Cardiovascular safety of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of data from randomized placebo-controlled trials.

AIM: To assess the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) through a meta-analysis of data from eight placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: Data were analysed from eight randomized placebo-controlled trials undertaken to investigate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg once daily in patients with T2DM, comprising patients at low/medium and high CV risk. Suspected CV events were prospectively adjudicated. The empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg groups were pooled for the primary analysis. The primary endpoint was a composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke and hospitalization for unstable angina [4-point major adverse CV events (MACE)]. The secondary endpoint was a composite of CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke (3-point MACE). Risk estimates were calculated using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3835 patients received placebo and 7457 received empagliflozin. Total exposure was 7448.3 years for placebo and 15482.1 years for empagliflozin. Four-point MACE occurred in 365 (9.5%) patients receiving placebo and 635 (8.5%) patients receiving empagliflozin [hazard ratio for empagliflozin vs. placebo 0.86 (95% CI 0.76, 0.98)]. Three-point MACE occurred in 307 (8.0%) patients receiving placebo and 522 (7.0%) patients receiving empagliflozin [hazard ratio for empagliflozin vs. placebo 0.84 (95% CI 0.73, 0.96)]. CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of data from eight randomized trials involving 11 292 patients with T2DM at low/medium or high CV risk, empagliflozin was associated with a reduced risk of 4-point MACE and 3-point MACE compared with placebo.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of BI 135585, a selective 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 (HSD1) inhibitor in humans: liver and adipose tissue 11ß-HSD1 inhibition after acute and multiple administrations over 2 weeks.

AIMS: To assess the safety and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of BI 135585, a selective 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 (11ß-HSD1) inhibitor, after single- and repeated-dose administration. METHODS: The single-dose study included open-label administration of 200 mg BI 135585 in healthy volunteers, while in the multiple-dose study, we carried out randomized, double-blind administration of 5-200 mg BI 135585 or placebo once daily over 14 days in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Assessments included 11ß-HSD1 inhibition in the liver (urinary tetrahydrocortisol (THF)/tetrahydrocotisone (THE) ratio) and in subcutaneous adipose tissue (AT) ex vivo and determination of hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis hormone levels. RESULTS: No major safety issues occurred with BI 135585 administration. The HPA axis was mildly activated with slightly increased, but still normal adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, increased total urinary corticoid excretion but unchanged plasma cortisol levels. After multiple doses of 5-200 mg BI 135585, exposure (area under the curve) increased dose-proportionally and half-life was 55-65 h. The urinary THF/THE ratio decreased, indicating liver 11ß-HSD1 inhibition. Median 11ß-HSD1 enzyme inhibition in the AT reached 90% after a single dose of BI 135585, but was low (31% or lower) after 14 days of continuous treatment. CONCLUSIONS: BI 135585 was safe and well tolerated over 14 days and can be dosed once daily. Future studies are required to clarify the therapeutic potential of BI 135585 in view of its effects on 11ß-HSD1 inhibition in AT after single and multiple doses. Enzyme inhibition in the AT was not adequately predicted by the urinary THF/THE ratio.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as add-on therapy to basal insulin and metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and metformin. METHODS: This was a post hoc subanalysis of participants who received basal insulin and metformin in a global phase III study that randomized participants (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo for ≥52 weeks as add-on therapy to basal insulin alone or in combination with metformin and/or pioglitazone. During the first 24 weeks, the background dose of basal insulin remained stable; thereafter, adjustments based on glucose concentrations were recommended. The primary endpoint of the subanalysis was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks. The safety analysis incorporated data up to a maximum of 110 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 950 participants receiving background insulin and metformin were included in this subanalysis (linagliptin and placebo, both n = 475). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean (±se) change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin was -7 (±1) mmol/mol [-0.7 (±0.1) %; 95% CI -0.8, -0.6; P < 0.0001]. The overall frequency of drug-related adverse events (linagliptin, 18.9%; placebo, 21.9%) and investigator-reported hypoglycaemia (linagliptin, 30.7%; placebo, 31.6%) were similar in both groups at the end of treatment. The frequency of severe hypoglycaemia was low (linagliptin, 1.7%; placebo, 0.8%). No meaningful changes in mean (±sd) body weight were noted in either group [week 52: linagliptin, -0.5 (±3.2) kg; placebo, 0.0 (±3.1) kg]. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin added to basal insulin and metformin improved glycaemic control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or body weight gain.

Effects of empagliflozin on blood pressure and markers of arterial stiffness and vascular resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To determine the effects of empagliflozin on blood pressure (BP) and markers of arterial stiffness and vascular resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a phase III trial in patients with T2DM and hypertension receiving 12 weeks' empagliflozin and four phase III trials in patients with T2DM receiving 24 weeks' empagliflozin (cohort 1, n = 823; cohort 2, n = 2477). BP was measured using 24-h BP monitoring (cohort 1) or seated office measurements (cohort 2). RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP in both cohorts (p < 0.001 vs placebo), without increasing heart rate. Empagliflozin reduced pulse pressure (PP; adjusted mean difference vs placebo cohort 1: -2.3 mmHg; cohort 2: -2.3 mmHg), mean arterial pressure (MAP; cohort 1, -2.3 mmHg; cohort 2, -2.1 mmHg) and double product (cohort 1, -385 mmHg × bpm; cohort 2, -369 mmHg × bpm) all p < 0.001 vs placebo. There was a trend towards a reduction in the ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) with empagliflozin in cohort 1 (p = 0.059 vs placebo). AASI was not measured in cohort 2. Subgroup analyses showed that there were greater reductions in PP with increasing baseline SBP in cohort 1 (p = 0.092). In cohort 2, greater reductions in MAP were achieved in patients with higher baseline SBP (p = 0.027) and greater reductions in PP were observed in older patients (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced BP and had favourable effects on markers of arterial stiffness and vascular resistance.

Empagliflozin as add-on to metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of empagliflozin as add-on to metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Of 637 participants treated with empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo once daily for 24 weeks, 463 (72.7%) were treated in a double-blind extension trial for ≥ 52 weeks. Prespecified exploratory endpoints included changes from baseline in HbA1c , weight and blood pressure at week 76. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, adjusted mean changes from baseline in HbA1c (overall baseline mean ± sd 63 ± 9 mmol/mol [7.9 ± 0.9%]) were -7 mmol/mol [(-0.6%) 95% CI -8, -5 mmol/mol (-0.8, -0.5%); P < 0.001] and -8 mmol/mol [(-0.7%) 95% CI -10, -6 mmol/mol (-0.9, -0.6%); P < 0.001], for empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively. Compared with placebo, adjusted mean changes from baseline in weight were -1.9 kg (95% CI -2.5, -1.3; P < 0.001) and -2.2 kg (95% CI -2.8, -1.6; P < 0.001) for empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively. Empagliflozin led to sustained reductions in systolic blood pressure vs. placebo. Adverse events were reported in 77.7, 80.2 and 72.0% of participants on placebo, empagliflozin 10 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events (glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/l and/or event requiring assistance) were reported in 3.4, 4.1 and 4.2% of participants in these groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In people with Type 2 diabetes, empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg given as add-on to metformin for 76 weeks were well tolerated and led to sustained reductions in HbA1c , weight and systolic blood pressure.

Empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (EASE-1).

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 75 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentrations of ≥7.5 to ≤10.5% (≥58 to ≤91 mmol/mol) were randomized to receive once-daily empagliflozin 2.5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo as adjunct to insulin for 28 days. Insulin dose was to be kept as stable as possible for 7 days then adjusted, at the investigator's discretion, to achieve optimum glycaemic control. The primary exploratory endpoint was change from baseline in 24-h urinary glucose excretion (UGE) on day 7. RESULTS: Empagliflozin significantly increased 24-h UGE versus placebo on days 7 and 28. On day 28, adjusted mean differences with empagliflozin versus placebo in changes from baseline in: HbA1c were -0.35 to -0.49% (-3.8 to -5.4 mmol/mol; all p < 0.05 vs. placebo); total daily insulin dose -0.07 to -0.09 U/kg (all p<0.05 vs placebo); and weight were -1.5 to -1.9 kg (all p < 0.001 vs. placebo). In the placebo, empagliflozin 2.5, 10 and 25 mg groups, respectively, adverse events were reported in 94.7, 89.5, 78.9 and 100.0% of patients, and the rate of symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes with glucose ≤3.0 mmol/l not requiring assistance was 1.0, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.8 episodes per 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin for 28 days as adjunct to insulin increased UGE, improved HbA1c and reduced weight with lower insulin doses compared with placebo and without increasing hypoglycaemia.

Impact of empagliflozin added on to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin: a 78-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of empagliflozin added to basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7 to ≤10% (>53 to ≤86 mmol/mol)] on basal insulin (glargine, detemir, NPH) were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 169), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 155) or placebo (n = 170) for 78 weeks. The baseline characteristics were balanced among the groups [mean HbA1c 8.2% (67 mmol/mol), BMI 32.2 kg/m(2) ]. The basal insulin dose was to remain constant for 18 weeks, then could be adjusted at investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18. Key secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in HbA1c and insulin dose at week 78. RESULTS: At week 18, the adjusted mean ± standard error changes from baseline in HbA1c were 0.0 ± 0.1% (-0.1 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) for placebo, compared with -0.6 ± 0.1% (-6.2 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) and -0.7 ± 0.1% (-7.8 ± 0.8 mmol/mol) for empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (both p < 0.001). At week 78, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg significantly reduced HbA1c, insulin dose and weight vs placebo (all p < 0.01), and empagliflozin 10 mg significantly reduced systolic blood pressure vs placebo (p = 0.004). Similar percentages of patients had confirmed hypoglycaemia in all groups (35-36%). Events consistent with urinary tract infection were reported in 9, 15 and 12% of patients on placebo, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, and events consistent with genital infection were reported in 2, 8 and 5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin for 78 weeks added to basal insulin improved glycaemic control and reduced weight with a similar risk of hypoglycaemia to placebo.

Improved glucose control with reduced hypoglycaemic risk when linagliptin is added to basal insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the efficacy, hypoglycaemia risk and other safety markers of linagliptin as an additional therapy in older patients (aged ≥70 years) inadequately controlled with basal insulin. METHODS: A prespecified safety analysis from the linagliptin trials programme was carried out to explore the hypoglycaemia risk when linagliptin was added to background basal insulin therapy in elderly patients (≥70 years). To do this, two eligible, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials (NCT00954447 and NCT01084005) of 24 and ≥52 weeks, respectively, were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 247 elderly individuals [mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) age 74 ± 4 years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.2 ± 0.8%] on basal insulin (mean ± s.d. baseline dose 36 ± 25 IU/day) were identified. Alongside placebo-adjusted change in HbA1c with linagliptin of -0.77% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.95 to 0.59; p < 0.0001] after 24 weeks, the hazard ratios (HRs) of both overall and confirmed hypoglycaemia [blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], were significantly lower with linagliptin than with placebo: HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.39-0.97) versus 0.59 (95% CI 0.37-0.94), respectively (both p < 0.05). Moreover, significantly less confirmed hypoglycaemia was present in linagliptin-treated patients with renal impairment [HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.27-0.76)], moderate hyperglycaemia [HbA1c 7.5 to <9.0%; HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.27-0.99)], lower fasting plasma glucose levels [<152 mg/dl; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.28-0.86)] and those treated with higher insulin doses [insulin ≥35.6 IU/day; HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.91); p < 0.05 for all]. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare and the incidence was lower with linagliptin (0.8%) versus placebo (2.5%): HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.02-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in hyperglycaemia and no relevant on-trial insulin dose reductions, adding linagliptin to basal insulin appears to decrease hypoglycaemia risk. The biological basis of this phenomenon warrants further research but may involve counter-regulatory effects of incretin hormones.

