A 52-week efficacy and safety study of enavogliflozin versus dapagliflozin as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: ENHANCE-M extension study.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After 24 weeks of a randomized, double-blind treatment period with enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day (n = 101) or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n = 99) added to metformin, all patients received enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day plus metformin for an additional 28 weeks during the open-label extension period. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients continued enavogliflozin (maintenance group), and 77 were switched from dapagliflozin to enavogliflozin (switch group). All adverse drug reactions (ADR) were mild in severity. In the maintenance group, ADRs (cystitis and vaginal infection) were reported in two patients (2.44%) during 52 weeks. In the switch group, ADR (hypoglycaemia) was reported in one patient (1.30%) during a 28-week open-label extension period. At week 52, glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose were significantly lower than at the baseline, by 0.85% and 29.08 mg/dl, respectively, in the maintenance group (p < .0001 for both), and by 0.81% and 32.77 mg/dl, respectively, in the switch group (p < .0001 for both). At week 52, 68.92% of patients from the maintenance group and 64.29% from the switch group achieved glycated haemoglobin <7%. A significant increase in the urine glucose-creatinine ratio was observed at week 52, by 58.81 g/g and 63.77 g/g in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Enavogliflozin added to metformin was tolerated well for up to 52 weeks and provided continual glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, along with a significant increase in the urine glucose-creatinine ratio.

A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel comparison, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone add-on therapy in type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin and dapagliflozin.

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone compared to placebo when added to metformin plus dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicentre study, with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, 249 Korean patients with T2DM suboptimally managed on metformin and dapagliflozin were assigned to receive either pioglitazone (15 mg daily) or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 24-week pioglitazone extension. Primary outcomes included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), with secondary outcomes assessing insulin resistance, adiponectin levels, lipid profiles, liver enzymes, body weight and waist circumference. RESULTS: Pioglitazone administration resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (from 7.80% ± 0.72% to 7.27% ± 0.82%) compared with placebo (from 7.79% ± 0.76% to 7.69% ± 0.86%, corrected mean difference: -0.42% ± 0.08%; p < 0.01) at 24 weeks. Additional benefits from pioglitazone treatment included enhanced insulin sensitivity, increased adiponectin levels, raised high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and reduced liver enzyme levels, resulting in improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease liver fat score. Despite no serious adverse events in either group, pioglitazone therapy was modestly but significantly associated with weight gain and increased waist circumference. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive pioglitazone treatment in T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin and dapagliflozin demonstrates considerable glycaemic improvement, metabolic benefits, and a low risk of hypoglycaemia. These advantages must be weighed against the potential for weight gain and increased waist circumference.

Combination of low- or moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death: a propensity-matched nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: This study aims to compare the preventive effect of low- or moderate-statin with ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause death in a real-world setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service datasets, two cohorts comparing high-intensity statin monotherapy with low- or moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination were constructed by 1:1 propensity score matching procedure. Primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death. Secondary outcome was an individual event. The study population was followed from baseline until the date of events, or the last health check-ups, whichever came first. Compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination significantly reduced the risk of composite outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.92, P < 0.001] as well as individual MI (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.94, P = 0.005) and stroke (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.93, P = 0.005), but not all-cause death. Low-intensity statin with ezetimibe also significantly reduced the risk of the composite outcomes (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, P = 0.024) compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, but the risk of individual outcome did not differ between two groups. Statin and ezetimibe combination demonstrated consistent effect across various subgroups. CONCLUSION: Among people without pre-existing CVD, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination was superior to high-intensity statin monotherapy in preventing composite outcomes as well as each of MI and stroke. In contrast, low-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination reduced the risk of composite but not individual outcomes.

We compared the preventive effect of low- or moderate-statin with ezetimibe combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy on cardiovascular disease and all-cause death. Low- or moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe is beneficial for reducing a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death. Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe reduced 19% of MI and 22% of stroke, compared with high-intensity statin. Statin with ezetimibe combination might be attractive bypass for primary prevention, beyond an alternative to high-intensity statin.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Effects of Gemigliptin Add-on or Escalation of Metformin Dose on Glycemic Control and Safety in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated with Metformin and SGLT-2 Inhibitors (SO GOOD Study).

Background: We aimed to compare efficacy and safety between gemigliptin add-on and escalation of the metformin dose in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) despite treatment with metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors. Methods: This study was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group comparative study. Patients with T2DM uncontrolled on metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors were randomized to receive gemigliptin 50 mg as an add-on (GEM group, n = 37) or escalation of the metformin dose (500 mg, MET group, n = 38) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24. Results: At weeks 12 and 24, the reduction in HbA1c levels was significantly greater in the GEM group than in the MET group (GEM vs. MET = -0.64% ± 0.34% vs. -0.36% ± 0.50%, p = 0.009 at week 12; -0.61% ± 0.35% vs. -0.33% ± 0.70%, p = 0.045 at week 24). The proportions of patients who achieved target HbA1c levels of <7.0% at weeks 12 and 24 and <6.5% at week 12 were greater in the GEM group than in the MET group. An index of ß-cell function was also significantly improved in the GEM group. The safety profiles were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Gemigliptin add-on therapy may be more effective than metformin dose escalation in patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled using metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors, without safety concerns. This trial is registered with CRIS_number: KCT0003520.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ezetimibe Combination Therapy and High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes.

CONTEXT: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering therapy is considerably important in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes. Studies comparing CVD, stroke, and mortality outcomes of low- or moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with diabetes remain lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the primary prevention effect of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death between combination therapy of low- or moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe and high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with diabetes using the Korean National Health Insurance claims database. METHODS: Patients aged ≥20 years with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia were enrolled. The combination therapy of low- or moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy after a propensity score-matched analysis. The incidence of composite outcomes consisting of MI, stroke, and all-cause death and each component were analyzed. RESULTS: In moderate-intensity statin therapy with ezetimibe combination therapy, LDL-C (74 ± 37.9 mg/dL vs 80.8 ± 38.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the incidence of composite outcomes were lower (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98) than those in high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meanwhile, no significant difference was observed in the LDL-C levels and composite outcomes between low-intensity statins with ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin in patients with type 2 diabetes has a greater LDL-C-lowering effect and greater primary prevention of composite outcomes than that of high-intensity statin monotherapy.

Real-World Treatment Patterns according to Clinical Practice Guidelines in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Established Cardiovascular Disease in Korea: Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGRUOUND: Recent diabetes management guidelines recommend that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) with proven cardiovascular benefits should be prioritized for combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study was aimed at evaluating SGLT2i or GLP-1RA usage rates and various related factors in patients with T2DM and established CVD. METHODS: We enrolled adults with T2DM aged ≥30 years who were hospitalized due to established CVD from January 2019 to May 2020 at 13 secondary and tertiary hospitals in Korea in this retrospective observational study. RESULTS: Overall, 2,050 patients were eligible for analysis among 2,107 enrolled patients. The mean patient age, diabetes duration, and glycosylated hemoglobin level were 70.0 years, 12.0 years, and 7.5%, respectively. During the mean follow-up duration of 9.7 months, 25.7% of the patients were prescribed SGLT2is after CVD events. However, only 1.8% were prescribed GLP-1RAs. Compared with SGLT2i non-users, SGLT2i users were more frequently male and obese. Furthermore, they had a shorter diabetes duration but showed worse glycemic control and better renal function at the time of the event. GLP-1RA users had a longer duration of diabetes and worse glycemic control at the time of the event than GLP-1RA non-users. CONCLUSION: The SGLT2i or GLP-1RA prescription rates were suboptimal in patients with T2DM and established CVD. Sex, body mass index, diabetes duration, glycemic control, and renal function were associated with the use of these agents.

Study Design and Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of a Triple Combination of Ezetimibe, Fenofibrate, and Moderate- Intensity Statin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors (ENSEMBLE).

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion: This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.