Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as add-on therapy to basal insulin and metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and metformin. METHODS: This was a post hoc subanalysis of participants who received basal insulin and metformin in a global phase III study that randomized participants (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo for ≥52 weeks as add-on therapy to basal insulin alone or in combination with metformin and/or pioglitazone. During the first 24 weeks, the background dose of basal insulin remained stable; thereafter, adjustments based on glucose concentrations were recommended. The primary endpoint of the subanalysis was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks. The safety analysis incorporated data up to a maximum of 110 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 950 participants receiving background insulin and metformin were included in this subanalysis (linagliptin and placebo, both n = 475). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean (±se) change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin was -7 (±1) mmol/mol [-0.7 (±0.1) %; 95% CI -0.8, -0.6; P < 0.0001]. The overall frequency of drug-related adverse events (linagliptin, 18.9%; placebo, 21.9%) and investigator-reported hypoglycaemia (linagliptin, 30.7%; placebo, 31.6%) were similar in both groups at the end of treatment. The frequency of severe hypoglycaemia was low (linagliptin, 1.7%; placebo, 0.8%). No meaningful changes in mean (±sd) body weight were noted in either group [week 52: linagliptin, -0.5 (±3.2) kg; placebo, 0.0 (±3.1) kg]. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin added to basal insulin and metformin improved glycaemic control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or body weight gain.

Improved glucose control with reduced hypoglycaemic risk when linagliptin is added to basal insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the efficacy, hypoglycaemia risk and other safety markers of linagliptin as an additional therapy in older patients (aged ≥70 years) inadequately controlled with basal insulin. METHODS: A prespecified safety analysis from the linagliptin trials programme was carried out to explore the hypoglycaemia risk when linagliptin was added to background basal insulin therapy in elderly patients (≥70 years). To do this, two eligible, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials (NCT00954447 and NCT01084005) of 24 and ≥52 weeks, respectively, were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 247 elderly individuals [mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) age 74 ± 4 years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.2 ± 0.8%] on basal insulin (mean ± s.d. baseline dose 36 ± 25 IU/day) were identified. Alongside placebo-adjusted change in HbA1c with linagliptin of -0.77% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.95 to 0.59; p < 0.0001] after 24 weeks, the hazard ratios (HRs) of both overall and confirmed hypoglycaemia [blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], were significantly lower with linagliptin than with placebo: HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.39-0.97) versus 0.59 (95% CI 0.37-0.94), respectively (both p < 0.05). Moreover, significantly less confirmed hypoglycaemia was present in linagliptin-treated patients with renal impairment [HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.27-0.76)], moderate hyperglycaemia [HbA1c 7.5 to <9.0%; HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.27-0.99)], lower fasting plasma glucose levels [<152 mg/dl; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.28-0.86)] and those treated with higher insulin doses [insulin ≥35.6 IU/day; HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.91); p < 0.05 for all]. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare and the incidence was lower with linagliptin (0.8%) versus placebo (2.5%): HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.02-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in hyperglycaemia and no relevant on-trial insulin dose reductions, adding linagliptin to basal insulin appears to decrease hypoglycaemia risk. The biological basis of this phenomenon warrants further research but may involve counter-regulatory effects of incretin hormones.

Regardless of the degree of glycaemic control, linagliptin has lower hypoglycaemia risk than all doses of glimepiride, at all time points, over the course of a 2-year trial.

AIM: To evaluate the risk of documented hypoglycaemia with glimepiride versus linagliptin. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of data from a 2-year, randomized, double-blind study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 764) versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride 1-4 mg once daily (n = 755) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by metformin. Patients randomized to glimepiride started on 1 mg and after 4 weeks were allowed to be individually uptitrated stepwise to glimepiride 4 mg if a fasting plasma glucose concentration ≤6.1 mmol/l was not achieved. Investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was evaluated by dose, over time, and by the degree of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with at least one hypoglycaemic event at the individual maximum glimepiride dose were: 1 mg, 45.0%; 2 mg, 50.8%; 3 mg, 36.1%; and 4 mg, 27.7%. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin (36.1 vs. 7.5%; p < 0.0001); after performing sensitivity analyses by excluding events during dose escalation (weeks 0-16), this difference remained significant (weeks 16-104: 25.8 vs. 5.9%; p < 0.0001). Notably, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin in each quartile of HbA1c change from baseline (all p < 0.0001); the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes was not increased with greater reductions in HbA1c in either group. In all 4-week intervals across the 2-year study, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower with linagliptin than with glimepiride. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride at all dose levels and time intervals, and regardless of change in HbA1c level.

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin lowers postprandial glucose and improves measures of ß-cell function in type 2 diabetes.

Progressive deterioration of pancreatic ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) contributes to worsening of hyperglycaemia. To investigate the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin on ß-cell function parameters, a pooled analysis of six randomized, 24-week, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials of 5 mg of linagliptin daily was performed in 2701 patients with T2DM (linagliptin, n = 1905; placebo, n = 796). At week 24, observed improvements in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and 2-h postprandial glucose were significantly greater for linagliptin than placebo (all p < 0.0001). Homeostasis model assessment (HOMA)-%ß, as a surrogate marker of fasting ß-cell function, was significantly improved with linagliptin, and did not change with placebo (placebo-adjusted mean ± s.e. change for linagliptin: 16.5 ± 4.6 (mU/l)/(mmol/l); p = 0.0003). Further study is required to determine if the significant improvement in HOMA-%ß with linagliptin will translate into long-term improvements in ß-cell function.

Safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive analysis of data from 1331 individuals aged ≥ 65 years.

AIMS: To investigate individual patient data from a comprehensive trials programme to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin across a range of glucose-lowering regimens in a large elderly population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Data were pooled from individuals aged ≥ 65 years, who participated in seven phase III, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin (24-52 weeks). Safety was assessed by incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) with a focus on hypoglycaemia. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). RESULTS: In total, 841 subjects received linagliptin 5 mg once a day and 490 received placebo. At baseline, the population had a mean ± s.d. age of 71.0 ± 4.6 years and a mean HbA1c concentration of 8.0 ± 0.8%; 63.5% of subjects received ≥ 2 antidiabetes drugs. Overall AEs and drug-related AEs were experienced by similar proportions of patients (linagliptin 71.3, placebo 73.3; linagliptin 18.1, placebo 19.8%, respectively). The incidence of investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was 21.4% with linagliptin and 25.7% with placebo. Severe hypoglycaemic events were rare and there were fewer in the linagliptin group (1.0 vs. 1.8%). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean ± s.e. reduction in HbA1c with linagliptin was -0.62 ± 0.06% (95% CI: -0.73, -0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this large cohort show that linagliptin is a well-tolerated and efficacious therapy for elderly patients with T2DM. Treatment with linagliptin may support individualized treatment goals, while effectively managing the risk of hypoglycaemia or drug-related side effects.

Glycyrrhizin in patients who failed previous interferon alpha-based therapies: biochemical and histological effects after 52 weeks.

Chronic hepatitis C patients often fail to respond to interferon-based therapies. This phase III study aimed at confirming the efficacy and safety of glycyrrhizin in interferon + ribavirin-based therapy non-responders. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparison of glycyrrhizin, administered intravenously 5×/or 3×/week, and 5×/week placebo for 12 weeks to 379 patients, was followed by a randomised, open comparison of glycyrrhizin i.v. 5×/versus 3×/week for 40 weeks. Primary endpoints were: (1) the proportion of patients with ≥50% ALT (alanine aminotransferase) reduction after 12 weeks double-blind phase, and (2) the proportion of patients with improvement of necro-inflammation after 52 weeks as compared with baseline. The proportion of patients with ALT reduction ≥50% after 12 weeks was significantly higher with 5×/week glycyrrhizin (28.7%, P < 0.0001) and 3×/week glycyrrhizin (29.0%, P < 0.0001) compared with placebo (7.0%). The proportion of patients with improvement in necro-inflammation after 52 weeks was 44.9% with 5×/week and 46.0% with 3×/week, respectively. Glycyrrhizin exhibited a significantly higher ALT reduction compared to placebo after 12 weeks of therapy and an improvement of necro-inflammation and fibrosis after 52-weeks treatment. Generally, glycyrrhizin treatment was well tolerated.

[Improvement in quality of life in the elderly. Results of a placebo-controlled study on the efficacy and tolerability of lecithin fluid in patients with impaired cognitive functions]. / Verbesserung der Lebensqualität im Alter. Ergebnisse einer plazebokontrollierten Studie zur Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit von Lecithin in flüssiger Darreichungsform bei Patienten mit Beeinträchtigung der kognitiven Funktionen.

Lecithin, a precursor of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, has a positive effect on brain and memory functions. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, the effect of buerlecithin fluid (BLF) was investigated in comparison with placebo in patients with mild cognitive disorders. A total of 96 ambulatory patients (> 55 years) were admitted to the study. Treatment duration was 84 days. In both treatment groups, a clear improvement in all the cognitive parameters tested was seen. The main target measure, the overall Sandoz Clinical Assessment Geriatric (SCAG) score improved by 18.7 (test substance) and 16.4 (placebo) points (p = 0.1620). A statistically relevant improvement of the secondary target parameter, response in the SCAG score, was achieved with BLF (85.4%) in comparison with placebo (62.5%) (p = 0.018). Furthermore, BLF demonstrated significant superiority in a number of the other target measures. The study also confirmed the very good tolerability of BLF.

Multicenter comparison of micronized fenofibrate and simvastatin in patients with primary type IIA or IIB hyperlipoproteinemia.

In 12 weeks of active treatment, we compared the efficacy and safety of a new (micronized) formulation of fenofibrate (F) (200 mg/day) with that of simvastatin (S) (20 mg/day), an inhibitor of hydroxy-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA)-reductase. Men and women with primary hyperlipoproteinemia (HLP) with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level 180-300 mg/dl and triglyceride level < 500 mg/dl had dietary treatment for 8 weeks, and 133 (2 of 3 type IIa, 1 of 3 type IIb HLP) were randomized. The decrease in total cholesterol differed between type IIa patients (F - 17.9 vs. S - 25.8%), the decrease in triglyceride levels between the type II b groups (F - 52.8 vs. S - 14%), whereas the degree of decrease in LDL cholesterol (F - 20.9 vs. S - 34.9%) differed among all patients. Despite the difference in LDL cholesterol decrease, no difference was noted in total apolipoprotein (apo) B lowering (F - 20.8 and S - 26.5%). Increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (F + 18.5 vs. S + 15%) differed specifically in type IIb patients (F + 33.6 vs. S + 11.4%), accompanied by a more pronounced increase in apo AI with fenofibrate (F + 10.5% vs. S no change). Improvement in the ratios of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol and apo AI/apo B occurred similarly with both drugs. Only fenofibrate, not simvastatin, decreased both fibrinogen (-10.3 vs. + 3.6%) and uric acid (-25% vs. no change) in type IIa and type IIb patients. Safety parameters reflected drug-specific known side effects, underscoring the safety of both drugs in addition to their efficacy in lipid lowering. Besides its advantages in type IIb hyperlipidemia, micronized fenofibrate proved a potent drug in decreasing total and LDL cholesterol and in very effectively decreasing apo B-containing lipoproteins, which is a recommendation for its use in primary hypercholesterolemia.

Video rating analysis of effect of maprotiline in patients with dementia and depression.

In patients with dementia and mild depression (DSM-III-R 290.21), the effect of low doses of the antidepressant maprotiline (up to 75 mg/d) was examined. The main parameter was a video rating of global impression. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMS) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were applied to evaluate the effect of maprotiline on cognitive and depressive symptoms. The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was of eight weeks' duration and included 127 patients, randomized in two groups. The antidepressant effect of maprotiline was reflected in the GDS. There was, however, no indication of an effect of maprotiline on cognitive performance. The global impression, evaluated by video rating, gave no indication as to a beneficial effect of the treatment. - The video analysis showed a significant interrater reliability. The discrepancy between the results of the video rating and the GDS is discussed. - The results confirm similar findings of other authors; i.e., that a sedating antidepressant with some anticholinergic effects cannot be expected to improve cognitive functions despite its antidepressant effect. The main interest of this study, however, lies in its methodology (video analysis).