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.

Sitagliptin and pioglitazone provide complementary effects on postprandial glucose and pancreatic islet cell function.

AIMS: The effects of sitagliptin and pioglitazone, alone and in combination, on α- and ß-cell function were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Following a 6-week diet/exercise period, 211 patients with HbA1c of 6.5-9.0% and fasting plasma glucose of 7.2-14.4 mmol/l were randomized (1 :1 :1 : 1) to sitagliptin, pioglitazone, sitagliptin + pioglitazone or placebo. At baseline and after 12 weeks, patients were given a mixed meal followed by frequent blood sampling for measurements of glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, 5-h glucose total area under the curve (AUC) decreased in all active treatments versus placebo; reduction with sitagliptin + pioglitazone was greater versus either monotherapy. The 5-h insulin total AUC increased with sitagliptin versus all other treatments and increased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus pioglitazone. The 3-h glucagon AUC decreased with sitagliptin versus placebo and decreased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus pioglitazone or placebo. Φ(s), a measure of dynamic ß-cell responsiveness to above-basal glucose concentrations, increased with either monotherapy versus placebo and increased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus either monotherapy. The insulin sensitivity index (ISI), a composite index of insulin sensitivity, improved with pioglitazone and sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus placebo. The disposition index, a measure of the relationship between ß-cell function and insulin sensitivity, improved with all active treatments versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin and pioglitazone enhanced ß-cell function (increasing postmeal Φ(s)), and sitagliptin improved α-cell function (decreasing postmeal glucagon) after 12 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes. Through these complementary mechanisms of action, the combination of sitagliptin and pioglitazone reduced postmeal glucose more than either treatment alone.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin vs. pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin (SITA) monotherapy and SITA/metformin (MET) vs. pioglitazone (PIO) were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe hyperglycaemia (A1C = 7.5-12.0%). METHODS: In an initial 12-week phase (Phase A), 492 patients were randomised 1 : 1 in a double-blind fashion to SITA (100 mg qd) or PIO (15 mg qd, up-titrated to 30 mg after 6 weeks). In Phase B (28 additional weeks), the SITA group was switched to SITA/MET (up-titrated to 50/1000 mg bid over 4 weeks) and the PIO group was up-titrated to 45 mg qd RESULTS: At the end of Phase A, mean changes from baseline were -1.0% and -0.9% for A1C; -26.6 mg/dl and -28.0 mg/dl for fasting plasma glucose; and -52.8 mg/dl and -50.1 mg/dl for 2-h post-meal glucose for SITA and PIO, respectively. At the end of Phase B, improvements in glycaemic parameters were greater with SITA/MET vs. PIO: -1.7% vs. -1.4% for A1C (p = 0.002); -45.8 mg/dl vs. -37.6 mg/dl for fasting plasma glucose (p = 0.03); -90.3 mg/dl vs. -69.1 mg/dl for 2-h postmeal glucose (p = 0.001); and 55.0% vs. 40.5% for patients with A1C < 7% (p = 0.004). A numerically higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a significantly lower incidence of oedema were observed with SITA/MET vs. PIO. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was similarly low in both groups. Body weight decreased with SITA/MET and increased with PIO (-1.1 kg vs. 3.4 kg; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Improvements in glycaemic control were greater with SITA/MET vs. PIO, with weight loss vs. weight gain. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

A treatment strategy implementing combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin results in superior glycaemic control versus metformin monotherapy due to a low rate of addition of antihyperglycaemic agents.

AIMS: Combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin has shown superior efficacy compared with metformin monotherapy. In this study, we compare two strategies: initial combination therapy with sitagliptin/metformin as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) and initial metformin monotherapy, with the option to add additional antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) in either treatment arm during the second phase of the study in order to reach adequate glycaemic control. METHODS: We evaluated the sitagliptin and metformin FDC compared with metformin monotherapy over 44 weeks in 1250 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a two-part, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The initial 18-week portion (Phase A) of this study in which additional AHAs were only allowed based on prespecified glycaemic criteria, has been previously reported. Here, we present results from the 26-week Phase B portion of the study during which double-blind study medication continued; however, unlike Phase A, during Phase B investigators were unmasked to results for haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and directed to manage glycaemic control by adding incremental AHA(s) as deemed clinically appropriate. RESULTS: There were 1250 patients randomized in the study with 965 completing Phase A and continuing in Phase B. Among patients receiving sitagliptin/metformin FDC or metformin monotherapy, 8.8% and 16.7% received additional AHA therapy, respectively. Although glycaemic therapy in both groups was to have been managed to optimize HbA1c reductions with the option for investigators to supplement with additional AHAs during Phase B, patients randomized to initial therapy with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had larger reductions of HbA1c from baseline compared with patients randomized to initial metformin monotherapy [least squares (LS) mean change: -2.3% and -1.8% (p < 0.001 for difference) for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and metformin monotherapy groups, respectively]. A significantly larger reduction in FPG from baseline was observed in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group compared with the metformin monotherapy group (p = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group had an HbA1c of less than 7.0% or less than 6.5% compared with those on metformin monotherapy. Both treatment strategies were generally well tolerated, with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia in both groups and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group compared with the metformin monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy initially implementing combination therapy with sitagliptin/metformin FDC was superior to a strategy initially implementing metformin monotherapy, even when accounting for the later addition of supplemental AHAs. Sitagliptin/metformin FDC was generally well tolerated.

The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This double-blind study (18-week Phase A and 26-week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein. RESULTS: At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was -2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and -1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (-3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (-3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

Effects of an 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitor, MK-0916, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome.

AIM: We examined the effects of the 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (HSD1) inhibitor, MK-0916, on the multiple components of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and MetS. METHODS: This was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with T2DM (mean baseline A1C: 7.3%) and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III)-defined MetS were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to 0.5, 2 or 6 mg/day MK-0916 or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was a change from baseline at week 12 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Secondary endpoints included glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (A1C), 2-h postprandial glucose (2-h PPG), body weight, waist circumference, blood pressure and lipid profile. RESULTS: Treatment with MK-0916 had no significant effect relative to placebo on FPG at week 12. Compared to placebo, 6 mg MK-0916 produced a modest, significant (p = 0.049) reduction in A1C of 0.3% at week 12, but no significant difference was observed in 2-h PPG. Six milligram MK-0916 increased LDL-C relative to placebo by 10.4% (p = 0.041). Treatment with MK-0916 led to modest dose-dependent decreases in blood pressure and body weight. Overall, MK-0916 was generally well tolerated. MK-0916 produced mechanism-based activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, resulting in mean increases in adrenal androgen levels that remained within the normal range at all doses tested. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of HSD1 with MK-0916 was generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM and MetS. Although no significant improvement in FPG was observed with MK-0916 compared to placebo, modest improvements in A1C, body weight and blood pressure were observed.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with sitagliptin or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

AIM: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sitagliptin or glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: patients with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) of 6.5-9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥ 1500 mg/day) combined with diet and exercise for at least 12 weeks were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either sitagliptin 100 mg daily (N = 516) or glimepiride (starting dose 1 mg/day and up-titrated, based upon patient's self-monitoring of blood glucose results, to a maximum dose of up to 6 mg/day) (N = 519) for 30 weeks. The primary analysis assessed whether sitagliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA(1c) at week 30 (based on the criterion of having an upper bound of the 95% CI less than the prespecified non-inferiority bound of 0.4%). RESULTS: the mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.5% in both the sitagliptin group (n = 443) and the glimepiride group (n = 436). After 30 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA(1c) from baseline was -0.47% with sitagliptin and -0.54% with glimepiride, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.07% (-0.03, 0.16). This result met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The percentages of patients with an HbA(1c) < 7.0% at week 30 were 52 and 60% in the sitagliptin and glimepiride groups, respectively. The LS mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (95% CI) was -0.8 mmol/l (-1.0, -0.6) with sitagliptin and -1.0 mmol/l (-1.2, -0.8) with glimepiride, for a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.2 mmol/l (-0.1, 0.4). The percentages of patients for whom hypoglycaemia was reported were 7% in the sitagliptin group and 22% in the glimepiride group (percentage-point difference = -15, p < 0.001). Relative to baseline, sitagliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.8 kg), whereas glimepiride was associated with a mean weight gain (1.2 kg), yielding a between-group difference of -2.0 kg (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy, the addition of sitagliptin or glimepiride led to similar improvement in glycaemic control after 30 weeks. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated. Compared to treatment with glimepiride, treatment with sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and with weight loss versus weight gain (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00701090).

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.

