Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. METHODS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. RESULTS: Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

A Randomized Controlled, Treat-to-Target Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) Administered Using Either Device-Supported or Routine Titration in People With Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy/safety of device-supported versus routine titration with Gla-300 in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was evaluated. METHOD: AUTOMATIX was a 16-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority trial in insulin-treated or insulin-naïve people with T2DM. The fasting self-monitored plasma glucose (FSMPG) target was 90-130 mg/dL (5.0-7.2 mmol/L). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants achieving target FSMPG at week 16 without severe hypoglycemia. Secondary endpoints included: proportion reaching FSMPG target without confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycemia; time to first achieve FSMPG target; mean FSMPG and HbA1c change (baseline to week 16). Safety endpoints included hypoglycemia and adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Participants were randomized to device-supported (n = 75) or routine titration (n = 76); 17 participants in the device-supported group discontinued device use. Noninferiority was achieved for the primary endpoint (device-supported: 45.9%, routine: 36.8%; weighted difference: 9.04 [95% CI: -6.75, 24.83]), but not superiority (P = .262). The proportion reaching FSMPG target range without confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycemia was 34.3% vs 14.5%, respectively. The time at which 50% of the participants achieved the FSMPG target was less in the device-supported than routine titration arm (10 vs 13 weeks). Least squares mean HbA1c reduction, safety profiles, and PROs were similar in both arms. Mean "ease of use" score for the device, assessed by healthcare professionals and participants on a scale of 1-7, was ≥6. CONCLUSIONS: Device-supported self-titration had a good safety/efficacy profile, and was noninferior to routine titration and well accepted by diabetes specialists and patients.

Vildagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin improves glycemic control without increasing risk of hypoglycemia in Asian, predominantly Chinese, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin added onto insulin with or without metformin in an Asian, predominantly Chinese, population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: In this 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5%-11.0%) on stable therapy with long-acting, intermediate-acting, or premixed insulin, with or without concomitant metformin, were randomized to receive vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. or placebo. RESULTS: Of 293 patients randomized, 146 received vildagliptin and 147 received placebo treatment. At baseline, the overall mean age of patients was 58.1 years, mean T2DM duration was 11.3 years, and mean HbA1c was 8.7%. The adjusted mean (±SE) change in HbA1c at Week 24 in the vildagliptin and placebo groups was -1.08 ± 0.12% and -0.38 ± 0.12%, respectively (between-treatment difference -0.70 ± 0.16%; P < 0.001). The between-group difference in fasting plasma glucose was -0.43 ± 0.38 mmol/L (P = 0.259). Significantly, more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with vildagliptin than with placebo (23.6% vs. 11.2%; P = 0.006). The incidence of adverse events in the vildagliptin and placebo groups was 43.8% and 46.3%, whereas that of serious adverse events was 3.4% and 6.8%, respectively. The frequency of hypoglycemia was lower in the vildagliptin than placebo group (2.7% vs. 5.4%). CONCLUSION: The addition of vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. significantly improved glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemia in Asian, predominantly Chinese, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on insulin, with or without metformin.

Vildagliptin added to sulfonylurea improves glycemic control without hypoglycemia and weight gain in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on to sulfonylurea therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: The 24-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study compared vildagliptin 50 mg, q.d., with placebo as add-on to glimepiride in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled (HbA1c 7.5%-11.0% [58-97 mmol/mol]) on a stable dose of sulfonylurea for ≥12 weeks before study entry. RESULTS: In all, 279 patients were randomized to receive either vildagliptin (n = 143) or placebo (n = 136). At baseline, overall mean age was 58.5 years, body weight 68.1 kg, duration of diabetes 6.9 years and daily glimepiride dose 3.3 mg. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA1c was -0.7% (-8 mmol/mol; baseline 8.6%, 70 mmol/mol) in the vildagliptin group and -0.2% (-2 mmol/mol; baseline 8.7%, 72 mmol/mol) in the placebo group, with a treatment difference of -0.5% (-5 mmol/mol; P < 0.001). The between-group difference in AMΔ in fasting plasma glucose was -0.4 mmol/L (P = 0.160). There was a slight, but not significant, decrease in body weight in both groups. No hypoglycemic events were reported in either group, including those patients reaching HbA1c <7.0%. Patients in the vildagliptin and placebo groups reported low and comparable incidences of adverse events (14.0% vs. 17.8%) and serious adverse events (0.7% in each group). CONCLUSION: Vildagliptin 50 mg, q.d., added to sulfonylurea monotherapy is effective in Chinese patients with T2DM, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Efficacy and safety of taspoglutide versus sitagliptin for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T-emerge 4 trial).