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin twice daily versus once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a 16-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level ≥7 and ≤10% were randomized to receive empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily (n = 219), 25 mg once daily (n = 218), 5 mg twice daily (n = 219) or 10 mg once daily (n = 220), or placebo (n = 107) as add-on to stable-dose metformin immediate release (IR) twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 16. At week 16, change from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin twice daily was non-inferior to empagliflozin once daily and vice versa. The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) difference in change from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily versus 25 mg once daily was -0.11% (-0.26, 0.03), and with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily versus 10 mg once daily it was -0.02% (-0.16, 0.13). All empagliflozin regimens were well tolerated; thus, when used as add-on to metformin IR in patients with T2DM, the therapeutic effect of empagliflozin twice-daily and once-daily regimens can be considered equivalent.

Long-term treatment with empagliflozin as add-on to oral antidiabetes therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of empagliflozin for 52 weeks as add-on to one other oral antidiabetes therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Patients on biguanide (n = 133), thiazolidinedione (n = 273), α-glucosidase inhibitor (n = 139), dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor (n = 139) or glinide (n = 140) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg double-blind as add-on therapy for 52 weeks. Patients on sulphonylurea (SU; n = 336) were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg double-blind or open-label metformin as add-on therapy for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate safety. Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at week 52 was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 67.6-84.6% of patients receiving empagliflozin. Confirmed hypoglycaemic AEs (plasma glucose ≤70 mg/dl and/or requiring assistance) were reported in 4.4 and 6.6%, respectively, of patients receiving empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg as add-on to SU and in 0.0 to 2.9%, respectively, of patients receiving empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg as add-on to other therapies. Baseline mean ± standard deviation HbA1c ranged from 7.51 ± 0.73 to 8.06 ± 0.76% across background therapy groups. At week 52, adjusted mean ± standard error changes from baseline in HbA1c ranged from -0.77 ± 0.06 to -1.00 ± 0.06% in patients receiving empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with T2DM, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg as add-on to one other oral antidiabetes therapy for 52 weeks were well tolerated and were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c.

Regardless of the degree of glycaemic control, linagliptin has lower hypoglycaemia risk than all doses of glimepiride, at all time points, over the course of a 2-year trial.

AIM: To evaluate the risk of documented hypoglycaemia with glimepiride versus linagliptin. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of data from a 2-year, randomized, double-blind study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 764) versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride 1-4 mg once daily (n = 755) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by metformin. Patients randomized to glimepiride started on 1 mg and after 4 weeks were allowed to be individually uptitrated stepwise to glimepiride 4 mg if a fasting plasma glucose concentration ≤6.1 mmol/l was not achieved. Investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was evaluated by dose, over time, and by the degree of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with at least one hypoglycaemic event at the individual maximum glimepiride dose were: 1 mg, 45.0%; 2 mg, 50.8%; 3 mg, 36.1%; and 4 mg, 27.7%. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin (36.1 vs. 7.5%; p < 0.0001); after performing sensitivity analyses by excluding events during dose escalation (weeks 0-16), this difference remained significant (weeks 16-104: 25.8 vs. 5.9%; p < 0.0001). Notably, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin in each quartile of HbA1c change from baseline (all p < 0.0001); the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes was not increased with greater reductions in HbA1c in either group. In all 4-week intervals across the 2-year study, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower with linagliptin than with glimepiride. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride at all dose levels and time intervals, and regardless of change in HbA1c level.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, multinational clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate glucose-lowering treatment strategies with linagliptin and metformin in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, a prevalent population for which few dedicated studies of oral antidiabetes drugs have been conducted. METHODS: A total of 316 patients, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for ≤12 months and with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration in the range 8.5-12.0%, were randomized 1:1 to double-blind, free-combination treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily and metformin twice daily (uptitrated to 2000 mg/day maximum) or to linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at week 24 (per-protocol completers' cohort: n = 245). RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) age and HbA1c at baseline were 48.8 (11.0) years and 9.8 (1.1)%, respectively. At week 24, the mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c decreased from baseline by -2.8 ± 0.1% with linagliptin/metformin and -2.0 ± 0.1% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; p <0.0001). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis based on intent-to-treat principles: adjusted mean ± s.e. changes in HbA1c of -2.7 ± 0.1% and -1.8 ± 0.1%, respectively; treatment difference of -0.9% (95% CI -1.3 to -0.6; p <0.0001). A treatment response of HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 61 and 40% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively. Few patients experienced drug-related adverse events (8.8 and 5.7% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9 and 3.2% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (no severe episodes). Body weight decreased significantly with the combination therapy (-1.3 kg between-group difference; p =0.0033). CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, an understudied group, elicited significant improvements in glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain or other adverse effects. These results support early combination treatment strategies and suggest that newly diagnosed patients with marked hyperglycaemia may be effectively managed with oral, non-insulin therapy.

Safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive analysis of data from 1331 individuals aged ≥ 65 years.

AIMS: To investigate individual patient data from a comprehensive trials programme to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin across a range of glucose-lowering regimens in a large elderly population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Data were pooled from individuals aged ≥ 65 years, who participated in seven phase III, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin (24-52 weeks). Safety was assessed by incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) with a focus on hypoglycaemia. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). RESULTS: In total, 841 subjects received linagliptin 5 mg once a day and 490 received placebo. At baseline, the population had a mean ± s.d. age of 71.0 ± 4.6 years and a mean HbA1c concentration of 8.0 ± 0.8%; 63.5% of subjects received ≥ 2 antidiabetes drugs. Overall AEs and drug-related AEs were experienced by similar proportions of patients (linagliptin 71.3, placebo 73.3; linagliptin 18.1, placebo 19.8%, respectively). The incidence of investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was 21.4% with linagliptin and 25.7% with placebo. Severe hypoglycaemic events were rare and there were fewer in the linagliptin group (1.0 vs. 1.8%). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean ± s.e. reduction in HbA1c with linagliptin was -0.62 ± 0.06% (95% CI: -0.73, -0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this large cohort show that linagliptin is a well-tolerated and efficacious therapy for elderly patients with T2DM. Treatment with linagliptin may support individualized treatment goals, while effectively managing the risk of hypoglycaemia or drug-related side effects.

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin lowers postprandial glucose and improves measures of ß-cell function in type 2 diabetes.

Progressive deterioration of pancreatic ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) contributes to worsening of hyperglycaemia. To investigate the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin on ß-cell function parameters, a pooled analysis of six randomized, 24-week, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials of 5 mg of linagliptin daily was performed in 2701 patients with T2DM (linagliptin, n = 1905; placebo, n = 796). At week 24, observed improvements in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and 2-h postprandial glucose were significantly greater for linagliptin than placebo (all p < 0.0001). Homeostasis model assessment (HOMA)-%ß, as a surrogate marker of fasting ß-cell function, was significantly improved with linagliptin, and did not change with placebo (placebo-adjusted mean ± s.e. change for linagliptin: 16.5 ± 4.6 (mU/l)/(mmol/l); p = 0.0003). Further study is required to determine if the significant improvement in HOMA-%ß with linagliptin will translate into long-term improvements in ß-cell function.

Linagliptin improved glycaemic control without weight gain or hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by a combination of metformin and pioglitazone: a 24-week randomized, double-blind study.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by a combination of metformin and pioglitazone. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 183) and placebo (n = 89) as add-on to metformin and pioglitazone. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c ) after 24 weeks. RESULTS: The placebo-corrected adjusted mean (se) change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks was -6 (1) mmol/mol [-0.57 (0.13)%] (P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 53 mmol/mol (7.0%), 32.4% of patients in the linagliptin group and 13.8% in the placebo group achieved HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) (odds ratio 2.94; P = 0.0033). The placebo-corrected adjusted mean (se) change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at week 24 was -0.57 (0.26) mmol/l [-10.4 (4.7) mg/dl] (P = 0.0280). The incidence of serious adverse events was 2.2% with linagliptin and 3.4% with placebo. Investigator-defined hypoglycaemia occurred in 5.5% of the linagliptin group and 5.6% of the placebo group. No meaningful changes in mean body weight were noted for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin and pioglitazone produced significant and clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control, without an additional risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain (Clinical Trials Registry No: NCT 00996658).

Linagliptin treatment in subjects with type 2 diabetes with and without mild-to-moderate renal impairment.

AIMS: Renal disease is a frequent comorbidity of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and an important factor complicating the choice of glucose-lowering drugs. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg/day) in mono, dual or triple oral glucose-lowering regimens in subjects with T2DM and mild or moderate renal impairment (RI). METHODS: In this pooled analysis of three 24-week, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, subjects with mild (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-<90 ml/min/1.73 m(2) , n = 838) or moderate RI (30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), n = 93) were compared with subjects with normal renal function (≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2), n = 1212). RESULTS: Subjects with RI were older, had longer duration of diabetes, and increased prevalence of diabetes-related comorbidities. After 24 weeks, linagliptin achieved consistent placebo-corrected mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes across the three renal function categories: normal (-0.63%; p < 0.0001), mild RI (-0.67%; p < 0.0001) and moderate RI (-0.53%; p < 0.01), with no inter-group difference (p = 0.74). Renal function with linagliptin remained stable across all categories. In linagliptin-treated subjects, overall adverse event (AE) rates and serious AE rates were similar to placebo. The incidence of hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and placebo was 11.1 versus 6.9%, 11.9 versus 9.0% and 15.9 versus 12.0% in the normal, mild RI and moderate RI categories, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis provides evidence that linagliptin is an effective, well-tolerated and convenient treatment in subjects with T2DM and mild or moderate RI.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, in subjects with renal impairment.

AIMS: Empagliflozin is a selective sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor that inhibits renal glucose reabsorption and is being investigated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: In this open-label study, the effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of a 50 mg dose of empagliflozin was investigated in 40 subjects, grouped according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). RESULTS: Maximum empagliflozin plasma concentrations were similar in subjects with normal renal function and renal impairment. Area under the empagliflozin concentration-time curve (AUC0 -∞ ) values increased by approximately 18, 20, 66 and 48% in subjects with mild, moderate, severe renal impairment and renal failure/end stage renal disease (ESRD), respectively, in comparison to healthy subjects. This was attributed to decreased renal clearance (CLR ). Urinary glucose excretion (UGE) decreased with increasing renal impairment and correlated with decreased eGFR and CLR . Empagliflozin was well tolerated, with no increase in adverse events associated with renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Renal insufficiency resulted in decreased CLR of empagliflozin, moderately increased systemic exposure and decreased UGE. A single 50 mg dose of empagliflozin was well tolerated in subjects with normal renal function and any degree of renal impairment. The pharmacokinetic results of this study indicate that no dose adjustment of empagliflozin is required in patients with renal impairment.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, in patients with hepatic impairment.