A one-year study to assess the safety and efficacy of the CB1R inverse agonist taranabant in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of taranabant in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in overweight and obese patients with T2DM (ages > or = 18 and < or = 75 years) with a BMI > or = 27 kg/m(2) and < or = 43 kg/m(2) and HbA1c > or =7.0 and < or = 10.0%, who were either not on an antihyperglycaemic agent or on a stable dose of metformin (> or = 1500 mg/day). After a 2-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to placebo (N = 156) or taranabant 0.5-mg (N = 155), 1-mg (N = 157), or 2-mg (N = 155) once daily for 52 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline in body weight (BW) and HbA1c at Week 36, with results at Week 52 being key secondary endpoints. RESULTS: In the all-patients-treated population, using a last-observation-carried-forward analysis, reductions in BW were -2.5, -3.7, -4.5 and -5.1 kg at Week 36 and -2.4, -4.0, -4.6 and -5.3 kg at Week 52 in the placebo, 0.5-, 1- and 2-mg groups, respectively (all doses significant vs. placebo at both time points). The proportion of patients who lost > or = 5 and > or = 10% of their baseline BW was significantly greater in the 1- and 2-mg groups vs. placebo at Week 36 and all taranabant groups vs. placebo at Week 52. Reductions in HbA1c were -0.40, -0.47, -0.68 and -0.71% at Week 36 and -0.30, -0.43, -0.65 and -0.64% at Week 52, in the placebo, 0.5-, 1- and 2-mg groups, respectively (1- and 2-mg doses significant vs. placebo at both time points). After 52 weeks, the incidences of adverse experiences classified in the gastrointestinal (diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting), nervous system-related (dizziness, sensory-related), and psychiatric (irritability, depression-related) organ systems were numerically higher or statistically significantly higher in all taranabant groups compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: After 36 and 52 weeks, treatment with taranabant at the 1- and 2-mg doses led to clinically significant weight loss and improvement in glycaemic parameters in overweight and obese patients with T2DM that was associated with dose-related increases in adverse experiences. Based on these data and data from other Phase III clinical studies, it was determined that the overall safety and efficacy profile of taranabant did not support further development for the treatment of obesity.

Safety and efficacy of treatment with sitagliptin or glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a 2-year study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 2-year safety and efficacy of adding sitagliptin or glipizide to ongoing metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients who were on a stable dose of metformin (> or = 1500 mg/day) for at least 8 weeks were randomised in a double-blind manner to receive either sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. (N = 588) or glipizide 5 mg/day (up-titrated up to 20 mg/day based upon prespecified glycaemic criteria) (N = 584). The efficacy analysis assessed the change in HbA(1c) from baseline using the per-protocol (PP) population. RESULTS: For the PP cohort, mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.3% in both groups. After 2 years, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA(1c) from baseline [95% confidence interval (CI)] was -0.54% (-0.64, -0.45) with sitagliptin (n = 248) and -0.51% (-0.60, -0.42) with glipizide (n = 256). The rise in HbA(1c) from week 24 to week 104 [i.e. coefficient of durability (COD)] was smaller with sitagliptin [COD (95% CI) 0.16%/year (0.10, 0.21)] compared with glipizide [0.26%/year (0.21, 0.31)]. The proportion of patients with an HbA(1c)< 7% was 63% and 59% with sitagliptin and glipizide, respectively. The beta-cell responsiveness to a meal challenge was maintained with sitagliptin and decreased with glipizide. The proportion of patients who reported hypoglycaemia was 5% with sitagliptin and 34% with glipizide [difference in proportions (95% CI) = -29% (-33, -25)]. Relative to baseline, sitagliptin was associated with weight loss (-1.6 kg) compared with weight gain (+0.7 kg) with glipizide. CONCLUSION: In patients with type 2 diabetes, adding sitagliptin to metformin monotherapy improved glycaemic control over 2 years, similar to the glucose-lowering efficacy observed with adding glipizide, but with greater durability and generally better maintenance of beta-cell function. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and weight loss compared with weight gain observed with glipizide.

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.

A clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the CB1R inverse agonist taranabant in obese and overweight patients: low-dose study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the weight loss efficacy, safety and tolerability of taranabant, a CB1R inverse agonist, in obese and overweight patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SUBJECTS: Patients >or=18 years old, BMI 27-43 kg m(-2), were randomized to placebo (n=209) or taranabant 0.5 mg (n=207), 1 mg (n=208) or 2 mg given orally once daily (n=417) for 52 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Key efficacy measurements included body weight (BW), waist circumference (WC), lipid endpoints and glycemic endpoints. RESULTS: Based on a last observation carried forward analysis of the all-patients-treated population, mean change in BW for taranabant 0.5, 1, and 2 mg and placebo was -5.4, -5.3, -6.7 and -1.7 kg, respectively (P<0.001 for all doses vs placebo). The proportions of patients who lost at least 5 and 10% of their baseline BW at week 52 were significantly higher for all taranabant doses vs placebo (P<0.001 for all doses). Reductions in WC, percentage of body fat, and triglycerides were significant for taranabant 2 mg and in triglycerides for taranabant 1 mg vs placebo. There was no effect of taranabant vs placebo on other lipid or glucose-related endpoints. Incidences of adverse experiences classified in the gastrointestinal (diarrhea and nausea), nervous system (dizziness/dizziness postural), psychiatric-related (irritability and anger/aggression) and vascular (flushing/hot flush) organ systems were higher and statistically significant in the taranabant 2-mg group compared with the placebo group. Irritability was higher and statistically significant in all taranabant groups compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSION: All three doses of taranabant-induced clinically meaningful and statistically significant weight loss. Incidences of adverse experiences in organ systems known to express CB1R were higher in taranabant groups.

A clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of taranabant, a CB1R inverse agonist, in obese and overweight patients: a high-dose study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of taranabant in obese and overweight patients. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SUBJECTS: Patients were >or=18 years old, with body mass index of 27-43 kg m(-2), and 51% with metabolic syndrome (MS) randomized to placebo (N=417) or taranabant 2 mg (N=414), 4 mg (N=415) or 6 mg (N=1256) for 104 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Key efficacy measurements included body weight, waist circumference (WC), lipid and glycemic end points. RESULTS: On the basis of risk/benefit assessments, the 6-mg dose was discontinued during year 1 (patients on 6 mg were down-dosed to 2 mg or placebo) and the 4-mg dose was discontinued during year 2 (patients on 4 mg were down-dosed to 2 mg). Changes from baseline in body weight at week 52 (all-patients-treated population, last observation carried forward analysis) were -2.6, -6.6 and -8.1 kg, respectively, for placebo and taranabant 2 and 4 mg (both doses P<0.001 vs placebo). For patients who completed year 1, changes from baseline in body weight at week 104 were -1.4, -6.4 and -7.6 kg for placebo and taranabant 2 and 4 mg, respectively (both doses P<0.001 vs placebo). The proportions of patients at weeks 52 and 104 who lost at least 5 and 10% of their baseline body weight were significantly higher and the proportions of patients who met criteria for MS were significantly lower for taranabant 2 and 4 mg vs placebo. The incidence of adverse experiences classified in the gastrointestinal, nervous, psychiatric, cutaneous and vascular organ systems were generally observed to be dose related with taranabant vs placebo. CONCLUSION: Taranabant at the 2- and 4-mg dose was effective in achieving clinically significant weight loss over 2 years and was associated with dose-related increases in adverse experiences. On the basis of these and other data, an assessment was made that the overall safety and efficacy profile of taranabant did not support its further development for the treatment of obesity.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy alone or in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: After a 2 week placebo run-in period, eligible patients inadequately controlled on long-acting, intermediate-acting or premixed insulin (HbA1c > or = 7.5% and < or = 11%), were randomised 1:1 to the addition of once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg or matching placebo over a 24-week study period. The study capped the proportion of randomised patients on insulin plus metformin at 75%. Further, the study capped the proportion of randomised patients on premixed insulin at 25%. The metformin dose and the insulin dose were to remain stable throughout the study. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline at week 24. RESULTS: Mean baseline characteristics were similar between the sitagliptin (n = 322) and placebo (n = 319) groups, including HbA1c (8.7 vs. 8.6%), diabetes duration (13 vs. 12 years), body mass index (31.4 vs. 31.4 kg/m(2)), and total daily insulin dose (51 vs. 52 IU), respectively. At 24 weeks, the addition of sitagliptin significantly (p < 0.001) reduced HbA1c by 0.6% compared with placebo (0.0%). A greater proportion of patients achieved an HbA1c level < 7% while randomised to sitagliptin as compared with placebo (13 vs. 5% respectively; p < 0.001). Similar HbA1c reductions were observed in the patient strata defined by insulin type (long-acting and intermediate-acting insulins or premixed insulins) and by baseline metformin treatment. The addition of sitagliptin significantly (p < 0.001) reduced fasting plasma glucose by 15.0 mg/dl (0.8 mmol/l) and 2-h postmeal glucose by 36.1 mg/dl (2.0 mmol/l) relative to placebo. A higher incidence of adverse experiences was reported with sitagliptin (52%) compared with placebo (43%), due mainly to the increased incidence of hypoglycaemia (sitagliptin, 16% vs. placebo, 8%). The number of hypoglycaemic events meeting the protocol-specified criteria for severity was low with sitagliptin (n = 2) and placebo (n = 1). No significant change from baseline in body weight was observed in either group. CONCLUSION: In this 24-week study, the addition of sitagliptin to ongoing, stable-dose insulin therapy with or without concomitant metformin improved glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes.