A phase IIa active-comparator-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of efinopegdutide in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study assessed the effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon receptor co-agonist efinopegdutide relative to the selective GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide on liver fat content (LFC) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: This was a phase IIa, randomized, active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study. A magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction assessment was performed to determine LFC at screening and Week 24. Participants with an LFC of ≥10% at screening were randomized 1:1 to efinopegdutide 10 mg or semaglutide 1 mg, both administered subcutaneously once weekly for 24 weeks. Participants were stratified according to the concurrent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Both drugs were titrated to the target dose over an 8-week time period. The primary efficacy endpoint was relative reduction from baseline in LFC (%) after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Among 145 randomized participants (efinopegdutide n = 72, semaglutide n = 73), 33.1% had T2DM. At baseline, mean BMI was 34.3 kg/m2 and mean LFC was 20.3%. The least squares (LS) mean relative reduction from baseline in LFC at Week 24 was significantly (p <0.001) greater with efinopegdutide (72.7% [90% CI 66.8-78.7]) than with semaglutide (42.3% [90% CI 36.5-48.1]). Both treatment groups had an LS mean percent reduction from baseline in body weight at Week 24 (efinopegdutide 8.5% vs. semaglutide 7.1%; p = 0.085). Slightly higher incidences of adverse events and drug-related adverse events were observed in the efinopegdutide group compared with the semaglutide group, primarily related to an imbalance in gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NAFLD, treatment with efinopegdutide 10 mg weekly led to a significantly greater reduction in LFC than semaglutide 1 mg weekly. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: EudraCT: 2020-005136-30; NCT: 04944992. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Currently, there are no approved therapies for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The weight loss associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has been shown to decrease hepatic inflammation in patients with NASH. In addition to reducing liver fat content (LFC) indirectly through weight loss, glucagon receptor agonism may also reduce LFC by acting on the liver directly to stimulate fatty acid oxidation and reduce lipogenesis. This study demonstrated that treatment of patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with the GLP-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist efinopegdutide (10 mg weekly) led to a significantly greater reduction in LFC compared to treatment with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (1 mg weekly), suggesting that efinopegdutide may be an effective treatment for NASH.

Corifollitropin Alfa Combined With Human Chorionic Gonadotropin in Adolescent Boys With Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism.

CONTEXT: Adolescent males with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) have traditionally been treated with exogenous testosterone (T) or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to produce virilization; however, those modalities do not result in growth of the testes and may promote premature maturation and terminal differentiation of Sertoli cells prior to their proliferation, which may impact future fertility. Another option is to use gonadotropins in those individuals to induce testicular growth, proliferation and maturation of Sertoli cells, and production of endogenous T with consequent virilization. OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy and safety of corifollitropin alfa (CFA) combined with hCG for the induction of testicular growth and pubertal development in adolescent boys with HH. METHODS: This was a 64-week, multicenter, open-label, single-group study of CFA in adolescent boys, aged 14 to younger than 18 years, with HH. Seventeen participants initiated a 12-week priming period with CFA (100 µg if weight ≤ 60 kg, or 150 µg if weight > 60 kg) given subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, after which they entered a 52-week combined treatment period with CFA, once every 2 weeks, and subcutaneous hCG, twice-weekly (hCG dose adjusted between 500 IU and 5000 IU to keep total T and estradiol levels within protocol-specified ranges). The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in testicular volume (TV), measured as the sum of volumes of left and right testes by ultrasound. RESULTS: After 64 weeks of therapy with CFA/CFA combined with hCG, geometric mean fold increase from baseline in TV was 9.43 (95% CI, 7.44-11.97) (arithmetic mean of change from baseline at week 64, 13.0 mL). Hormonal, Tanner stage, and growth velocity changes were consistent with initiation and progression of puberty. Treatment was generally well tolerated. No participant developed anti-CFA antibodies. CONCLUSION: Treatment of adolescent boys with HH with CFA alone for 12 weeks followed by CFA combined with hCG for 52 weeks induced testicular growth accompanied by pubertal progression, increased T, and a pubertal growth spurt (EudraCT: 2015-001878-18).

Cluster Analysis of Cardiovascular Phenotypes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Potential Approach to Precision Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Phenotypic heterogeneity among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is ill defined. We used cluster analysis machine-learning algorithms to identify phenotypes among trial participants with T2DM and ASCVD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study (n = 14,671), a cardiovascular outcome safety trial comparing sitagliptin with placebo in patients with T2DM and ASCVD (median follow-up 3.0 years). Cluster analysis using 40 baseline variables was conducted, with associations between clusters and the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. We replicated the results using the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial. RESULTS: Four distinct phenotypes were identified: cluster I included Caucasian men with a high prevalence of coronary artery disease; cluster II included Asian patients with a low BMI; cluster III included women with noncoronary ASCVD disease; and cluster IV included patients with heart failure and kidney dysfunction. The primary outcome occurred, respectively, in 11.6%, 8.6%, 10.3%, and 16.8% of patients in clusters I to IV. The crude difference in cardiovascular risk for the highest versus lowest risk cluster (cluster IV vs. II) was statistically significant (hazard ratio 2.74 [95% CI 2.29-3.29]). Similar phenotypes and outcomes were identified in EXSCEL. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and ASCVD, cluster analysis identified four clinically distinct groups. Further cardiovascular phenotyping is warranted to inform patient care and optimize clinical trial designs.

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as initial oral therapy in youth with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D). STUDY DESIGN: This was a 54-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily as initial oral therapy in youth with T2D. The 190 participants, aged 10-17 years, had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin). All were negative for pancreatic autoantibodies and overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis. The trial was placebo controlled for the first 20 weeks, after which metformin replaced placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean ± SD HbA1c = 7.5% ± 1.0, BMI percentile = 97.1% ± 6.8, age = 14.0 years ± 2.0 [57.4% <15], 60.5% female). At Week 20, least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -0.01% (sitagliptin) and 0.18% (placebo); between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.19% (-0.68, 0.30), p = 0.448. At Week 54, the changes in HbA1c were 0.45% (sitagliptin) and -0.11 (placebo/metformin). There were no notable between-group differences in the adverse event profiles through Week 54. CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin did not provide significant improvement in glycemic control. In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that reported in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01485614; EudraCT: 2011-002528-42).

Efficacy and safety of the addition of sitagliptin to treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on metformin without or with insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin ± insulin. STUDY DESIGN: Data were pooled from two 54-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of sitagliptin 100 mg daily or placebo added onto treatment of 10- to 17-year-old youth with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on metformin ± insulin. Participants (N = 220 randomized and treated) had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin), were overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis and negative for pancreatic autoantibodies. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean HbA1c = 8.0%, BMI = 30.9 kg/m2 , age = 14.4 years [44.5% <15], 65.9% female). The dose of background metformin was >1500 mg/day for 71.8% of participants; 15.0% of participants were on insulin therapy. At Week 20, LS mean changes from baseline (95% CI) in HbA1c for sitagliptin/metformin and placebo/metformin were -0.58% (-0.94, -0.22) and -0.09% (-0.43, 0.26), respectively; difference = -0.49% (-0.90, -0.09), p = 0.018; at Week 54 the LS mean (95% CI) changes were 0.35% (-0.48, 1.19) and 0.73% (-0.08, 1.54), respectively. No meaningful differences between the adverse event profiles of the treatment groups emerged through Week 54. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not suggest that addition of sitagliptin to metformin provides durable improvement in glycemic control in youth with T2D. In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that reported in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01472367, NCT01760447; EudraCT: 2011-002529-23/2014-003583-20, 2012-004035-23).

Efficacy and safety of ipragliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on sitagliptin.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily added to sitagliptin 50 mg once daily monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of two clinical trials are reported. In both trials, patients had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7.0% to 10.0% on sitagliptin 50 mg once daily 2 weeks prior to addition of ipragliflozin or placebo. In one trial (Trial 843), patients were randomized 1:1 to addition of blinded ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily (n = 73) or placebo (n = 70) for 24 weeks; the primary endpoint was efficacy (change in HbA1c at Week 24). In the other trial (Trial 849), open-label ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily was added for 52 weeks (n = 77); the primary objective was to assess safety/tolerability. RESULTS: In Trial 843, baseline characteristics were similar between groups (mean age 60.5 years, HbA1c 8.0%); after 24 weeks, adding ipragliflozin provided significantly greater reduction in HbA1c compared to placebo: least squares mean difference -0.77% (95% confidence interval -0.98, -0.57; P <0.001). In Trial 843, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) overall and prespecified AEs of clinical interest (symptomatic hypoglycaemia, urinary tract infection, genital infection, hypovolaemia, and polyuria/pollakiuria) were similar between groups. In Trial 849, specific AEs with incidence ≥5% were nasopharyngitis, pollakiuria, back pain, thirst, constipation, influenza and arthralgia; drug-related AEs reported in ≥2 patients were pollakiuria, thirst and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily added on to sitagliptin 50 mg once daily monotherapy provided significant improvement in glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated in Japanese patients with T2D. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02577003, NCT02564211.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on ipragliflozin.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 50 mg once daily added to ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Japanese patients with T2D and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0% to 10.0% while treated with ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily were randomized 1:1 to additional treatment with sitagliptin 50 mg once daily (N = 70) or matching placebo (N = 71) for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary efficacy endpoints were changes in 2-hour post-meal glucose (PMG), total PMG 0- to 2-hour area under the curve (AUC0-2h ), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age 55.5 years, mean baseline HbA1c 8.0%). After 24 weeks, the addition of sitagliptin provided significantly greater reduction in HbA1c compared to placebo (least squares [LS] mean difference -0.83% [95% confidence interval -1.05, -0.62]; P <0.001). Significant reductions were also observed in all secondary endpoints: LS mean differences from placebo in changes in 2-hour PMG, total PMG AUC0-2h , and FPG were -42.5 mg/dL, -67.0 mg·h/dL and -11.2 mg/dL, respectively (all P <0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) overall and incidence of predefined AEs of clinical interest (symptomatic hypoglycaemia, urinary tract infection, genital infection, hypovolaemia and polyuria/pollakiuria) were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with T2D, sitagliptin 50 mg once daily added to ipragliflozin 50 mg once daily monotherapy provided significant improvement in glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02577016.

Efficacy and Safety of Sitagliptin Compared with Dapagliflozin in People ≥ 65 Years Old with Type 2 Diabetes and Mild Renal Insufficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased risk of diabetic nephropathy and mild renal insufficiency. This analysis compared the anti-hyperglycemic efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with dapagliflozin in patients ≥ 65 years of age with T2D and mild renal insufficiency. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from 410 patients ≥ 65 years old who participated in a 24-week, randomized, double-blind clinical trial (CompoSIT-R [comparison of sitagliptin with dapagliflozin in mild renal impairment]; NCT02532855) in T2D patients with mild renal insufficiency and on metformin ± a sulfonylurea; the primary efficacy end point was change in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean HbA1c = 7.7/7.7% and eGFR = 79/76 ml/min/1.73 m2 for sitagliptin/dapagliflozin). At week 24, LS mean (95% CI) change in HbA1c and percentage of patients with HbA1c < 7% were greater with sitagliptin, - 0.48% and 41%, respectively, compared with dapagliflozin, - 0.36% and 28%; between-group differences = - 0.12% (- 0.36, 0.01) and 12.8% (3.3, 22.2) for change in HbA1c and percentage with HbA1c < 7%, respectively. The sitagliptin group had greater reductions in PPG end points, while the dapagliflozin group had greater reductions in FPG. Treatments were generally well tolerated. There were fewer drug-related adverse events (AEs) with sitagliptin than with dapagliflozin but AE profiles were otherwise similar. CONCLUSIONS: In patients ≥ 65 years of age with T2D and mild renal insufficiency with inadequate glycemic control on metformin ± sulfonylurea, treatment with sitagliptin for 24 weeks resulted in improvement in HbA1c relative to treatment with dapagliflozin that is consistent with that previously observed in the overall population. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study.

BACKGROUND: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051). INTERPRETATION: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of early initiation of sitagliptin during metformin uptitration in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: The CompoSIT-M study.

AIMS: To characterize the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initiation of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin during metformin dose escalation in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal on a sub-maximal dose of metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study participants with HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol and ≤97 mmol/mol (≥7.5% and ≤11.0%) while on 1000 mg/d metformin were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily or placebo. All were to uptitrate metformin to 2000 mg/d. A longitudinal data analysis model was used to test the primary hypothesis that sitagliptin is superior to placebo when initiated during uptitration of metformin in reducing HbA1c at week 20. [ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02791490, EudraCT: 2015-004224-59] RESULTS: A total of 458 participants (mean HbA1c 71.1 mmol/mol [8.7%], T2D duration 6.3 years) were treated. After 20 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -12.1 mmol/mol (-14.0, -10.1) (-1.10% [-1.28, -0.93]) and -7.6 mmol/mol (-9.6, -5.6) (-0.69% [-0.88, -0.51]) with sitagliptin and placebo, respectively; the between-group difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -4.5 mmol/mol (-6.5, -2.5) (-0.41% [-0.59, -0.23]); P < 0.001. The likelihood of having HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) at week 20 was higher in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group in the overall population (relative risk 1.7, P = 0.002) and in those with a baseline HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (≥8.5%) (relative risk 2.4, P = 0.026). There were no notable differences between groups with regard to adverse events overall, hypoglycaemia events, changes in body weight or other safety variables. CONCLUSION: In participants not at HbA1c goal on a sub-maximal dose of metformin, addition of sitagliptin at the time of metformin dose uptitration improved glycaemic response and HbA1c goal attainment, with similar safety and tolerability, compared to metformin uptitration alone.

Double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of continuing or discontinuing the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin when initiating insulin glargine therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: The CompoSIT-I Study.

AIMS: To compare the effects of continuing versus discontinuing sitagliptin when initiating and intensively titrating insulin glargine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or a sulphonylurea. Those on metformin + sitagliptin were directly randomized; all others were switched to metformin + sitagliptin (discontinuing other DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas) and stabilized during a run-in period. At randomization, patients were allocated to continuing sitagliptin or discontinuing sitagliptin, with both groups initiating insulin glargine and titrating to a target fasting glucose of 4.0 to 5.6 mmol/L. RESULTS: A total of 743 participants (mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 72.6 mmol/mol [8.8%], disease duration 10.8 years), were treated. After 30 weeks, the mean HbA1c and least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c were 51.4 mmol/mol (6.85%) and -20.5 mmol/mol (-1.88%) in the sitagliptin group and 56.4 mmol/mol (7.31%) and -15.5 mmol/mol (-1.42%) in the placebo group; the difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -5.0 mmol/mol (-0.46%; P < 0.001). The percentage of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) was higher (54% vs. 35%) and the mean daily insulin dose was lower (53 vs. 61 units) in the sitagliptin group. Despite lower HbA1c, event rates and incidences of hypoglycaemia were not higher in the sitagliptin group. Adverse events overall and changes from baseline in body weight were similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: When initiating insulin glargine therapy, continuation of sitagliptin, compared with discontinuation, resulted in a clinically meaningful greater reduction in HbA1c without an increase in hypoglycaemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738879.

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin compared with dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild renal insufficiency: The CompoSIT-R study.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin with the sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and mild renal insufficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≥7.0 to ≤9.5% (≥53 to ≤80 mmol/mol) and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 to <90 mL/min/1.73m2 on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) ± sulfonylurea were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 307) or dapagliflozin 5 mg titrated to 10 mg (n = 306) once daily for 24 weeks. A longitudinal data analysis model was used to test the primary hypothesis that sitagliptin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin in reducing HbA1c at Week 24, with superiority to be tested if non-inferiority is met. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02532855. RESULTS: Baseline mean HbA1c (% [mmol/mol]) was 7.7 (60.9) and 7.8 (61.2), and mean eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2 ) was 79.4 and 76.9 for the sitagliptin and dapagliflozin groups, respectively. After 24 weeks, the between-group difference in least squares mean (95% CI) changes from baseline in HbA1c was -0.15% (-0.26, -0.04) (-1.67 mmol/mol [-2.86, -0.48]), P = 0.006, meeting the prespecified criteria for declaring both non-inferiority and superiority of sitagliptin versus dapagliflozin. The HbA1c goal of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) was met by 43% (sitagliptin) and 27% (dapagliflozin) of patients. No meaningful between-group difference was observed in a pre-specified analysis of 2-hour incremental postprandial glucose excursion. A review of adverse events (AEs) was notable for a lower incidence of drug-related AEs with sitagliptin compared with dapagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, mild renal insufficiency and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin ± sulfonylurea, sitagliptin treatment resulted in greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with dapagliflozin and was generally well tolerated.

Longitudinal medical resources and costs among type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS).

AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.

A randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly omarigliptin as monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: People with T2DM not on glucose-lowering medications, or who were washed off monotherapy or low-dose dual therapy, were randomized double-blind to omarigliptin 25 mg (n=165) or matching omarigliptin placebo (n=164) for 24 weeks, followed by a 30-week period to assess continuing efficacy and safety longer-term of omarigliptin during which metformin was added to the placebo group and metformin placebo to the omarigliptin group. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 (primary endpoint) was -0.49% (-0.73, -0.24) in the omarigliptin group and -0.10% (-0.34, 0.14) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.39% (-0.59, -0.19) (p<.001). Protocol deviation in use of metformin by 38 of 252 (15%) people whose samples were available for evaluation probably attenuated glycemic efficacy results, as suggested by the LS mean difference -0.53% (-0.75, -0.32) after censoring of such participants. At 24 and 54 weeks, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. During 54 weeks there were no AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia in the omarigliptin group and 5 AEs in the placebo group. Over 54 weeks, a majority of the omarigliptin treatment had a persistent reduction in HbA1c, remaining rescue-free. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2DM, omarigliptin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 54 weeks and was generally well tolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01717313. EudraCT Number: 2012-003626-24.

A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by glimepiride and metformin.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease that often requires a patient to use multiple antihyperglycemic agents to achieve glycemic control with disease progression. Omarigliptin is a once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to the treatment regimen of patients with T2D inadequately controlled by dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride. METHODS: Patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and glimepiride (≥4 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (N = 154) or placebo (N = 153) for 24 weeks. The primary objective was to assess whether omarigliptin was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary objectives were to assess the effects of omarigliptin vs. placebo on FPG and the proportion of subjects attaining HbA1c goals of <7% and <6.5%. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.5% (omarigliptin) and 8.6% (placebo), the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 was -0.67% in the omarigliptin group and -0.06% in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of -0.61% (-0.85, -0.38). Treatment with omarigliptin resulted in a significantly greater reduction in FPG relative to placebo (LS mean difference [95% CI] -0.9 mmol/L [-1.4, -0.4]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving glycemic goals of <7.0% and <6.5% was higher in the omarigliptin group relative to the placebo group. The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuations were generally similar between treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 10.5% in the omarigliptin group and 8.5% in the placebo group. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin and placebo treatments were associated with LS mean changes in body weight of -0.1 kg and -0.9 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride, compared with placebo, once-weekly omarigliptin provided greater improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01704261 , EudraCT Number: 2012-002612-10. Trial Registration Date: October 8, 2012.

Causes of Death in a Contemporary Cohort of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Insights From the TECOS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the specific causes of death and their associated risk factors in a contemporary cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study (n = 14,671), a cardiovascular (CV) safety trial adding sitagliptin versus placebo to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD (median follow-up 3 years). An independent committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated each cause of death. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk factors associated with each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1,084 deaths were adjudicated as the following: 530 CV (1.2/100 patient-years [PY], 49% of deaths), 338 non-CV (0.77/100 PY, 31% of deaths), and 216 unknown (0.49/100 PY, 20% of deaths). The most common CV death was sudden death (n = 145, 27% of CV death) followed by acute myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke (n = 113 [MI n = 48, stroke n = 65], 21% of CV death) and heart failure (HF) (n = 63, 12% of CV death). The most common non-CV death was malignancy (n = 154, 46% of non-CV death). The risk of specific CV death subcategories was lower among patients with no baseline history of HF, including sudden death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; P = 0.0036), MI/stroke death (HR 0.47; P = 0.049), and HF death (HR 0.29; P = 0.0057). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a contemporary cohort of patients with diabetes and ASCVD, sudden death was the most common subcategory of CV death. HF prevention may represent an avenue to reduce the risk of specific CV death subcategories.

Use of Prohibited Medication, a Potentially Overlooked Confounder in Clinical Trials: Omarigliptin (Once-weekly DPP-4 Inhibitor) Monotherapy Trial in 18- to 45-year-olds.

PURPOSE: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin monotherapy in young adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Unexpected efficacy results in this trial led to a series of investigations that identified the use of prohibited medication by a substantial number of trial patients. METHODS: Patients with T2DM who were ≥18 to <45 years of age and either drug-naive or not on an antihyperglycemic agent for ≥12 weeks with inadequate glycemic control were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 102) or placebo once weekly (n = 101) for 24 weeks. The objectives of the trial were to assess the effect of treatment with omarigliptin on glycemic parameters, including levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 2-hour postmeal glucose, and fasting plasma glucose, and to assess the safety and tolerability of omarigliptin. Additional investigations into trial conduct included the measurement of drug levels for omarigliptin and metformin in blood samples collected for future biomedical research, available for approximately one half of the patients. FINDINGS: The mean age of trial participants was 39.2 years, approximately 60% were male, mean body mass index was 32.5 kg/m2, and mean duration of diabetes was 3.1 years. The mean baseline HbA1c value was 7.9% in the omarigliptin group and 8.1% in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, the least squares mean change (95% CI) in HbA1c value from baseline was -0.33% (-0.60 to -0.06) in the omarigliptin group and -0.45% (-0.72 to -0.18) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference of 0.12% (-0.26 to 0.49; P = 0.535). Similarly, no between-group difference was observed for the other glycemic parameters (2-hour postmeal glucose and fasting plasma glucose levels). No issues were identified in drug allocation, dispensing or supply, patient compliance with trial medication, sample handling or analysis, or site trial conduct that explained the observed results. Measurement of drug levels from future biomedical research samples uncovered the use, with no investigator knowledge, of an antihyperglycemic agent that was prohibited by the protocol (ie, metformin) by 42.4% (39 of 92) of patients. Metformin was used by more patients in the placebo group (57% [25 of 44]) than in the omarigliptin group (29% [14 of 48]). IMPLICATIONS: The use of prohibited metformin in a trial of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, introduced a confounding factor that invalidated the results of the trial. This behavior may have been encouraged in the trial by protocol-specified self-monitoring of blood glucose levels. Use of prohibited medication may be an underappreciated confounder in clinical trial research. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: MK-3102-028 (US); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01814748; EudraCT number, 2012-004303-12 (EU).

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the cardiovascular safety of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Omarigliptin is a once-weekly (q.w.) oral DPP-4 inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. To support approval of omarigliptin in the United States, the clinical development program included a cardiovascular (CV) safety study. Subsequently, a business decision was made not to submit a marketing application for omarigliptin in the United States, and the CV safety study was terminated. Herein we report an analysis of data from that early-terminated study. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, 4202 patients with T2DM and established CV disease were assigned to either omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo in addition to their existing diabetes therapy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to summarize the primary endpoint of time to first major adverse CV event (MACE, the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and the analysis of first event of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF). RESULTS: The median follow-up was approximately 96 weeks (range 1.1-178.6 weeks). The primary MACE outcome occurred in 114/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (5.45%; 2.96/100 patient-years) and 114/2100 patients in the placebo group (5.43%; 2.97/100 patient-years), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.29). The hHF outcome occurred in 20/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (0.96%; 0.51/100 patient-years) and 33/2100 patients in the placebo group (1.57%; 0.85/100 patient-years), with an HR of 0.60 (95% CI 0.35, 1.05). After 142 weeks, the least-squares mean difference (omarigliptin vs. placebo) in glycated hemoglobin levels was -0.3% (95% CI -0.46, -0.14). The numbers of patients with adverse events, serious adverse events or discontinued from study medication due to adverse events were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this CV safety study of patients with T2DM and established CV disease, omarigliptin did not increase the risk of MACE or hHF and was generally well tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01703208. Registered 05 October 2012.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with T2DM on a stable dose of metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.0-10.5% were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo (n = 201 in both) for 24 weeks (primary timepoint) followed by an additional 80-week treatment period. RESULTS: At week 24, from a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c (primary end-point) was -0.54% (-0.69%, -0.40%) in the omarigliptin group and 0.00% (-0.14%, 0.15%) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.55% (-0.75%, -0.34%); p < .001. Between-group differences (LS mean 95% CI) for the secondary end-points of 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose (omarigliptin vs placebo) were -0.8 mmol/L (-1.4, -0.2) (p = .011) and -0.5 mmol/L (-0.9, -0.1) (p = .010), respectively. At week 24, the incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and subjects with one or more adverse event (AE), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to an AE were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. Over 104 weeks, omarigliptin treatment provided a clinically meaningful reduction in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, adding omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. to metformin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 104 weeks and was generally welltolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin, a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (n = 376) or glimepiride up to 6 mg once daily (n = 375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at week 54. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.30% in the omarigliptin group and -0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.4 kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5 kg). CONCLUSIONS: After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss vs weight gain.