AIMS: This open-label, parallel-group study investigated the effect of various degrees of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin. METHODS: Thirty-six subjects [8 each with mild, moderate or severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh classification), and 12 matched controls with normal hepatic function] received a single 50 mg dose of empagliflozin. RESULTS: Empagliflozin was rapidly absorbed. After reaching peak levels, plasma drug concentrations declined in a biphasic fashion. Compared with subjects with normal hepatic function, geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of AUC(0-∞) and C(max) were 123.15% (98.89-153.36) and 103.81% (82.29-130.95), respectively, in patients with mild hepatic impairment, 146.97% (118.02-183.02) and 123.31% (97.74-155.55), respectively, in patients with moderate hepatic impairment, and 174.70% (140.29-217.55) and 148.41% (117.65-187.23), respectively, in patients with severe hepatic impairment. Adverse events, all mild or moderate in intensity, were reported in three subjects with moderate hepatic impairment, two subjects with severe hepatic impairment and six subjects with normal hepatic function. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was well tolerated in subjects with hepatic impairment. Increases in empagliflozin exposure were less than twofold in patients with hepatic impairment; therefore no dose adjustment of empagliflozin is required in patients with hepatic impairment.

Empagliflozin improves glycaemic and weight control as add-on therapy to pioglitazone or pioglitazone plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of empagliflozin as add-on to pioglitazone ± metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≥7 and ≤10% were randomized and treated with once daily empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 165), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 168) or placebo (n = 165) as add-on to pioglitazone ± metformin for 24 weeks. Endpoints included changes from baseline in HbA1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight at week 24. RESULTS: Adjusted mean ± standard error changes in HbA1c were -0.6 ± 0.07% and -0.7 ± 0.07% with empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively, vs. -0.1 ± 0.07% with placebo (both p < 0.001). More patients with HbA1c ≥7% at baseline achieved HbA1c <7% with empagliflozin 10 mg (23.8%) and 25 mg (30.0%) vs. placebo (7.7%) (both p < 0.001). FPG decreased with empagliflozin (-0.94 mmol/l for 10 mg and -1.22 mmol/l for 25 mg) and increased with placebo (+0.36 mmol/l; both p < 0.001). Adjusted mean ± standard error changes in weight were -1.62 ± 0.21 kg and -1.47 ± 0.21 kg with empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively, vs. +0.34 ± 0.21 kg with placebo (both p < 0.001). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events with empagliflozin (67.3-71.4%) and placebo (72.7%). Confirmed hypoglycaemia was reported by 1.2-2.4% of patients on empagliflozin and 1.8% on placebo. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg once daily for 24 weeks as add-on to pioglitazone ± metformin reduced HbA1c, FPG and weight and were well tolerated in patients with T2DM.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: efficacy and safety in a randomised, double-blind 1-year extension study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This 1-year randomised, double-blind study was an extension of a 6-month randomised controlled trial, in which adults with type 2 diabetes received one of six treatment regimens (linagliptin 2.5 mg plus metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 2.5 mg plus metformin mg 1000 bid, metformin 1000 mg bid, metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 5 mg qd or placebo). In the extension, patients in the first three treatment groups continued their regimen (non-switched group, n = 333) while the metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo groups were re-randomised to one of the three continuing regimens (switched group, n = 233). RESULTS: All three non-switched groups maintained reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c; mean ± standard deviation reductions across the 1.5-year period: linagliptin 2.5 plus metformin 1000 bid, -1.63 ± 1.05%; linagliptin 2.5 plus metformin 500 bid, -1.32 ± 1.06%; metformin 1000 bid, -1.25 ± 0.91%) while the switched groups showed additional HbA1c reductions. During the extension, there were no clinically meaningful changes in body weight in any group. Adverse event rates were similar between groups, with most events being mild or moderate, and the incidence of investigator-defined hypoglycaemia was low, with no severe events. DISCUSSION: Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin was well tolerated over the 1-year extension period, with low risk of hypoglycaemia, and improved glycaemic control vs. metformin alone. CONCLUSION: The initial combination of linagliptin and metformin appears to provide a useful treatment option in patients whose blood glucose levels are increased to an extent that metformin monotherapy may not achieve treatment targets.