Clinical endpoints and adaptive clinical trials in precirrhotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Facilitating development approaches for an emerging epidemic.

Due to the increasing prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and its associated health burden, there is a high need to develop therapeutic strategies for patients with this disease. Unfortunately, its long and asymptomatic natural history, the uncertainties about disease progression, the fact that most patients are undiagnosed, and the requirement for sequential liver biopsies create substantial challenges for clinical development. Adaptive design methods are increasingly used in clinical research as they provide the flexibility and efficiency for identifying potential signals of clinical benefit of the test treatment under investigation and make prompt preplanned adaptations without undermining the validity or integrity of the trial. Given the high unmet medical need and the lack of validated surrogate endpoints in NASH, the use of adaptive design methods appears reasonable. Furthermore, due to the limited number of patients willing to have multiple liver biopsies and the need for long-term exposure to assess an impact in outcomes, a continuous seamless adaptive design may reduce the overall sample size while allowing patients to continue after each one of the phases. Here, we review strategic frameworks that include potential surrogate endpoints as well as statistical and logistical approaches that could be considered for applying adaptive designs to clinical trials in NASH with the goal of facilitating drug development for this growing medical need. (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:577-585).

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin added to the combination of sulfonylurea and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment generally requires multiple antihyperglycemic agents. When diet, exercise, and treatment with sulfonylurea and metformin do not achieve glycemic goals, several options are available. The present study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day added to therapy with sulfonylurea and metformin. METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on a sulfonylurea and metformin were randomized 1: 1 to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo for 24 weeks. At Week 24, patients in the placebo group switched to pioglitazone 30 mg/day and both groups continued treatment for another 30 weeks. RESULTS: Of 427 patients randomized, 339 (79.4%) completed the study. At Week 24, significantly greater (P < 0.001) mean reductions from baseline were seen in the sitagliptin versus placebo group for HbA1c (-0.84% vs -0.16%, respectively), 2-h post-meal glucose (-2.0 vs -0.2 mmol/L, respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (-0.7 vs 0.3 mmol/L, respectively). At Week 54, improvements in glycemic control continued. At Week 24, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was numerically greater with sitagliptin than placebo, primarily because of a higher incidence of hypoglycemia. At Week 54, the incidence of AEs was similar in both groups, primarily because of a higher incidence of hypoglycemia and edema in the placebo/pioglitazone group after Week 24. The only meaningful change in body weight was an increase in the placebo/pioglitazone group at Week 54. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated and provided improvement in glycemic control when added to the combination of sulfonylurea and metformin in patients with T2DM.

Treatment-Induced Changes in Plasma Adiponectin Do Not Reduce Urinary Albumin Excretion in the Diabetes Prevention Program Cohort.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Molecular data suggests that adiponectin may directly regulate urinary albumin excretion. In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) we measured adiponectin and albuminuria before and after intervention, and we previously reported increases in adiponectin with interventions. Here we have used the DPP dataset to test the hypothesis that treatment-related increases in adiponectin may reduce albuminuria in obesity. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We evaluated cross-sectional correlations between plasma adiponectin and urinary albumin excretion at baseline, and the relationship of treatment-related changes in adiponectin and albuminuria. Baseline and follow-up urine albumin to creatinine ratios (ACR (albumin to creatinine ratio)) and plasma adiponectin concentration were available in 2553 subjects. RESULTS: Adjusting for age, sex and race/ethnicity, we observed a statistically significant but weak inverse relationship between adiponectin and ACR at baseline (conditional Spearman's rho = (-) 0.04, p = 0.04). Although DPP treatments significantly increased plasma adiponectin, there were no treatment effects on ACR and no differences in ACR across treatment groups. There was a weak direct (not inverse) association between change in adiponectin and change in albuminuria (adjusted Spearman's rho = (+) 0.04, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, well-characterized cohort of obese dysglycemic subjects we observed a weak inverse association between circulating adiponectin concentrations and urinary albumin excretion at baseline. Contrary to the hypothesized effect, treatment-related increases in plasma adiponectin were not associated with a reduction in ACR. The association of change in adiponectin with change in ACR should be assessed in populations with overt albuminuria before excluding a beneficial effect of increasing adiponectin to reduce ACR in obesity.

Safety and Efficacy of Omarigliptin (MK-3102), a Novel Once-Weekly DPP-4 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the optimal dose of omarigliptin, a once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and evaluate the long-term safety of that dose. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, dose-range finding study, 685 oral antihyperglycemic agent-naïve or washed-out subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of five once-weekly doses of omarigliptin (0.25 mg, 1 mg, 3 mg, 10 mg, or 25 mg) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in HbA1c, and secondary end points were 2-h postmeal glucose (PMG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of the study medication. Subjects who completed the base study were eligible to enter a 66-week extension study. RESULTS: Once-weekly treatment for 12 weeks with omarigliptin provided dose-related reductions in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG. At week 12, the omarigliptin 25-mg dose provided the greatest glycemic efficacy. The placebo-adjusted least-squares mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG were -0.72% (-7.8 mmol/mol), -2.5, and -1.3 mmol/L, respectively (all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across dose groups, with a low incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and no effect on body weight. Omarigliptin was generally well-tolerated throughout the base and extension studies. CONCLUSIONS: Omarigliptin 25 mg q.w., compared with placebo, provided significant glucose lowering and was generally well tolerated for up to 78 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis: Limited Available Treatment Options but Promising Drugs in Development and Recent Progress Towards a Regulatory Approval Pathway.

The prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is increasing world-wide in parallel to the increase of the obesity epidemic. Insulin resistance (IR) and the accumulation of triglyceride-derived toxic lipid metabolites play a key role in its pathogenesis. Multiple biomarkers are being evaluated for the non-invasive diagnosis of NASH. However, a percutaneous liver biopsy is still the gold standard method; the minimal diagnostic criteria include the presence of >5% macrovesicular steatosis, inflammation, and liver cell ballooning. Several pharmaceutical agents have been evaluated for the treatment of NASH; however, no single therapy has been approved so far. Due to the increasing prevalence and the health burden, there is a high need to develop therapeutic strategies for patients with NASH targeting both those with early-stage disease as well as those with advanced liver fibrosis. There are unique challenges in the design of studies for these target populations. Collaborative efforts of health authorities, medical disease experts, and the pharmaceutical industry are ongoing to align options for a registrational pathway. Several companies pursuing different mechanisms of action are nearing the end of phase II with their candidates. This manuscript reviews those compounds with a variety of mode of actions that have been evaluated and/or are currently being tested with the goal of achieving a NAFLD/NASH indication.

Comparison of treatment with sitagliptin or sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild renal impairment: a post hoc analysis of clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Impaired renal function is a major complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Mild renal impairment is present in 38% of patients with T2DM and may impact choice of antihyperglycemic agent. Sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are commonly used to treat hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM and renal impairment. Although in general sulfonylurea use is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain, while DPP-4 inhibitor use is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and is weight neutral, the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents in patients with mild renal impairment has not been evaluated. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis, data from 1,211 subjects with T2DM and mild renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rates of 60 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), who completed 25 or 30 weeks of one of three double-blind clinical trials comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin 100 mg/day with sulfonylureas in titrated doses, were pooled. The analysis compared change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and the percentages of subjects meeting a composite endpoint of HbA1c decrease >0.5% without symptomatic hypoglycemia or body weight gain between sitagliptin and sulfonylurea treatment groups. RESULTS: HbA1c and FPG decreased similarly with sitagliptin or sulfonylurea. A lower incidence of hypoglycemia was observed with sitagliptin. Body weight decreased with sitagliptin but increased with sulfonylurea. A greater percentage of subjects treated with sitagliptin (41.1%) than treated with sulfonylurea (16.9%) achieved the composite endpoint of >0.5% HbA1c reduction with no symptomatic hypoglycemia or body weight gain. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of subjects with T2DM and mild renal impairment, treatment with sitagliptin provided glycemic efficacy similar to sulfonylurea, with less hypoglycemia and with body weight loss compared to body weight gain seen with sulfonylurea. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00482079, #NCT00094770, #NCT00701090.

Safety of sitagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of 25 clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: A post hoc pooled analysis of 25 randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical studies with results available as of 1 December 2011. SETTING: Multicenter, international clinical trials. SUBJECTS: Patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 1,261) or a comparator (n = 1,185) for 12 weeks to 2 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In each study, investigators reported serious and non-serious adverse events that occurred during the study, and serious adverse events occurring within 14 days following the last dose of study drug. This analysis used patient-level data from each study to assess the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of specific adverse events that occurred following initiation of study drug. RESULTS: Summary measures of adverse events overall were similar between the sitagliptin and non-exposed (active comparator or placebo) groups, except for higher incidences of deaths and drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were generally similar between the two groups, with the exception of hypoglycemia. A lower incidence rate of hypoglycemia was observed in the sitagliptin group compared with the non-exposed group [7.0 vs. 14.3 per 100 patient-years; difference -7.6 (95 % CI -11.2 to -4.3]), primarily due to greater use of sulfonylureas in the non-exposed group. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled safety analysis of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated for up to 2 years.

Assessment of AACE/ACE recommendations for initial dual antihyperglycemic therapy using the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin.

OBJECTIVE: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) diabetes algorithm recommends a stratified approach to initial therapy to achieve a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of ≤6.5% in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have inadequate glycemic control. Data from a double-blind study in drug-naïve T2DM patients comparing initial monotherapy with metformin (MET) with initial dual therapy with a fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and MET (SITA/MET FDC) was used to determine AACE/ACE HbA1c goal attainment in these treatment groups. METHODS: A total of 1,250 patients (mean baseline HbA1c = 9.9%) were randomized 1:1 to SITA/MET FDC 50/500 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or MET 500 mg b.i.d. for 18 weeks. SITA/MET FDC and MET were uptitrated over 4 weeks to 50/1,000 mg b.i.d. and 1,000 mg b.i.d., respectively. RESULTS: At week 18, a higher percentage of patients receiving SITA/MET FDC had HbA1c levels ≤6.5% and <7% than those receiving MET alone within each of the 3 AACE/ACE HbA1c categories (6.5-7.5%, >7.5-9.0%, and >9.0%). Of patients with a baseline HbA1c >7.5-9.0% who initiated SITA/MET FDC, 48.6% achieved an HbA1c ≤6.5% at week 18 compared with 23.1% of patients who initiated MET monotherapy (P<.001). In patients with a baseline HbA1c >9.0%, 24.0% on SITA/MET FDC achieved an HbA1c ≤6.5% compared with 12.8% on MET alone (P<.001). CONCLUSION: In T2DM patients with a baseline HbA1c >7.5-9.0%, substantially more achieved the HbA1c goal of ≤6.5% with initial dual therapy (SITA/MET FDC) than with initial monotherapy (MET), which is in agreement with the AACE/ACE diabetes algorithm.

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes: pooled analysis of 25 clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION: In a previous pooled analysis of 19 double-blind clinical studies conducted by Merck, which included data available as of July 2009 on 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), treatment with sitagliptin was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As the sitagliptin clinical development program continues, additional studies with sitagliptin have been completed. The present analysis updates the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by examining pooled data from 25 double-blind clinical studies. METHODS: The present analysis included data from 14,611 patients in 25 studies with T2DM who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 7,726; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (n = 6,885; non-exposed group). These studies represent all randomized, double-blind trials conducted by Merck that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years, and for which results were available as of December 2011. These studies assessed sitagliptin, versus comparator agents, taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or metformin + pioglitazone or rosiglitazone). Patient-level data from each study were used to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall incidence rates of AEs and drug-related AEs were higher in the non-exposed group compared with the sitagliptin group. Incidence rates of specific AEs were generally similar between the two groups, except for higher incidence rates of hypoglycemia related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea and diarrhea related to the greater use of metformin in the non-exposed group, and of constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancy, or pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 14,611 patients with T2DM, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD receiving dialysis: a 54-week randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with oral antihyperglycemic agents has not been well characterized in patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and glipizide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD on dialysis therapy were assessed in this study. STUDY DESIGN: 54-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: From 31 clinical sites in 12 countries, 129 patients 30 years or older with type 2 diabetes and ESRD who were on dialysis therapy and had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7%-9% were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment. INTERVENTION: Monotherapy with sitagliptin, 25 mg daily or glipizide (initiated with 2.5 mg daily and titrated up to a potential maximum dose of 10 mg twice daily or down to avoid hypoglycemia). OUTCOMES: Primary end points were 54-week change in HbA1c level from baseline and tolerability with sitagliptin. A secondary end point was the comparison of sitagliptin versus glipizide on the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Of 129 patients randomly assigned, 64 were in the sitagliptin group (mean baseline age, 61 years; HbA1c, 7.9%) and 65 were in the glipizide group (mean baseline age, 59 years; HbA1c, 7.8%). After 54 weeks, the least squares mean change from baseline in HbA1c level was -0.72% (95% CI, -0.95% to -0.48%) with sitagliptin and -0.87% (95% CI, -1.11% to -0.63%) with glipizide, for a difference of 0.15% (95% CI, -0.18% to 0.49%). The incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were 6.3% versus 10.8% (between-group difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -15.7% to 5.6%]) and 0% versus 7.7% (between-group difference, -7.8% [95% CI, -17.1% to -1.9%]) in the sitagliptin and glipizide groups, respectively. Higher incidences (ie, 95% CI around between-treatment difference excluded 0) of cellulitis and headache were found with sitagliptin compared to glipizide (6.3% vs 0%, respectively, for both). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size limits between-group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sitagliptin or glipizide monotherapy was effective and well tolerated over 54 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes and ESRD who were receiving dialysis.

Cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sitagliptin or non-sitagliptin comparators. METHODS: A post hoc assessment of cardiovascular safety in 14,611 patients was performed by pooling data from 25 double-blind studies, which randomised patients at baseline to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or a non-sitagliptin comparator (i.e., non-exposed). Included studies were limited to those at least 12 weeks in duration (range: 12 to 104 weeks). Patient-level data were used in this analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including ischaemic events and cardiovascular deaths. Analyses were performed in three cohorts: the entire 25-study cohort, the cohort from placebo-controlled portions of studies (n=19), and the cohort from studies comparing sitagliptin to a sulphonylurea (n=3). RESULTS: In the entire cohort analysis, 78 patients had at least 1 reported MACE-related event, with 40 in the sitagliptin group and 38 in the non-exposed group. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.65 per 100 patient-years in the sitagliptin group and 0.74 in the non-exposed group (incidence rate ratio = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53, 1.30]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to placebo, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.80 per 100-patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.76 with placebo (incidence rate ratio = 1.01 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.86]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to sulphonylurea, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.00 per 100 patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.86 with sulphonylurea (incidence rate ratio = 0.00 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.31]). CONCLUSION: A pooled analysis of 25 randomised clinical trials does not indicate that treatment with sitagliptin increases cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In a subanalysis, a higher rate of cardiovascular-related events was associated with sulphonylurea relative to sitagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in a randomized placebo-controlled 54-week trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic approaches are needed to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a progressive disorder that often requires combination therapy. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin and rosiglitazone in patients with T2D. METHODS: The present study was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group 54-week study conducted at 41 sites across North and South America, Europe, and Asia in 278 patients with HbA1c ranging from ≥7.5% to ≤11.0% despite ongoing combination therapy with metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and rosiglitazone (≥4 mg/day). Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive sitagliptin 100 mg or placebo once daily. The main outcome measure was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 18. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA1c was 8.8%. The mean placebo-adjusted change from baseline in HbA1c with sitagliptin treatment was -0.7% (P < 0.001) at Week 18 and -0.8% (P < 0.001) at Week 54. There were also significant (P < 0.001) reductions in 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose compared with placebo at Weeks 18 and 54. Significantly higher proportions of sitagliptin- than placebo-treated patients had HbA1c<7.0% at Weeks 18 (22% vs 9%; P = 0.003) and 54 (26% vs 14%; P = 0.015). Changes in body weight and the rates of adverse events overall, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and placebo groups during the 54-week study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, the addition of sitagliptin for 54 weeks to ongoing therapy with metformin and rosiglitazone improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated compared with placebo.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin and pioglitazone combination therapy in a randomized, placebo-controlled, 26-week trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in combination therapy with metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and pioglitazone (≥30 mg/day) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with inadequate glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≥7.5% and ≤11%). METHODS: This placebo-controlled, double-blind study included 313 patients, mean baseline HbA1c=8.7%, who were randomized to receive sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo for 26 weeks. RESULTS: The addition of sitagliptin led to significant (P<.001) mean changes from baseline relative to placebo in HbA1c (-0.7%), fasting plasma glucose (-1.0 mmol/L), and 2-h post-meal glucose (-2.2 mmol/L). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0%, mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -1.6% and -0.8% for the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (between-group difference -0.8%; P<.001). The incidences of reported adverse events were generally similar between the treatment groups. Incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 7/157 [4.5%] and 6/156 [3.8%] in the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (P=.786). Two patients, both in the placebo group, experienced an episode of hypoglycemia that required non-medical assistance. CONCLUSIONS: In this 26-week study, addition of sitagliptin to combination therapy with metformin and pioglitazone improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin versus glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease have an increased risk of micro- and macrovascular disease, but limited options for antihyperglycemic therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with glipizide in patients with T2DM and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency and inadequate glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 426) were randomized 1:1 to sitagliptin (50 mg every day [q.d.] for moderate renal insufficiency and 25 mg q.d. for severe renal insufficiency) or glipizide (2.5 mg q.d., adjusted based on glycemic control to a 10-mg twice a day maximum dose). Randomization was stratified by: 1) renal status (moderate or severe renal insufficiency); 2) history of cardiovascular disease; and 3) history of heart failure. RESULTS: At week 54, treatment with sitagliptin was noninferior to treatment with glipizide in A1C change from baseline (-0.8 vs. -0.6%; between-group difference -0.11%; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.06) because the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%. There was a lower incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia adverse events (AEs) with sitagliptin versus glipizide (6.2 and 17.0%, respectively; P = 0.001) and a decrease in body weight with sitagliptin (-0.6 kg) versus an increase (1.2 kg) with glipizide (difference, -1.8 kg; P < 0.001). The incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was low with both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and chronic renal insufficiency, sitagliptin and glipizide provided similar A1C-lowering efficacy. Sitagliptin was generally well-tolerated, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia and weight loss versus weight gain, relative to glipizide.

The addition of sitagliptin to ongoing metformin therapy significantly improves glycemic control in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who failed to achieve adequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy. METHODS: After a metformin titration/stabilization period and a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 395 Chinese patients with T2DM aged 25-77 years (baseline HbA1c 8.5%) were randomized (1:1) to double-blind placebo or sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. added to ongoing open-label metformin (1000 or 1700 mg/day) for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Significant (P < 0.001) changes from baseline in HbA1c (-0.9%), fasting plasma glucose (-1.2 mmol/L), and 2-h post-meal plasma glucose (-1.9 mmol/L) were seen with sitagliptin compared with placebo. There were no significant differences between sitagliptin and placebo in the incidence of hypoglycemia or gastrointestinal adverse events. A small decrease from baseline body weight was observed in the placebo group compared with no change in the sitagliptin group (between-group difference 0.5kg; P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sitagliptin 100 mg to ongoing metformin therapy significantly improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated in Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control on metformin alone.

Lower risk of hypoglycemia with sitagliptin compared to glipizide when either is added to metformin therapy: a pre-specified analysis adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value.

BACKGROUND: In a previously-published study, adding sitagliptin or glipizide to ongoing metformin therapy provided similar HbA(1c) improvement (both groups, -0.7%) after 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Significantly fewer patients experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia with sitagliptin (5% of 588 patients) compared to glipizide (32% of 584 patients). Glycemic efficacy and patient characteristics may influence hypoglycemic events. The present analysis evaluated the risk of hypoglycemia with sitagliptin or glipizide after adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value. METHODS: Data for this analysis were from the aforementioned 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. The primary endpoint was confirmed hypoglycemia (i.e., symptomatic hypoglycemia confirmed with a concurrent fingerstick glucose ≤70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]); the secondary endpoint was severe hypoglycemia (requiring medical or non-medical assistance or symptoms of neuroglycopenia). Complementary log-log regression random effects models with terms for treatment, most recently measured HbA(1c) value, time (i.e., days since randomization), gender, and age (< or ≥65 years) were used to assess adjusted subject-specific treatment effects. RESULTS: Over the full range of HbA(1c) levels and follow-up time, the risk of confirmed hypoglycemic events was lower with sitagliptin compared with glipizide (31 vs. 448 events; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.05 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.09], p < 0.001). The risk was also lower with sitagliptin in the younger (HR = 0.06 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.12], p < 0.001) and older (HR = 0.02 [0.01, 0.08], p < 0.001) age groups compared with glipizide. For severe hypoglycemia events (2 vs. 22), the risk was lower with sitagliptin (HR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.47]; p = 0.005). LIMITATIONS: The actual time between the HbA(1c) measurement and the hypoglycemic event was variable and not controlled for in the analysis. CONCLUSION: In pre-specified analyses adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value, there was a substantial reduction in risk for confirmed hypoglycemia with sitagliptin compared to glipizide when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with T2DM. The risk of confirmed hypoglycemia was very low in younger and older patients treated with sitagliptin.

Effects of MK-0941, a novel glucokinase activator, on glycemic control in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of MK-0941, a glucokinase activator (GKA), when added to stable-dose insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind study, 587 patients taking stable-dose insulin glargine (±metformin ≥1,500 mg/day) were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to MK-0941 10, 20, 30, or 40 mg or matching placebo t.i.d. before meals (a.c.). This study included an initial 14-week, dose-ranging phase followed by a 40-week treatment phase during which patients were to be uptitrated as tolerated to 40 mg (or placebo) t.i.d. a.c. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in A1C at Week 14. RESULTS: At Week 14, A1C and 2-h postmeal glucose (PMG) improved significantly versus placebo with all MK-0941 doses. Maximal placebo-adjusted least squares mean changes from baseline in A1C (baseline A1C 9.0%) and 2-h PMG were -0.8% and -37 mg/dL (-2 mmol/L), respectively. No significant effects on fasting plasma glucose were observed at any dose versus placebo. By 30 weeks, the initial glycemic responses noted at 14 weeks were not sustained. MK-0941 at one or more doses was associated with significant increases in the incidence of hypoglycemia, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, and proportion of patients meeting criteria for predefined limits of change for increased diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving stable-dose insulin glargine, the GKA MK-0941 led to improvements in glycemic control that were not sustained. MK-0941 was associated with an increased incidence of hypoglycemia and elevations in triglycerides and blood pressure.