Association between longitudinal biomarkers and major adverse liver outcomes in patients with non-cirrhotic metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Noninvasive biomarkers provide prognostic information for the development of major adverse liver outcomes (MALOs) in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but the predictive value of longitudinal biomarker measurements has not been evaluated. We assessed whether changes in biomarkers could predict incident MALO in MASLD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We analyzed a cohort of 1260 patients (71.7% on biopsy) with non-cirrhotic MASLD between 1974 and 2019. Data at baseline and follow-up visits were obtained from medical charts. MALO was determined through medical charts and linkage to national registers until the end of 2020. A joint modeling approach was used to quantify the associations between the trajectory of biomarkers and the risk of MALO. MASLD was diagnosed at a median age of 52 years (IQR: 39-60), and 59% were male. During a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 111 (8.8%) patients developed MALO. The joint modeling showed that an elevated fibrosis-4 score (HR: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.89-3.50), aspartate aminotransferase (HR: 2.69, 95% CI: 2.57-3.05), and lower platelet count (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.90-0.97) at any time point were associated with an increased risk of MALO, whereas the rate of change in these biomarkers had no association with this risk. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to baseline measurements of noninvasive biomarkers such as fibrosis-4 score, aspartate aminotransferase, and platelets taken at MASLD diagnosis, monitoring their values over time is important, as the latest value of these biomarkers is closely associated with the risk of future MALO. The rate of change may not be as important.

Overall and subgroup prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and prevalence of advanced fibrosis in the United States: An updated national estimate in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Data on the prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in subgroups of the United States (US) population are limited. This study was conducted to estimate NAFLD prevalence overall and by subgroups, and prevalence of NAFLD with advanced fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018 data, a cross-sectional study was conducted. NAFLD was defined as having a US Fatty Liver Index (USFLI) ≥ 30 in the absence of other causes of liver disease, including excessive alcohol intake, chronic hepatitis B, and chronic hepatitis C. Likelihood for having advanced fibrosis was determined by the calculated NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS; high ≥ 0.676; low < -1.445) and fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4; high ≥ 2.67; low < 1.30). RESULTS: The weighted national prevalence of NAFLD in US adults was 26.7% (95% confidence interval: 25.3%-28.1%). Prevalence was higher among those aged ≥ 65 years, males, Mexican Americans, with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (class 2 and 3 obesity) and with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Of those meeting the USFLI criterion for NAFLD, 18.1% and 3.7% were determined as having a high probability of advanced fibrosis based on NFS ≥ 0.676 and FIB-4 ≥ 2.67 cut-off values, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports an increased prevalence of NAFLD in specific subpopulations (aged ≥ 65 years, males, Mexican Americans, obese population, and patients with T2D). The observed difference in the prevalence of advanced fibrosis as estimated by NFS and FIB-4 highlights the challenge of choosing optimal cut-off values.

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.

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.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin to treatment of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on insulin monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 52-week clinical trial, Japanese patients on insulin monotherapy were randomized to once-weekly omarigliptin 25 mg (N = 123) or placebo (N = 61) for a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period. After Week 16, patients continued or switched to omarigliptin for a 36-week open-label period. RESULTS: From a mean baseline of approximately 8.8%, the Week 16 least squares mean changes in HbA1c were -0.61% (omarigliptin) and 0.29% (placebo); the between-group difference was -0.90% (p < .001). At Week 52, the mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.57% in both the group on omarigliptin for 52 weeks and the group on omarigliptin for 36 weeks (switched from placebo at Week 16). During the first 16 weeks of treatment, the incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuation from trial medication because of an AE were similar in both groups. A slight increase in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was observed in the omarigliptin group (n = 13 [10.6%]) compared with placebo (n = 4 [6.6%]). No severe hypoglycaemia was reported during the study. No new safety signals emerged with treatment beyond Week 16 through Week 52. CONCLUSION: The addition of once-weekly omarigliptin to insulin therapy for up to 52 weeks was generally well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control throughout the trial period. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02906709.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with premixed insulin.

To improve understanding of the safety and efficacy of adding sitagliptin to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes taking premixed insulin, data from patients using premixed insulin ± metformin (screening HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤11%) in either of two clinical trials in which sitagliptin 100 mg once-daily or placebo was added to various formulations of insulin treatment, were analysed. In both trials, insulin doses were to remain stable throughout the 24-week trial period. At week 24, the between-group difference (sitagliptin - placebo) in the least squares mean (95% confidence intervals) change from baseline in HbA1c in patients using premixed insulin was -0.43% (-0.58, -0.28), P <0.001. Adverse events were generally similar between the treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was slightly higher with sitagliptin, and the incidence of hypoglycaemia requiring medical attention was slightly higher with placebo; in both cases the difference was not statistically significant. The data from this pooled analysis confirm the utility of sitagliptin used in combination with premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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.

Effect of Sitagliptin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P=0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P=0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; TECOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790205.).

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.

Impact of differing glucose-lowering regimens on the pattern of association between glucose control and survival.

AIMS: To characterize survival in relation to achieved glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level within alternative glucose-lowering regimens with differing risks of hypoglycaemia. METHODS: Data were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the corresponding Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed glucose-lowering therapy in monotherapy or dual therapy with metformin between 2004 and 2013 were identified. Risk of all-cause mortality within treatment cohorts was evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model, introducing mean HbA1c as a quarterly updated, time-dependent covariable. RESULTS: There were 6646 deaths in a total follow-up period of 374 591 years. Survival for lower (<7%) vs moderate HbA1c levels (≥7%, <8.5%) differed by cohort: metformin, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.12); sulphonylurea, aHR 1.11 (95% CI 0.99-1.25); insulin, aHR 1.47 (95% CI 1.25-1.72); combined regimens with low hypoglycaemia risk, aHR 1.02 (95% CI 0.94-1.10); and combined regimens with higher hypoglycaemia risk excluding insulin, aHR 1.24 (95% CI 1.13-1.35) and including insulin, aHR 1.28 (95% CI 1.18-1.37). Higher HbA1c levels were associated with increased mortality in regimens with low hypoglycaemia risk. Post hoc analysis by HbA1c deciles revealed an elevated risk of all-cause mortality for the lowest deciles across all cohorts, but particularly in those regimens associated with hypoglycaemia. High HbA1c was associated with no difference, or a small increase in mortality risk in regimens with increased risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of mortality risk across the range of HbA1c differed by glucose-lowering regimen. Lower HbA1c was associated with increased mortality risk compared with moderate control, especially in those regimens associated with hypoglycaemia. High levels of HbA1c were associated with the expected elevated mortality risk in regimens with low hypoglycaemia risk.

Ertugliflozin plus sitagliptin versus either individual agent over 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: The VERTIS FACTORIAL randomized trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin and sitagliptin co-administration vs the individual agents in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin. METHODS: In this study (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02099110), patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% and ≤11.0% (≥58 and ≤97 mmol/mol) with metformin ≥1500 mg/d (n = 1233) were randomized to ertugliflozin 5 (E5) or 15 (E15) mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d (S100) or to co-administration of E5/S100 or E15/S100. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. RESULTS: At Week 26, least squares mean HbA1c reductions from baseline were greater with E5/S100 (-1.5%) and E15/S100 (-1.5%) than with individual agents (-1.0%, -1.1% and -1.1% for E5, E15 and S100, respectively; P < .001 for all comparisons). HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) was achieved by 26.4%, 31.9%, 32.8%, 52.3% and 49.2% of patients in the E5, E15, S100, E5/S100 and E15/S100 groups, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose reductions were significantly greater with E5/S100 and E15/S100 compared with individual agents. Body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly decreased with E5/S100 and E15/S100 vs S100 alone. Glycaemic control, body weight and SBP effects of ertugliflozin were maintained to Week 52. Genital mycotic infections were more common among ertugliflozin-treated patients compared with those treated with S100. Incidences of symptomatic hypoglycaemia and adverse events related to hypovolaemia or urinary tract infection were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes while using metformin, co-administration of ertugliflozin and sitagliptin provided more effective glycaemic control through 52 weeks compared with the individual agents.

Sex differences in management and outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: A report from TECOS.

AIM: To examine sex differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cox models were used to analyse the association between sex and outcomes in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS), a randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease. RESULTS: A total of 4297 women and 10 374 men were followed for a median of 3.0 years. Women were slightly older and more often had cerebrovascular disease and peripheral arterial disease but less often coronary heart disease than men. At baseline, women were less likely to use aspirin or statins. The primary composite outcome of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina occurred in 418 women (9.7%) and 1272 men (12.3%; 3.48 vs 4.38 events/100 participant-years, crude hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.89, adjusted HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.74; P < .0001). Women also had a significantly lower risk of secondary CV outcomes and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study of people with type 2 diabetes and CV disease, women had different CV disease burden, worse CV risk factor profiles, and less use of indicated medications than men. Despite this, women had significantly lower risk of CV events, suggesting that the cardioprotective effects of female sex extend to populations with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of the addition of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sitagliptin: The VERTIS SITA2 placebo-controlled randomized study.

AIMS: To assess ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled by metformin and sitagliptin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this double-blind randomized study (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02036515), patients (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0% to 10.5% [53-91 mmol/mol] receiving metformin ≥1500 mg/d and sitagliptin 100 mg/d; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) were randomized to ertugliflozin 5 mg once-daily, 15 mg once-daily or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26; treatment was continued until Week 52. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients were randomized (mean baseline HbA1c, 8.0% [64.3 mmol/mol]; eGFR, 87.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). After 26 weeks, placebo-adjusted least squares (LS) mean changes in HbA1c from baseline were -0.7% (-7.5 mmol/mol) and -0.8% (-8.3 mmol/mol) for ertugliflozin 5 and 15 mg, respectively (both P < .001); 17.0%, 32.1% and 39.9% of patients receiving placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg or ertugliflozin 15 mg, respectively, had HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were observed with ertugliflozin relative to placebo. The positive effects of ertugliflozin on glycaemic control, BW and SBP were maintained through Week 52. A higher incidence of genital mycotic infections was observed in male and female patients receiving ertugliflozin (3.7%-14.1%) vs placebo (0%-1.9%) through Week 52. The incidence of urinary tract infections, symptomatic hypoglycaemia and hypovolaemia adverse events were not meaningfully different across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ertugliflozin added to metformin and sitagliptin was well-tolerated, and provided clinically meaningful, durable glycaemic control, BW and SBP reductions vs placebo over 52 weeks.

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.

Hypoglycaemia seriousness and weight gain as determinants of cardiovascular disease outcomes among sulfonylurea users.

AIMS: Certain treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus cause hypoglycaemia and weight gain, and thus might counteract the benefits of intensive glucose control. We quantify the association of cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes with hypoglycaemia and weight gain among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sulfonylureas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study included patients from January 2009 through December 2014 who were selected from within a deidentified nationwide electronic health records repository, including multiple provider networks and electronic medical records systems. Hypoglycaemia measures from structured data fields and free text clinical notes were categorized as serious or non-serious. Covariate adjusted Poisson regression analysis was used to assess the association between frequency of hypoglycaemia (by severity), or magnitude of weight change, and incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF) and stroke. RESULTS: Among 143 635 eligible patients, we observed 5669 cases of AMI, 14 109 incident cases of CHF and 7017 cases of stroke. Overall incidence rates were 1.53, 4.26 and 1.92 per 100 person-years for AMI, CHF and stroke, respectively. The associations between overall hypoglycaemia and each of the CVD outcomes were positive, with stronger associations observed for serious hypoglycaemia and attenuated or null associations observed for non-serious hypoglycaemia. Weight change exhibited a U-shaped association with increased risks associated with both weight loss and weight gain relative to stable weight. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of increased CVD risk associated with hypoglycaemia, especially with serious hypoglycaemia events. While associations were attenuated with non-serious hypoglycaemia, the results were suggestive of a potential increased risk.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of treatment with the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor omarigliptin or the once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor omarigliptin or once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T2DM with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/d) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 322) or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily (n = 320). The primary analysis assessed whether omarigliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c at week 24, based on the criterion of having an upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) about the difference less than the non-inferiority bound of 0.3%. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in both groups. After 24 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.47% in the omarigliptin group and -0.43% in the sitagliptin group, with a between-group difference of -0.03% (95% CI -0.15, 0.08). This result met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The LS mean change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose and the percentage of patients with HbA1c <7.0% or <6.5% at week 24 were similar in the two treatment groups. There were no notable differences in adverse events and the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was low and similar in the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, the addition of omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily led to similar improvements in glycaemic control. Both agents were generally well tolerated with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia.