A double-blind, randomised trial of tesaglitazar versus pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The efficacy and safety of tesaglitazar (0.5 and 1 mg) and pioglitazone (15, 30 and 45 mg) were compared in a 24-week, randomised, double-blind study in 1,707 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Tesaglitazar 1 mg was non-inferior to pioglitazone 45 mg for change from baseline in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C) at 24 weeks (difference: -0.056 [95% confidence intervals -0.161, 0.049], pNI<0.001 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Tesaglitazar 1 mg improved triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and non-HDL-C levels compared with all pioglitazone doses at 24 weeks (p<0.001). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was lower with tesaglitazar for all pioglitazone comparisons (p<0.05), except for tesaglitazar 0.5 mg versus pioglitazone 15 mg. Tesaglitazar 1 mg decreased LDL particle number, when compared with all pioglitazone doses (p<0.01). Both agents increased body weight and peripheral oedema in a dose-dependent manner, but only tesaglitazar increased serum creatinine. In summary, tesaglitazar provided similar glycaemic control to pioglitazone, was associated with significant improvement in lipid and lipoprotein variables, and increased serum creatinine in a dose-dependent manner.

Comparison of the efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin in achieving lipid goals: results from the STELLAR trial.

In the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial, the efficacy of rosuvastatin calcium (Crestor) was compared with that of atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), and pravastatin (Pravachol) for lowering plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) after 6 weeks of treatment. In this multicenter, parallel-group, open-label trial, adults with hypercholesterolemia were randomized to treatments with rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg, atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg, simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg, or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. Efficacy and safety results from this trial have been previously published. The additional analyses included in this report show that 53% (83/156) to 80% (125/157) of patients in the rosuvastatin 10- to 40-mg groups achieved LDL-C levels < 100 mg/dl (< 2.6 mmol/l), compared with 18% (28/158) to 70% (115/165) of patients who received atorvastatin, 8% (13/165) to 53% (86/163) of patients who received simvastatin, and 1% (1/160) to 8% (13/161) of patients who received pravastatin. Other additional analyses showed that more patients in the rosuvastatin 10- to 40-mg groups than in the comparator groups who were at high risk of coronary heart disease according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III, Joint European Societies, or Canadian guidelines achieved the LDL-C goals of < 100 mg/dl (< 2.6 mmol/l) (55% to 77% compared with 0 to 64%), < 3.0 mmol/l (< 116 mg/dl) (76% to 94% compared with 6% to 81%), and < 2.5 mmol/l (< 97 mg/dl) (47% to 69% compared with 0 to 53%), respectively. Results favoring rosuvastatin versus the comparators were also reported for patients: (a) who had triglycerides > or = 200mg/dl (> or = 2.3 mmol/l), and achieved both ATP III LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goals (80% to 84% versus 15% to 84%); (b) overall who achieved the Canadian LDL-C goals of < 2.5 (< 97 mg/dl) to < 5.0 mmol/l (< 193 mg/dl) (85% to 91% versus 44% to 86%); and (c) who achieved all 3 Canadian goals for LDL-C, triglycerides (< 3.0 mmol/l [< 266 mg/dl] to < 2.0 mmol/l [< 177 mg/dl]), and the total cholesterol/high-density lipoproteincholesterol ratio (< 4 to < 7) (70% to 83% versus 35% to 79%).

Saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving concomitant statin therapy.

AIMS: To examine whether concomitant statin therapy affects glycemic control with saxagliptin 2.5 and 5mg/d in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Efficacy and safety were analyzed post hoc for pooled data from 9 saxagliptin randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a primary 24-week treatment period (4 monotherapy, 2 add-on to metformin, 1 each add-on to a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or insulin±metformin). Safety was also assessed in an 11-study, 24-week pool and an extended 20-study pool, which included 9 additional 4- to 52-week randomized studies. Comparisons were performed for patient groups defined by baseline statin use. RESULTS: Saxagliptin produced greater mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin than placebo, with no interaction between treatment and baseline statin use (P=0.47). In patients receiving saxagliptin 2.5 and 5mg and placebo, the proportion of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE) was 78.1%, 64.0%, and 63.2%, respectively, in patients with any statin use and 70.6%, 57.9%, and 55.0% in patients with no statin use. Serious AEs, deaths, and symptomatic confirmed hypoglycemia (fingerstick glucose ≤50mg/dL) were few and similar, irrespective of baseline statin use. CONCLUSIONS: Saxagliptin improves glycemic control and is generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM, irrespective of concomitant statin therapy.

Saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus stratified by cardiovascular disease history and cardiovascular risk factors: analysis of 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness and safety of saxagliptin 5 mg/d in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. METHODS: The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of data from 3 randomized studies that compared saxagliptin versus placebo as initial combination therapy with metformin for 24 weeks (N = 648) and versus placebo as an add-on to insulin with and without metformin for 24 weeks (N = 455), and assessed noninferiority to glipizide as an add-on to metformin for 52 weeks (N = 858). Efficacy outcomes were the adjusted mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, fasting plasma glucose concentration, and body weight and the proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c level < 7%. Pairwise comparisons were performed in subgroups with 1) history/no history of CVD, 2) ≥ 2 versus 0 to 1 CV risk factors, 3) hypertension/no hypertension, and 4) statin use/no statin use. Adverse events (AE) and hypoglycemia were monitored. RESULTS: In the initial combination therapy study, reductions in HbA1c level from baseline were greater with saxagliptin versus placebo in all subgroups (difference [saxagliptin - placebo], -0.38% to -0.67%). In the add-on to insulin ± metformin study, differences in adjusted mean change in HbA1c level versus placebo ranged from -0.23% to -0.58% across subgroups. In the noninferiority to glipizide study, adjusted mean changes in HbA1c level were comparable between saxagliptin and glipizide, across subgroups (difference, 0.08%-0.21%). No evidence suggested clinically relevant treatment-by-subgroup interactions in pairwise comparison. Incidences of ≥ 1 AE were comparable across subgroups. Incidences of confirmed hypoglycemia with saxagliptin were 0 in both metformin add-on studies and 1.2% to 7.8% with saxagliptin + insulin ± metformin. CONCLUSION: In patients with T2DM, saxagliptin 5 mg/d was similarly effective in improving glycemic control, with an AE profile similar to that of placebo, irrespective of CVD history, number of CV risk factors, hypertension, or statin use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00327015, NCT00575588, NCT00757588.

Saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease history or cardiovascular risk factors: results of a pooled analysis of phase 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis sought to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors or disease (CVD). METHODS: Data from 5 randomized controlled trials were pooled to compare saxagliptin 5 mg with placebo: 2 studies of saxagliptin as monotherapy in drug-naïve patients and 1 each of saxagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin, glyburide, or a thiazolidinedione. Analysis was performed according to the following baseline/trial entry criteria: 1) history/no history of CVD; 2) ≥ 2 versus 0 to 1 CV risk factors; 3) statin use versus no statin use; and 4) hypertension versus no hypertension. Change from baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial glucose levels; and the proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c level < 7% were analyzed (week 24). Safety was assessed by adverse events, hypoglycemia, and body weight. RESULTS: In total, 882 patients received saxagliptin 5 mg and 799 received placebo. Differences in adjusted mean change from baseline HbA1c (95% CI) were greater with saxagliptin compared with placebo in patients with a history of CVD (-0.64% [-0.90 to -0.38]) and no history of CVD (-0.68% [-0.78 to -0.58]); with ≥ 2 CV risk factors (-0.73% [-0.85 to -0.60]) and 0 to 1 CV risk factor (-0.62% [-0.75 to -0.48]); with statin use (-0.70% [-0.89 to -0.52]) and no statin use (-0.66% [-0.77 to -0.56]); and with hypertension (-0.69% [-0.82 to -0.57]) and no hypertension (-0.66% [-0.80 to -0.52]). Saxagliptin was well tolerated, with similar adverse event rates and types compared with placebo. There was a < 1% rate of confirmed hypoglycemia in all groups except in patients with CV history who received placebo (2.1%). CONCLUSION: Saxagliptin improved glycemic measures, resulted in low rates of confirmed hypoglycemia, and was well tolerated in patients with or without CVD and CV risk factors.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia--Prospective study to evaluate the Use of Low doses of the Statins Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin (PULSAR).

BACKGROUND: Many patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease do not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. This study compared the efficacy and safety of low doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg) and atorvastatin (20 mg) in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: A total of 996 patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C > or = 3.4 and < 5.7 mmol/L [130 and 220 mg/dL]) and coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerosis, or a CHD-risk equivalent were randomized to once-daily rosuvastatin 10 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C levels at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included LDL-C goal achievement (National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] goal < 100 mg/dL; 2003 European goal < 2.5 mmol/L for patients with atherosclerotic disease, type 2 diabetes, or at high risk of cardiovascular events, as assessed by a Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk > or = 5% or 3.0 mmol/L for all other patients), changes in other lipids and lipoproteins, cost-effectiveness, and safety. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C levels significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg at week 6 (44.6% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.05). Significantly more patients achieved NCEP ATP III and 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg (68.8% vs. 62.5%, p < 0.05; 68.0% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.05, respectively). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was increased significantly with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus atorvastatin 20 mg (6.4% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). Lipid ratios and levels of apolipoprotein A-I also improved more with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 20 mg. The use of rosuvastatin 10 mg was also cost-effective compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in both a US and a UK setting. Both treatments were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events (rosuvastatin 10 mg, 27.5%; atorvastatin 20 mg, 26.1%). No cases of rhabdomyolysis, liver, or renal insufficiency were recorded. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more efficacious than atorvastatin 20 mg at reducing LDL-C, enabling LDL-C goal achievement and improving other lipid parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated.