Clinical trial simulations in pulmonary fibrosis: patient-focused insights and adaptations.

Background: Patient recruitment and retention are a challenge when conducting clinical trials in patients with pulmonary fibrosis, including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other interstitial lung diseases. This study aimed to understand and address the barriers associated with trial participation for these populations. Methods: Nine patients, nine caregivers and three healthcare professionals participated in virtual simulations of planned phase III trials. During the simulations, participants received information about the trials and either tested a home spirometry device or watched a home spirometry demonstration, before providing their insights in debriefs. The findings were interpreted in advisory boards with representatives from patient organisations and expert investigators. Results: Regarding barriers to participation, patient fatigue and breathlessness were emphasised as posing challenges for travel, visit length and completion of onsite assessments. Lack of information, support and appreciation were also identified as factors that may exacerbate anxiety and negatively affect participant retention rates. Feedback on the home spirometry was mixed, with participants appreciating being able to complete the test at home but worrying about device handling. Based on the insights gained, patient-friendly adaptations were made to the trial protocol and conduct, including remote assessment of patient-reported outcomes, increased visit flexibility, travel support services, patient and caregiver information campaigns, and training of investigators on patients' needs. Conclusions: Participants identified important barriers to participation, which led to patient-friendly changes being made to the planned trials. As a result, participation in the planned trials should be less burdensome, with improved recruitment and retention rates, and ultimately, improved data quality.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and Tolerability of Single- and multiple-dose Once-daily Empagliflozin, a Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor, in Chinese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and tolerability of the oral once-daily sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, given in single and multiple 10 and 25 mg doses in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, Chinese patients with T2DM were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg or placebo on day 1 and once daily on days 3 to 9. FINDINGS: A total of 24 patients were enrolled (14 men, 10 women; median age, 53.5 years; empagliflozin 10 mg, n = 9; empagliflozin 25 mg, n = 9; and placebo, n = 6). After both single- and multiple-dose administration, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg were rapidly absorbed, reaching peak plasma concentrations within 1 to 1.5 hours (median), with plasma levels declining biphasically. Empagliflozin exposure increased roughly dose proportionally between 10 and 25 mg. Mean terminal elimination half-life values at steady state were 13.9 and 12.1 hours with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively. Mean (SD) changes from baseline in 24-hour urinary glucose excretion (UGE) on day 1 were +87.7 (22.9) and +82.8 (18.8) g with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively, compared with -1.0 (2.8) g with placebo, and on day 9 were +95.8 (24.1), +82.6 (34.8) g with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively, compared with -4.1 (6.4) g with placebo. Mean (SD) changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) on day 2 were -18.7 (17.2) mg/dL and -25.8 (19.6) mg/dL with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively, compared with -4.2 (15.2) mg/dL with placebo, and on day 9, were -25.6 (20.7) mg/dL and -31.4 (26.9) mg/dL with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively, compared to -3.7 (7.5) mg/dL with placebo. On day 10, mean changes in weight were -1.1, -1.6, and +0.5 kg with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg and placebo, respectively. Overall, empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg had safety profiles similar to that of placebo. There were no reports of hypoglycemia, urinary tract infections, or genital infections. IMPLICATIONS: Results with single and multiple doses of empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg suggest linear pharmacokinetic properties in Chinese patients with T2DM, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. Empagliflozin treatment was associated with increases in UGE and reductions in FPG compared with placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01316341.

Pharmacokinetics of Empagliflozin and Pioglitazone After Coadministration in Healthy Volunteers.

PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate the effects of coadministration of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone. METHODS: In study 1, 20 healthy volunteers received 50 mg of empagliflozin alone for 5 days, followed by 50 mg of empagliflozin coadministered with 45 mg of pioglitazone for 7 days and 45 mg of pioglitazone alone for 7 days in 1 of 2 treatment sequences. In study 2, 20 volunteers received 45 mg of pioglitazone alone for 7 days and 10, 25, and 50 mg of empagliflozin for 9 days coadministered with 45 mg of pioglitazone for the first 7 days in 1 of 4 treatment sequences. FINDINGS: Pioglitazone exposure (Cmax and AUC) increased when coadministered with empagliflozin versus monotherapy in study 1. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) for pioglitazone Cmax at steady state (Cmax,ss) and for AUC during the dosing interval at steady state (AUCτ,ss) when coadministered with empagliflozin versus administration alone was 187.89% (95% CI, 166.35%-212.23%) and 157.97% (95% CI, 148.02%-168.58%), respectively. Because an increase in pioglitazone exposure was not expected, based on in vitro data, a second study was conducted with the empagliflozin doses tested in Phase III trials. In study 2, pioglitazone exposure decreased marginally when coadministered with empagliflozin. The GMR for pioglitazone Cmax,ss when coadministered with empagliflozin versus administration alone was 87.74% (95% CI, 73.88%-104.21%) with empagliflozin 10 mg, 90.23% (95% CI, 66.84%-121.82%) with empagliflozin 25 mg, and 89.85% (95% CI, 71.03%-113.66%) with empagliflozin 50 mg. The GMR for pioglitazone AUCτ,ss when coadministered with empagliflozin versus administration alone was 90.01% (95% CI, 77.91%-103.99%) with empagliflozin 10 mg, 88.98% (95% CI, 72.69%-108.92%) with empagliflozin 25 mg, and 91.10% (95% CI, 77.40%-107.22%) with empagliflozin 50 mg. The effects of empagliflozin on pioglitazone exposure are not considered to be clinically relevant. Empagliflozin exposure was unaffected by coadministration with pioglitazone. Empagliflozin and pioglitazone were well tolerated when administered alone or in combination. In study 1, adverse events were reported in 1 of 19 participants on empagliflozin 50 mg alone, 4 of 20 on pioglitazone alone, and 5 of 18 on combination treatment. In study 2, adverse events were reported in 8 of 20 participants on pioglitazone alone, 10 of 18 when coadministered with empagliflozin 10 mg, 5 of 17 when coadministered with empagliflozin 25 mg, and 6 of 16 when coadministered with empagliflozin 50 mg. IMPLICATIONS: These results indicate that pioglitazone and empagliflozin can be coadministered without dose adjustments. EudraCT identifiers: 2008-006087-11 (study 1) and 2009-018089-36 (study 2).

Linagliptin improves glycemic control after 1 year as add-on therapy to basal insulin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and long-term safety of linagliptin added to basal insulin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by basal insulin with/without oral agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of Asian patients from a global ≥52 week study in which patients on basal insulin were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo (NCT00954447). Basal insulin dose remained stable for 24 weeks, after which adjustments could be made according to the investigator's discretion to improve glycemic control. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to 24 weeks. RESULTS: Data were available for 154 Asian patients (80 linagliptin, 74 placebo). Baseline HbA1c (standard deviation [SD]) was 8.6 (0.9)% (70 [10] mmol/mol). The placebo-corrected mean change (standard error [SE]) in HbA1c from baseline was -0.9 (0.1)% (-10 [1] mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2, -0.7; p<0.0001) at Week 24 and -0.9 (0.1)% (-10 [1] mmol/mol) (95% CI: -1.1, -0.6; p<0.0001) at Week 52. The frequency of adverse events (linagliptin 81.3%, placebo 91.9%) and hypoglycemia (Week 24: linagliptin 25.0%, placebo 25.7%; treatment end: linagliptin 28.8%, placebo 35.1%) was similar between groups. By Week 52, changes (SE) in mean body weight were similar in both groups (linagliptin -0.67 [0.26] kg, placebo -0.38 [0.25] kg). CONCLUSIONS: This study was limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis and the small number of patients in the subgroup. However, the results suggest that linagliptin significantly improves glycemic control in Asian patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by basal insulin, without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia or weight gain. ClinicalTrials identifier: NCT00954447.

Pharmacokinetics of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and simvastatin following co-administration in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to investigate potential drugdrug interactions between the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin and simvastatin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized crossover trial, healthy volunteers (median (range) age 36.5 (20 - 50) years) received 3 single-dose treatments: 25 mg empagliflozin (n = 18), 40 mg simvastatin (n = 17), and 25 mg empagliflozin with 40 mg simvastatin (n = 18). RESULTS: Based on standard criteria, simvastatin had no effect on empagliflozin area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0-∞), adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR): 102.05; 90% CI: 98.90 - 105.29) or maximum plasma concentration (C(max), GMR: 109.49; 90% CI: 96.91 - 123.69). There were only minor deviations in simvastatin AUC(0-∞) (GMR: 101.26; 90% CI: 80.06 - 128.07) and C(max) (GMR: 97.18; 90% CI: 76.30 - 123.77) when co-administered with empagliflozin. Empagliflozin had no effect on AUC(0-∞) (GMR: 104.87; 90% CI: 90.09 - 122.07) or C(max) (GMR: 97.27; 90% CI: 84.90 - 111.44) of simvastatin acid, the active metabolite of simvastatin. Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 6 subjects on empagliflozin, 4 on simvastatin, and 5 on co-administered treatment. No serious AEs or investigator-defined drug-related AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: No relevant drug-drug interaction was observed, and pharmacokinetic results suggest that no dose adjustments for either drug are necessary when empagliflozin and simvastatin are co-administered. Empagliflozin was well tolerated when administered alone or in combination with simvastatin.

Long-term safety and efficacy of empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and metformin: an active-controlled, parallel-group, randomized, 78-week open-label extension study in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor; sitagliptin; and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, 78-week extension study of two 12-week, blinded, dose-finding studies of empagliflozin (monotherapy and add-on to metformin) with open-label comparators, 272 patients received 10 mg empagliflozin (166 as add-on to metformin), 275 received 25 mg empagliflozin (166 as add-on to metformin), 56 patients received metformin, and 56 patients received sitagliptin as add-on to metformin. RESULTS: Changes from baseline in HbA1c at week 90 were -0.34 to -0.63% (-3.7 to -6.9 mmol/mol) with empagliflozin, -0.56% (-6.1 mmol/mol) with metformin, and -0.40% (-4.4 mmol/mol) with sitagliptin. Changes from baseline in weight at week 90 were -2.2 to -4.0 kg with empagliflozin, -1.3 kg with metformin, and -0.4 kg with sitagliptin. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 63.2-74.1% of patients on empagliflozin and 69.6% on metformin or sitagliptin; most AEs were mild or moderate in intensity. Hypoglycemic events were rare in all treatment groups, and none required assistance. AEs consistent with genital infections were reported in 3.0-5.5% of patients on empagliflozin, 1.8% on metformin, and none on sitagliptin. AEs consistent with urinary tract infections were reported in 3.8-12.7% of patients on empagliflozin, 3.6% on metformin, and 12.5% on sitagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term empagliflozin treatment provided sustained glycemic and weight control and was well tolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Effects of adding linagliptin to basal insulin regimen for inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: a ≥52-week randomized, double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and long-term safety of linagliptin added to basal insulins in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 1,261 patients (HbA1c ≥7.0% [53 mmol/mol] to ≤10.0% [86 mmol/mol]) on basal insulin alone or combined with metformin and/or pioglitazone were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo for ≥52 weeks. The basal insulin dose was kept unchanged for 24 weeks but could thereafter be titrated according to fasting plasma glucose levels at the investigators' discretion. The primary end point was the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. The safety analysis incorporated data up to a maximum of 110 weeks. RESULTS: At week 24, HbA1c changed from a baseline of 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) by -0.6% (-6.6 mmol/mol) and by 0.1% (1.1 mmol/mol) with linagliptin and placebo, respectively (treatment difference -0.65% [95% CI -0.74 to -0.55] [-7.1 mmol/mol]; P < 0.0001). Despite the option to uptitrate basal insulin, it was adjusted only slightly upward (week 52, linagliptin 2.6 IU/day, placebo 4.2 IU/day; P < 0.003), resulting in no further HbA1c improvements. Frequencies of hypoglycemia (week 24, linagliptin 22.0%, placebo 23.2%; treatment end, linagliptin 31.4%, placebo 32.9%) and adverse events (linagliptin 78.4%, placebo 81.4%) were similar between groups. Mean body weight remained unchanged (week 52, linagliptin -0.30 kg, placebo -0.04 kg). CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin added to basal insulin therapy significantly improved glycemic control relative to placebo without increasing hypoglycemia or body weight.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of multiple rising doses of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of empagliflozin, a potent and highly selective sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A total of 48 patients with T2DM were randomized to receive one of four doses of empagliflozin (2.5, 10, 25, or 100 mg qd) or placebo over 8 days. In every dose group, nine patients received active drug and three received placebo. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were measured as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Empagliflozin was rapidly absorbed, reaching peak levels 1.5-3.0 h after dosing and showed a biphasic decline. The mean terminal elimination half-life ranged from 10 to 19 h. Increases in exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] and maximum concentration of analyte in plasma [C max]) were approximately proportional with dose. Empagliflozin increased the rate and total amount of glucose excreted in urine compared to placebo. After administration of a single dose of empagliflozin, cumulative amounts of glucose excreted in urine over 24 h ranged from 46.3 to 89.8 g, compared with 5.84 g with placebo. Similar results were seen after multiple doses. Fasting plasma glucose levels decreased by 17.2-25.8% with empagliflozin and by 12.7% with placebo. The frequency of adverse events was 33.3-66.7% with empagliflozin and 41.7% with placebo. There were no changes in urine volume or micturition frequency under the controlled study conditions. CONCLUSION: Overall, pharmacokinetic assessments demonstrated a dose-proportional increase in drug exposure and support once-daily dosing. Elevated urinary glucose excretion was observed with all doses. Multiple once-daily oral doses of empagliflozin (2.5-100 mg) reduced plasma glucose and were well tolerated in patients with T2DM. EudraCT (2007-000654-32).

Effect of empagliflozin on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy female volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin is a potent, selective inhibitor of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 in development for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Oral contraceptives may be co-administered with antidiabetic agents over long periods of time, therefore potential drug-drug interactions between oral contraceptives and antidiabetic drugs should be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The effect of multiple oral doses of empagliflozin 25 mg once daily (qd) on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the combined oral contraceptive ethinylestradiol (EE) 30 µg/levonorgestrel (LNG) 150 µg qd was investigated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a phase I, open-label, two-period, fixed sequence study. SETTING: The study was performed at the Human Pharmacology Centre/Department of Translational Medicine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biberach, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen healthy premenopausal women participated in the study. INTERVENTION: There was a mandatory run-in period in which participants received EE 30 µg/LNG 150 µg qd for 21-48 days followed by a treatment-free interval of 7 days. Participants then received EE 30 µg/LNG 150 µg qd for 14 days (reference; period 1), followed by EE 30 µg/LNG 150 µg qd plus empagliflozin 25 mg qd for 7 days (test; period 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pharmacokinetics of EE and LNG at steady state based on the primary endpoints of area under the steady-state plasma concentration-time curve during a dosage interval τ (AUC(τ,ss)) and maximum steady-state plasma concentration during a dosage interval (C (max,ss)) were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of EE and LNG were not affected by co-administration with empagliflozin. Geometric mean ratios (90 % CI) of AUC(τ,ss) and C (max,ss) for EE were 102.82 % (97.58, 108.35) and 99.22 % (93.40, 105.39), respectively. For LNG, these values were 101.94 % (98.54, 105.47) and 105.81 % (99.47, 112.55), respectively. The 90 % CIs were within the standard bioequivalence boundaries of 80-125 %. There were no relevant changes in the time to reach peak levels (t (max,ss)) or terminal elimination half-life (t (½,ss)) of EE and LNG between test and reference treatments. Ten women in each treatment had at least one adverse event (AE). Severe AEs were reported by three women in the reference period and one woman in the test period. There were no serious AEs or premature discontinuations. CONCLUSION: The combination of EE 30 µg/LNG 150 µg and empagliflozin 25 mg was well tolerated. Based on standard bioequivalence criteria, empagliflozin had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of EE and LNG, indicating that no dose adjustment of EE 30 µg/LNG 150 µg is required when empagliflozin is co-administered.

Lack of clinically relevant drug-drug interaction between empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and verapamil, ramipril, or digoxin in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor in clinical development as a treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate potential drug-drug interactions between empagliflozin and verapamil, ramipril, and digoxin in healthy volunteers. METHODS: The potential drug-drug interactions were evaluated in 3 separate trials. In the first study, 16 subjects were randomized to receive single-dose empagliflozin 25 mg alone or single-dose empagliflozin 25 mg with single-dose verapamil 120 mg. In the second study, 23 subjects were randomized to receive empagliflozin 25 mg once daily (QD) for 5 days, ramipril (2.5 mg on day 1 then 5 mg QD on days 2-5) for 5 days or empagliflozin 25 mg with ramipril (2.5 mg on day 1 then 5 mg QD on days 2-5) for 5 days. In the third study, 20 subjects were randomized to receive single-dose digoxin 0.5 mg alone or empagliflozin 25 mg QD for 8 days with single-dose digoxin 0.5 mg on day 5. RESULTS: Exposure of empagliflozin was not affected by coadministration with verapamil (AUC0-∞: geometric mean ratio [GMR], 102.95%; 90% CI, 98.87-107.20; Cmax: GMR, 92.39%; 90% CI, 85.38-99.97) or ramipril (AUC over a uniform dosing interval τ at steady state [AUCτ,ss]: GMR, 96.55%; 90% CI, 93.05-100.18; Cmax at steady state [Cmax,ss]: GMR, 104.47%; 90% CI 97.65-111.77). Empagliflozin had no clinically relevant effect on exposure of ramipril (AUCτ,ss: GMR, 108.14%; 90% CI 100.51-116.35; Cmax,ss: GMR, 103.61%; 90% CI, 89.73-119.64) or its active metabolite ramiprilat (AUCτ,ss: GMR, 98.67%; 90% CI, 96.00-101.42; Cmax,ss: GMR, 98.29%; 90% CI, 92.67-104.25). Coadministration of empagliflozin had no clinically meaningful effect on digoxin AUC0-∞ (GMR, 106.11%; 90% CI, 96.71-116.41); however, a slight increase in Cmax was observed that was not considered clinically relevant (GMR, 113.94%; 90% CI, 99.33-130.70). All treatments were well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events or adverse events leading to discontinuation in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: No dose adjustment of empagliflozin is required when coadministered with ramipril or verapamil, and no dose adjustment of digoxin or ramipril is required when coadministered with empagliflozin. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01306175 (digoxin), NCT01276301 (verapamil), and NCT01284621 (ramipril).

A randomized, open-label, crossover study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of empagliflozin and linagliptin after coadministration in healthy male volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin is an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of sodium glucose cotransporter 2, inhibition of which reduces renal glucose reabsorption and results in increased urinary glucose excretion. Linagliptin is an oral inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. Due to their complementary modes of action, there is a good rationale to combine empagliflozin with linagliptin to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the pharmacokinetics of empagliflozin and linagliptin after coadministration in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, crossover study with 3 treatments in 2 treatment sequences. Sixteen healthy male subjects received treatment A (empagliflozin 50 mg once daily [QD] for 5 days), treatment B (empagliflozin 50 mg QD and linagliptin 5 mg QD for 7 days), and treatment C (linagliptin 5 mg QD for 7 days) in sequence AB then C, or sequence C then AB. RESULTS: Sixteen healthy male subjects aged between 18 and 50 years with a body mass index of 18.5 to 29.9 kg/m(2) were included in the study. Linagliptin total exposure (AUC over a uniform dosing interval τ at steady state geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.03 [90% CI, 0.96-1.11]) and peak exposure (C(max) at steady state GMR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.87-1.19) exposure was unaffected by coadministration of empagliflozin. Empagliflozin total exposure (AUC over a uniform dosing interval τ at steady state GMR, 1.02 [90% CI, 0.97-1.07]) was unaffected by coadministration of linagliptin. There was a reduction in empagliflozin peak exposure (C(max) at steady state GMR, 0.88 [90% CI, 0.79-0.99]) when linagliptin was coadministered that was not considered clinically meaningful. No adverse events were reported during the coadministration period. No hypoglycemia was reported. Empagliflozin and linagliptin were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: These data support the coadministration of empagliflozin and linagliptin without dose adjustments. European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Registration: EudraCT 2008-006089-27.

Empagliflozin (BI 10773), a Potent and Selective SGLT2 Inhibitor, Induces Dose-Dependent Glucosuria in Healthy Subjects.

Empagliflozin is an orally available, selective inhibitor of sodium glucose cotransporter 2. In this study, single oral doses of empagliflozin from 0.5 to 800 mg were not associated with any clinically significant safety concerns in healthy male volunteers. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar in subjects receiving placebo (22.2%) or empagliflozin (25.0%) in the single rising dose part of the study and after 50 mg empagliflozin under fed (28.6%) or fasted (28.6%) conditions. The most frequent AE was headache. No clinically relevant changes in laboratory or electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements were observed. Single oral doses of empagliflozin were rapidly absorbed, reaching peak levels after 1.0-2.1 hours. Increases in empagliflozin exposure were roughly dose-proportional and a dose-dependent increase in urinary glucose excretion was observed for empagliflozin doses up to 100 mg. After ingestion of 50 mg empagliflozin in conjunction with a high-fat, high-calorie meal, no clinically relevant changes in exposure were found, indicating that empagliflozin can be administered independent of food. Empagliflozin up to 800 mg did not generate clinically significant safety concerns in healthy male subjects. The pharmacokinetic properties of empagliflozin support once daily administration independent of food.

Pharmacokinetics of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, coadministered with sitagliptin in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized, open-label, crossover study investigated potential drug-drug interactions between the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor empagliflozin and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin. Empagliflozin is a potent and selective SGLT-2 inhibitor that lowers blood glucose levels by inhibiting renal glucose reabsorption, leading to an increase in urinary glucose excretion. Sitagliptin lowers blood glucose through an insulin-dependent mechanism of action. METHODS: Sixteen healthy male volunteers received three treatments (A, B, C) in one of two treatment sequences (AB then C, or C then AB). In treatment AB, 50 mg empagliflozin was administered once daily (q.d.) for 5 days (treatment A), immediately followed by coadministration of 50 mg empagliflozin q.d. and 100 mg sitagliptin q.d. over 5 days (treatment B). In treatment C, 100 mg sitagliptin was administered q.d. for 5 days. A washout period of ≥7 days separated treatments AB and C. RESULTS: Coadministration of sitagliptin with empagliflozin did not have a clinically relevant effect on the area under the concentration-time curve of the analyte in plasma at steady state over a uniform dosing interval τ (AUC(τ,ss)) (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 110.4; 90% confidence interval [CI] 103.9, 117.3) or maximum measured concentration of the analyte in plasma at steady state over a uniform dosing interval τ (C (max,ss)) (GMR 107.6; 90% CI 97.0, 119.4) of empagliflozin. Coadministration of empagliflozin with sitagliptin did not have a clinically meaningful effect on the AUC(τ,ss) (GMR 103.1; 90% CI 98.9, 107.3) or C (max,ss) (GMR 108.5; 90% CI 100.7, 116.9) of sitagliptin. Empagliflozin and sitagliptin were well tolerated when given alone or in combination. Five subjects (31.3%) reported at least one adverse event (AE): three (18.8%) experienced an AE while receiving empagliflozin monotherapy and three (18.8%) while receiving sitagliptin monotherapy. No adverse events were reported during the coadministration period. No AEs were regarded as drug-related by the investigator. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that empagliflozin and sitagliptin can be coadministered without dose adjustments.

Antiproteinuric effects of angiotensin receptor blockers: telmisartan versus valsartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overt nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system blockade reduces proteinuria and prevents nephropathy progression in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Experimental evidence demonstrates that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) possess anti-inflammatory potential, which might contribute to reducing proteinuria and providing renoprotection. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, double-blind, prospective, parallel-group non-inferiority study of 885 hypertensive [systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) >130/80 mmHg] patients with T2D, proteinuria (> or =900 mg/24 h) and serum creatinine (< or =3.0 mg/dl) who were randomized to once-daily telmisartan 80 mg or valsartan 160 mg; additional antihypertensive therapy was permitted. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 24-h proteinuria after 12 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in 24-h albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and inflammatory parameters asymmetrical dimethylarginine (ADMA), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) and urinary 8-iso-prostaglandin F(2alpha) (8-iso-PGF(2alpha)). RESULTS: Telmisartan and valsartan produced comparable reductions in 24-h urinary protein excretion rates: geometric mean reduction (95% confidence interval) [telmisartan, 33% (27-39%); valsartan, 33% (27-38%)]. No significant differences between treatments were seen in changes from baseline in 24-h urinary albumin excretion rate and eGFR at 12 months. With both treatments, greater renoprotection was seen among patients with better blood pressure control. No significant changes in ADMA or CRP were noted in either group after 12 months, but urinary 8-iso-PGF(2alpha) levels decreased by 14% with telmisartan and by 7% with valsartan (P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, hypertension and overt nephropathy, the renoprotection afforded by telmisartan and valsartan appears similar, and the study was unable to show any effect beyond that due to blood pressure control. At doses used to treat hypertension, there is no evidence of inflammatory parameters being modified by ARBs in patients with more advanced kidney disease due to T2D.