 0.001). Body weight decreased significantly with sitagliptin but not with sulfonylurea. Significantly more patients on sitagliptin than on sulfonylureas achieved a composite end-point of >0.5% HbA1c reduction with no reported hypoglycaemia or increase in body weight (44.1% vs. 16.0%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this analysis of elderly patients with T2DM, compared with sulfonylurea, sitagliptin provided similar glycaemic efficacy with less hypoglycaemia and with body weight loss.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination treatment with sitagliptin and pioglitazone--a factorial study.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy of sitagliptin 100 mg/day coadministered with all marketed doses of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients with A1c ≥7.5 and ≤11.0% were randomized among seven arms that received, once daily, 100 mg sitagliptin alone; 15, 30 or 45 mg pioglitazone alone, or 100 mg sitagliptin plus 15, 30 or 45 mg pioglitazone for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c at week 24. Protocol-specified analyses compared combination therapies with monotherapies at respective dose-strengths and combination of sitagliptin plus pioglitazone 30 mg with pioglitazone 45 mg monotherapy. Post-hoc analyses compared sitagliptin plus pioglitazone 15 mg with pioglitazone monotherapy at the two higher doses. RESULTS: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone provided significantly greater reductions in A1c (0.4-0.7% differences) and other glycaemic endpoints than either monotherapy at the same doses. Combining sitagliptin with low-dose pioglitazone generally produced greater glycaemic improvements than higher doses of pioglitazone monotherapy (0.3-0.4% differences in A1c). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated; adverse events (AEs) of hypoglycaemia were reported with similar incidence (7.8-11.1%) in all treatment groups over the 54 weeks of study; oedema was reported in 0.5% of patients in the sitagliptin monotherapy group and 2.7-5.3% among pioglitazone-treated groups. Significant weight gain was observed in all combination-treated groups compared with the sitagliptin monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone provided better glycaemic control than either monotherapy and was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 54-week study.

AIM: To assess the 54-week efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone, compared with pioglitazone monotherapy, and to assess safety in these groups during the 30 weeks after the dosage of pioglitazone was increased from 30 to 45 mg/day, in drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8-12%]. METHODS: Following a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study (Sitagliptin Protocol 064, Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00397631; Yoon KH, Shockey GR, Teng R et al. Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and pioglitazone on glycaemic control and measures of beta-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract 2011; 65: 154-164) in which patients were treated with the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg/day and pioglitazone 30 mg/day or monotherapy with pioglitazone 30 mg/day, patients entered a 30-week extension study. In the extension study, the pioglitazone dose was increased from 30 to 45 mg/day in both groups. Depending upon treatment allocation, patients took one tablet of sitagliptin 100 mg or matching placebo daily. Pioglitazone was administered in an open-label fashion as a single 45-mg tablet taken once daily. Patients not meeting specific glycaemic goals in the extension study were rescued with metformin therapy. Efficacy and safety results for the extension study excluded data after initiation of rescue therapy. RESULTS: Of the 520 patients initially randomized, 446 completed the base study and, of these, 317 entered the extension. In this extension study cohort, the mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at the end of the base study (week 24) were -2.5% and -62.1 mg/dl with the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg and pioglitazone 30 mg versus -1.9% and -48.7 mg/dl with pioglitazone monotherapy. At the end of the extension study (week 54), the mean reduction in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -2.4% with the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg and pioglitazone 45 mg versus -1.9% with pioglitazone monotherapy [between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.5% (-0.8, -0.3)] and the mean reduction in FPG was -61.3 mg/dl versus -52.8 mg/dl, respectively [between-group difference (95% CI) = -8.5 mg/dl (-16.3, -0.7)]. Safety and tolerability of initial treatment with the combination of sitagliptin and pioglitazone and pioglitazone monotherapy were similar. As expected, increases in body weight from baseline were observed in both treatment groups at week 54: 4.8 and 4.1 kg in the combination and monotherapy groups, respectively [between-group difference (95% CI) = 0.7 kg (-0.7, 2.1)]. CONCLUSION: In this study, initial combination therapy with sitagliptin 100 mg and pioglitazone 30 mg increased to 45 mg after 24 weeks led to a substantial and durable incremental improvement in glycaemic control compared with initial treatment with pioglitazone monotherapy during a 54-week treatment period. Both initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone and pioglitazone monotherapy were generally well tolerated (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01028391).

Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin on ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To examine the effect of sitagliptin and metformin, alone and in combination, on modelled parameters of ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The data used in the present analyses are from a 104-week study, which included a 24-week, placebo- and active controlled phase followed by a 30-week, active controlled, continuation phase and an additional 50-week, active controlled extension phase. Patients were randomised to one of six blinded treatments: sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d., sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., metformin 1000 mg b.i.d., metformin 500 mg b.i.d., sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. or placebo. Patients on placebo were switched in a blinded manner to metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. at week 24. Subsets of patients volunteered to undergo frequently sampled meal tolerance tests at baseline and at weeks 24, 54 and 104. ß-cell responsivity was assessed with the C-peptide minimal model. The static component (Φ(s)) estimates the rate of insulin secretion related to above-basal glucose concentration. The dynamic component (Φ(d)) is related to the rate of change in glucose. The total index (Φ(total)) represents the overall response to a glycaemic stimulus and is calculated as a function of Φ(s) and Φ(d). Insulin sensitivity was estimated with the Matsuda index (ISI). The disposition index, which assesses insulin secretion relative to the prevailing insulin sensitivity, was calculated based on the Φ(total) and ISI. RESULTS: At week 24, substantial reductions in postmeal glucose were observed with all active treatment groups relative to the placebo group. Φ(s), Φ(total) and the disposition index were significantly improved from baseline at week 24 with all active treatments relative to placebo. Generally larger effects were observed with the initial combination of sitagliptin and metformin relative to the monotherapy groups. When expressed as median percent change from baseline, Φ(s) increased from baseline by 137 and 177% in the low- and high-dose combination groups and by 85, 54, 73 and -9% in the high-dose metformin, low-dose metformin, sitagliptin monotherapy and placebo groups, respectively. At weeks 54 and 104, the combination treatment groups continued to demonstrate greater improvements in ß-cell function relative to their respective monotherapy groups. CONCLUSIONS: After 24 weeks of therapy, relative to placebo, initial treatment with sitagliptin or metformin monotherapy improved ß-cell function; moreover, initial combination therapy demonstrated larger improvements than the individual monotherapies. Improvements in ß-cell function were found with treatments for up to 2 years.

Initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin results in greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with pioglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial therapy with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin and metformin compared with pioglitazone in drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7.5-12% and not on antihyperglycaemic agent therapy were randomized in a double-blind manner to initial treatment with a FDC of sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg twice daily (N = 261) or pioglitazone 30 mg per day (N = 256). Sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone were up-titrated over 4 weeks to doses of 50/1000 mg twice daily and 45 mg per day, respectively. Both treatments were then continued for an additional 28 weeks. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.9% in both groups, least squares (LS) mean changes in HbA1c at week 32 were -1.9 and -1.4% for sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone, respectively (between-group difference = -0.5%; p < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients had an HbA1c of <7% at week 32 with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone (57% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared with pioglitazone, sitagliptin/metformin treatment resulted in greater LS mean reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) [-56.0 mg/dl (-3.11 mmol/l) vs. -44.0 mg/dl (-2.45 mmol/l), p < 0.001] and in 2-h post-meal glucose [-102.2 mg/dl (-5.68 mmol/l) vs. -82.0 mg/dl (-4.56 mmol/l), p < 0.001] at week 32. A substantially greater reduction in FPG [-40.5 mg/dl (-2.25 mmol/l) vs. -13.0 mg/dl (-0.72 mmol/l), p < 0.001] was observed at week 1 with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone. A greater reduction in the fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio and a greater increase in homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) were observed with sitagliptin/metformin than with pioglitazone, while greater decreases in fasting insulin and HOMA of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and a greater increase in quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) were observed with pioglitazone than with sitagliptin/metformin. Both sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone were generally well tolerated. Sitagliptin/metformin led to weight loss (-1.4 kg), while pioglitazone led to weight gain (3.0 kg) (p < 0.001 for the between-group difference). Higher incidences of diarrhoea (15.3% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001), nausea (4.6% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.02) and vomiting (1.9% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026), and a lower incidence of oedema (1.1% vs. 7.0%, p < 0.001), were observed with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone. The between-group difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia did not reach statistical significance (8.4 and 4.3% with sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone, respectively; p = 0.055). CONCLUSION: Compared with pioglitazone, initial therapy with a FDC of sitagliptin and metformin led to significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control as well as a higher incidence of prespecified gastrointestinal adverse events, a lower incidence of oedema and weight loss vs. weight gain.

Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and pioglitazone on glycemic control and measures of ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the safety and efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone compared with pioglitazone monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 520 patients were randomised to initial combination therapy with sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. and pioglitazone 30 mg q.d. or pioglitazone 30 mg q.d. monotherapy for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone led to a mean reduction from baseline in A1C of -2.4% compared with -1.5% for pioglitazone monotherapy (p<0.001). Mean reductions from baseline were greater in patients with a baseline A1C≥10% (-3.0% with combination therapy vs. -2.1% with pioglitazone monotherapy) compared with patients with a baseline A1C<10% (-2.0% with combination therapy vs. -1.1% with pioglitazone monotherapy). Sixty percent of patients in the combination therapy group vs. 28% in the pioglitazone monotherapy group had an A1C of <7% at week 24 (p<0.001). Fasting plasma glucose decreased by -63.0 mg/dl (-3.5 mmol/l) in the combination therapy group compared with -40.2 mg/dl (-2.2 mmol/l) for pioglitazone monotherapy (p<0.001), and 2-h post meal glucose decreased by -113.6 mg/dl (-6.3 mmol/l) with combination therapy compared with -68.9 mg/dl (-3.8 mmol/l) for pioglitazone monotherapy (p<0.001). Measures related to ß-cell function also improved significantly with combination therapy compared with pioglitazone monotherapy. Combination therapy was generally well-tolerated compared with pioglitazone monotherapy, with similar incidences of hypoglycemia (1.1% and 0.8%, respectively), gastrointestinal adverse events (5.7% and 6.9%, respectively), and oedema (2.7% and 3.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone substantially improved glycemic control and was generally well-tolerated compared with pioglitazone monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the 104-week efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA(1c) 7.5-11%) on diet and exercise. METHODS: This study was a 50-week, double-blind extension of a 54-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial study of the initial combination of sitagliptin and metformin, metformin monotherapy and sitagliptin monotherapy (104 weeks total duration). Patients assigned to active therapy in the 54-week base study remained on those treatments in the extension study: sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (higher dose combination), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (lower dose combination), metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (higher dose), metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (lower dose) and sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. Patients randomized to receive the sequence of placebo/metformin were switched, in a blinded manner, from placebo to metformin monotherapy uptitrated to 1000 mg b.i.d. beginning at week 24 and remained on higher dose metformin through the extension. RESULTS: Amongst patients who entered the extension study without having initiated glycaemic rescue therapy, least-squares mean changes in HbA(1c) from baseline at week 104 were -1.7% (higher dose combination), -1.4% (lower dose combination), -1.3% (higher dose), -1.1% (lower dose) and -1.2% (sitagliptin). The proportions of patients with an HbA(1c) <7% at week 104 were 60% (higher dose combination), 45% (lower dose combination), 45% (higher dose), 28% (lower dose) and 32% (sitagliptin). Fasting and postmeal measures of glycaemic control and beta-cell function improved in all groups, with glycaemic responses generally maintained over the 104-week treatment period. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was low across all groups. The incidences of gastrointestinal adverse experiences were generally lower in the sitagliptin group and similar between the metformin monotherapy and combination groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin and monotherapy with either drug alone provided substantial and sustained glycaemic improvements and were well tolerated over 104 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Sitagliptin: review of preclinical and clinical data regarding incidence of pancreatitis.

Recent case reports of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with incretin-based therapies have triggered interest regarding the possibility of a mechanism-based association between pancreatitis and glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetics or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The objective of this review was to describe the controlled preclinical and clinical trial data regarding the incidence of pancreatitis with sitagliptin, the first DPP-4 inhibitor approved for use in patients with T2DM. Tissue samples from multiple animal species treated with sitagliptin for up to 2 years at plasma exposures substantially in excess of human exposure were evaluated to determine whether any potential gross or histomorphological changes suggestive of pancreatitis occurred. Sections were prepared by routine methods, stained with haematoxylin and eosin and examined microscopically. A pooled analysis of 19 controlled clinical trials, comprising 10,246 patients with T2DM treated for up to 2 years, was performed using patient-level data from each study for the evaluation of clinical and laboratory adverse events. Adverse events were encoded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 12.0 system. Incidences of adverse events were adjusted for patient exposure. Tissue samples from preclinical studies in multiple animal species did not reveal any evidence of treatment-related pancreatitis. The pooled analysis of controlled clinical trials revealed similar incidence rates of pancreatitis in patients treated with sitagliptin compared with those not treated with sitagliptin (0.08 events per 100 patient-years vs. 0.10 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). Preclinical and clinical trial data with sitagliptin to date do not indicate an increased risk of pancreatitis in patients with T2DM treated with sitagliptin.

Administration of hepatitis A vaccine at 6 and 12 months of age concomitantly with hexavalent (DTaP-IPV-PRP approximately T-HBs) combination vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Administration of two doses of hepatitis A (HA) vaccine to children > or = 2 years of age has been shown to be protective. The present study assessed whether HA vaccine can be administered as early as 6 months of age and whether it can be administered concomitantly with a hexavalent (HV) vaccine at this age. METHODS: In an open label, randomized, parallel group study, the liquid HV vaccine (HEXAVAC) (diphtheria, tetanus, 2-component acellular pertussis, inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugated to tetanus protein and hepatitis B) was administered at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months of age to all children. HA vaccine (VAQTA) was given at 7 and 13 months in the separate administration group (Group 1) and at 6 and 12 months in the concomitant administration group (Group 2). Serum samples were obtained at 2, 7, 12, and 14 months in Group 1 and at 2, 7, 12, and 13 months in Group 2. The primary immunogenicity outcomes were the seroconversion rates for HA 1 month after the second dose of HA vaccine in initially seronegative subjects, and the seroconversion rates for each HV antigen 1 month after the third dose of the HV vaccine (both at 7 months of age). RESULTS: HA seropositivity rates 1 month after the second dose were 100% in both groups, regardless of initial serostatus. The responses to each HV antigen 1 month after the third dose were similar in both groups. The vaccines were generally well tolerated in both groups regardless of vaccine(s) administered. CONCLUSIONS: A schedule of two doses of HA vaccine, 6 months apart beginning at 6 months of age is highly immunogenic and well tolerated when administered alone or concomitantly with HV vaccine at 6 and 12 months of age.

Semiparametric methods for multiple exposure mismeasurement and a bivariate outcome in HIV vaccine trials.

Exposure to infection information is important for estimating vaccine efficacy, but it is difficult to collect and prone to missingness and mismeasurement. We discuss study designs that collect detailed exposure information from only a small subset of participants while collecting crude exposure information from all participants and treat estimation of vaccine efficacy in the missing data/measurement error framework. We extend the discordant partner design for HIV vaccine trials of Golm, Halloran, and Longini (1998, Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2335-2352.) to the more complex augmented trial design of Longini, Datta, and Halloran (1996, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology 13, 440-447) and Datta, Halloran, and Longini (1998, Statistics in Medicine 17, 185-200). The model for this design includes three exposure covariates and both univariate and bivariate outcomes. We adapt recently developed semiparametric missing data methods of Reilly and Pepe (1995, Biometrika 82, 299 314), Carroll and Wand (1991, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 53, 573-585), and Pepe and Fleming (1991, Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 108-113) to the augmented vaccine trial design. We demonstrate with simulated HIV vaccine trial data the improvements in bias and efficiency when combining the different levels of exposure information to estimate vaccine efficacy for reducing both susceptibility and infectiousness. We show that the semiparametric methods estimate both efficacy parameters without bias when the good exposure information is either missing completely at random or missing at random. The pseudolikelihood method of Carroll and Wand (1991) and Pepe and Fleming (1991) was the more efficient of the two semiparametric methods.

Semi-parametric models for mismeasured exposure information in vaccine trials.

Exposure to infection information is important for estimating vaccine efficacy, but it is difficult to collect and inherently prone to missingness and mismeasurement. It is, therefore, generally not feasible to collect good exposure information on all participants in a large vaccine trial. We discuss study designs that collect detailed exposure information for only a small subset of trial participants, while collecting crude exposure information on all participants, and treat estimation of vaccine efficacy in the missing data/measurement error framework. We demonstrate with the example of an HIV vaccine trial the improvements in bias and efficiency when we combine the different levels of exposure information to estimate vaccine efficacy for reducing both susceptibility and infectiousness. We compare the performance of recently developed semi-parametric missing data methods of Pepe and Fleming and Carroll and Wand, Robins, Hsieh and Newey, and Reilly and Pepe.

Immunologic evaluation of patients with ischemic heart disease. Genetic determination and relation to disease.

Delayed skin hypersensitivity and serum immunoglobulins were studied in relation to the severity of ischemic heart disease in 18 male monozygotic and 13 male dizygotic twin pairs, aged 55-78 years. The twin pairs were selected from the Swedish Twin Registry. Low IgG was seen in patients with myocardial infarction and definitive angina pectoris. No correlation between skin anergy and the severity of ischemic heart disease was found. These findings may support the possibility that immunological mechanisms play a part in the pathogenesis of ischemic heart disease. Significant F-ratios for IgA and differential white cell count support a genetic determination of these variables.