Comparative efficacy of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia at increased cardiovascular risk: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Network meta-analysis was used to derive estimates of the relative efficacy of inclisiran, evolocumab, alirocumab, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia and/or at increased cardiovascular risk due to elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol taking maximum tolerated dose statins. METHODS: Clinical trials published through February 2021 comparing percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were identified via a systematic review. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or high cardiovascular risk on maximally tolerated statins in the base case, which included 23 trials. RESULTS: Results from the base-case analyses demonstrated that inclisiran, evolocumab, and alirocumab provide superior efficacy over placebo, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in terms of reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Inclisiran was also comparable to alirocumab (mean difference: 0.78% [95% CrI: -8.35, 9.88]) and evolocumab (8.16%, [95% CrI: -1.82, 18.49]). Findings of a scenario which also included trials conducted in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia were consistent with the base case. There was evidence of statistical heterogeneity across the included trials, roughly equivalent to variation of 5-10% change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, suggesting that any differences between treatments that were greater than 5-10% are generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight regarding the comparative efficacy of drugs for which no head-to-head trials exist and suggests that inclisiran, alirocumab, and evolocumab are expected to provide similar clinically meaningful improvements in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with hypercholesterolemia on maximally tolerated statins who are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Oral glucose lowering with linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin alone as initial treatment in Asian patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic in Asia, yet clinical trials of glucose-lowering therapies often enroll predominantly Western populations. We explored the initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Asia with marked hyperglycemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of a multinational, parallel-group clinical trial in which 316 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5-12.0% were randomized to double-blind oral treatment with linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. The primary end-point was the change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. We evaluated data for the 125 participants from Asian countries. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, the mean ± standard error reduction from baseline in HbA1c (mean 10.0%) was -2.99 ± 0.18% with linagliptin/metformin and -1.84 ± 0.18% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -1.15% (95% confidence interval -1.65 to -0.66, P < 0.0001). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 60% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin. The mean bodyweight change after 24 weeks was -0.45 ± 0.41 kg and 1.33 ± 0.45 kg in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (treatment difference -1.78 kg [95% confidence interval -2.99 to -0.57, P = 0.0043]). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 9.7% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin and 4.8% of those receiving linagliptin. Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.5% and 4.8% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no severe episodes. Gastrointestinal disorders occurred in 12.9% and 12.7% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no associated treatment discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: In people from Asia with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and marked hyperglycemia, the initial combination of linagliptin and metformin substantially improved glycemic control without weight gain and with infrequent hypoglycemia. Initial oral combination therapy might be a viable treatment for such individuals.

Linagliptin and pioglitazone combination therapy versus monotherapy with linagliptin or pioglitazone: A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational clinical trial.

Linagliptin plus pioglitazone single-pill combinations were evaluated. Patients (n = 936) with insufficient glycaemic control, despite lifestyle interventions, were randomised for 30 weeks to either monotherapy with linagliptin 5 mg; pioglitazone 15, 30 or 45 mg; or single-pill combination with linagliptin 5 mg plus pioglitazone 15, 30 or 45 mg. An extension (⩽54 weeks) planned to evaluate linagliptin plus pioglitazone 30 or 45 mg single-pill combinations was not completed due to a protocol amendment. Adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) differences in HbA1c change from baseline at week 30 for linagliptin plus pioglitazone 15, 30 and 45 mg were -0.17% (-0.41, 0.07), -0.37% (-0.60, -0.14) and -0.41% (-0.64, -0.18) versus pioglitazone monotherapies, respectively, and -0.44% (-0.67, -0.20), -0.68% (-0.91, -0.44) and -0.89% (-1.12, -0.66) versus linagliptin monotherapy, respectively. Single-pill combinations were generally well tolerated. Hypoglycaemia frequency was ⩽1.5% per group. Linagliptin plus pioglitazone combinations were efficacious, with safety profiles comparable to the individual monotherapies.