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of taspoglutide, a long-acting human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, were compared with sitagliptin or placebo, as adjunct to metformin, in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, patients were randomized to taspoglutide 10 mg once weekly (QW), 20 mg QW, 100 mg sitagliptin once daily (QD), or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by 28-week short-term and 104-week long-term extension periods. The primary endpoint was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) after 24 weeks. RESULTS: In this study, 666 patients (baseline HbA(1c), 7.96% [SD, 0.87]; fasting plasma glucose, 9.61 mmol/L [2.56]; body weight, 92.4 kg [19.3]) were randomized to taspoglutide 10 mg QW (n = 190), 20 mg QW (n = 198), 100 mg sitagliptin QD (n = 185), or placebo (n = 93) for 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, least squares mean (SE) HbA(1c) reductions were greater with taspoglutide 10 mg (-1.23% [0.06]) and 20 mg (-1.30% [0.06]) versus sitagliptin (-0.89% [0.06]) or placebo (-0.10% [0.08]). Mean treatment differences with taspoglutide 10 mg and 20 mg were -0.34 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: -0.49, -0.19) and -0.41 (-0.56, -0.26) versus sitagliptin; and -1.13 (-1.31, -0.95) and -1.20 (-1.38, -1.02) versus placebo. Weight loss was greater with taspoglutide 10 mg (-1.8 kg [0.3]) and 20 mg (-2.6 kg [0.3]) than sitagliptin (-0.9 kg [0.3]) or placebo (-0.5 kg [0.4]). Effects on HbA(1c) and weight loss continued through 52 weeks of treatment. No cases of severe hypoglycemia occurred with any active treatment. Gastrointestinal adverse events, and allergic and injection-site reactions were higher in the taspoglutide groups, causing higher discontinuation rates. Anti-taspoglutide antibodies were confirmed in 46% of patients. CONCLUSION: Taspoglutide demonstrated better efficacy on glycemic control and weight loss than sitagliptin, but a high incidence of adverse events led to high discontinuation rates. The safety profile of taspoglutide in this trial was similar to other trials in the clinical program, and led to the discontinuation of dosing.

Efficacy and safety of taspoglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin plus pioglitazone over 24 weeks: T-Emerge 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of once-weekly taspoglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin plus pioglitazone compared with placebo. DESIGN: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial (T-emerge 3), 326 patients were randomized to once-weekly sc injections of taspoglutide 10 mg, taspoglutide 20 mg (10 mg for first 4 wk), or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 24 wk. RESULTS: A significant reduction in HbA1c was observed with taspoglutide 10 mg and 20 mg vs. placebo (least square mean -1.35 and -1.40% vs. -0.45%, respectively; P < 0.0001). A greater proportion of taspoglutide-treated patients reached HbA1c target 7% or less (69.8 and 76.1% vs. 35.1%). With taspoglutide 10 mg and 20 mg vs. placebo, significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose [-1.87 mmol/liter (-34 mg/dl) and -2.12 mmol/liter (-38 mg/dl) vs. -0.57 mmol/liter (-10 mg/dl); P < 0.0001], improvements in homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function score (20.65 and 33.52 vs. -2.03; P < 0.0001), and significant weight loss (-0.64 kg and -1.04 kg vs. 0.59 kg; P < 0.01) were observed. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate; the most frequent adverse events with taspoglutide 10 mg, taspoglutide 20 mg, and placebo were nausea (35, 44, and 10%), vomiting (21, 24, and 2%), and injection site reactions (24, 24, and 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Taspoglutide provided glycemic control with weight loss as add-on therapy to metformin plus pioglitazone for inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.