Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial.

AIM: To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups. RESULTS: Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial.

AIM: To assess the addition of linagliptin as an alternative to insulin uptitration in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 4, randomized, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 24-week study recruited individuals on stable insulin, with baseline HbA1c 7.0%-10.0%, aged ≥60 years and body mass index ≤45 kg/m2 . HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose were measured at study visits, and participants assessed glycaemic control with a self-monitoring blood glucose device. Adverse events (AEs) were reported during the study. RESULTS: Three hundred and two participants were randomized 1:1 to linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo, with one third of patients from Japan. Study population age and HbA1c (baseline mean ± SD) were 72.4 ± 5.4 years and 8.2 ± 0.8%, respectively; ~80% of participants were aged ≥70 years; 80% had macrovascular complications, one third had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ; and half had been diagnosed with diabetes for >15 years. Linagliptin significantly improved glucose control at 24 weeks (HbA1c-adjusted mean change vs. placebo: -0.63%; P <0.0001) and the probability of achieving predefined HbA1c targets without hypoglycaemia (HbA1c <8.0%: OR 2.02; P <0.05 and HbA1c <7.0%: OR 2.44; P <0.01). Linagliptin versus placebo was well tolerated, with similar incidences of AEs, including clinically important hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of linagliptin improves glucose control without an excess of hypoglycaemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

Effect of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The CAROLINA Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In placebo-controlled cardiovascular safety trials, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin demonstrated noninferiority, but it has not been tested against an active comparator. OBJECTIVE: This trial assessed cardiovascular outcomes of linagliptin vs glimepiride (sulfonylurea) in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes and risk factors for or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from November 2010 to December 2012, conducted at 607 hospital and primary care sites in 43 countries involving 6042 participants. Adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin of 6.5% to 8.5%, and elevated cardiovascular risk were eligible for inclusion. Elevated cardiovascular risk was defined as documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple cardiovascular risk factors, aged at least 70 years, and evidence of microvascular complications. Follow-up ended in August 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of linagliptin once daily (n = 3023) or 1 to 4 mg of glimepiride once daily (n = 3010) in addition to usual care. Investigators were encouraged to intensify glycemic treatment, primarily by adding or adjusting metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or insulin, according to clinical need. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.47% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to glimepiride of less than 1.3. RESULTS: Of 6042 participants randomized, 6033 (mean age, 64.0 years; 2414 [39.9%] women; mean glycated hemoglobin, 7.2%; median duration of diabetes, 6.3 years; 42% with macrovascular disease; 59% had undergone metformin monotherapy) were treated and analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 356 of 3023 participants (11.8%) in the linagliptin group and 362 of 3010 (12.0%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76). Adverse events occurred in 2822 participants (93.4%) in the linagliptin group and 2856 (94.9%) in the glimepiride group, with 15 participants (0.5%) in the linagliptin group vs 16 (0.5%) in the glimepiride group with adjudicated-confirmed acute pancreatitis. At least 1 episode of hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in 320 (10.6%) participants in the linagliptin group and 1132 (37.7%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.26]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with relatively early type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, the use of linagliptin compared with glimepiride over a median 6.3 years resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243424.

An Open-Source R Package for Detection of Adverse Events Under-Reporting in Clinical Trials: Implementation and Validation by the IMPALA (Inter coMPany quALity Analytics) Consortium.

Accurate and timely reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials is crucial to ensuring data integrity and patient safety. However, AE under-reporting remains a challenge, often highlighted in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) audits and inspections. Traditional detection methods, such as on-site investigator audits via manual source data verification (SDV), have limitations. Addressing this, the open-source R package {simaerep} was developed to facilitate rapid, comprehensive, and near-real-time detection of AE under-reporting at each clinical trial site. This package leverages patient-level AE and visit data for its analyses. To validate its efficacy, three member companies from the Inter coMPany quALity Analytics (IMPALA) consortium independently assessed the package. Results showed that {simaerep} consistently and effectively identified AE under-reporting across all three companies, particularly when there were significant differences in AE rates between compliant and non-compliant sites. Furthermore, {simaerep}'s detection rates surpassed heuristic methods, and it identified 50% of all detectable sites as early as 25% into the designated study duration. The open-source package can be embedded into audits to enable fast, holistic, and repeatable quality oversight of clinical trials.

Quality Tolerance Limits: A General Guidance for Parameter Selection and Threshold Setting.

The past years have sharpened the industry's understanding of a Quality by Design (QbD) approach toward clinical trials. Using QbD encourages designing quality into a trial during the planning phase. The identification of Critical to Quality (CtQs) factors and specifically Critical Data and Processes (CD&Ps) is key to such a risk-based monitoring approach. A variable that allows monitoring the evolution of risk regarding the CD&Ps is called a Quality Tolerance Limit (QTL) parameter. These parameters are linked to the scientific question(s) of a trial and may identify the issues that can jeopardize the integrity of trial endpoints. This paper focuses on defining what QTL parameters are and providing general guidance on setting thresholds for these parameters allowing for the derivation of an acceptable range of the risk.

Effect of linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulfonylurea glimepiride on cardiovascular outcomes in Asians with type 2 diabetes: subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA® trial.

OBJECTIVE: Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, recently demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) safety versus placebo in Asians with advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the CARMELINA® trial. We assessed its CV safety compared with the sulfonylurea glimepiride in Asians with relatively early T2DM in the CAROLINA® trial. METHODS: Based on prespecified and post hoc subgroup analyses of the multinational CAROLINA® trial in which adults with relatively early T2DM and elevated CV risk were randomized to linagliptin or glimepiride added to usual care, we analyzed data for participants from Asian countries. This included the primary outcome defined as time to first CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke [three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE)]. RESULTS: Of the 6033 participants, 933 (15.5%) were from Asia. During a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 3P-MACE occurred in 9.5% and 11.1% of the linagliptin and glimepiride groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.26]), consistent with the overall population (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.13; P = 0.17 for treatment by region interaction). Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes, including CV death (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.38-1.38), non-CV mortality (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.37-1.57) and hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.36-2.19). Hypoglycemia adverse events occurred in 13.1% of linagliptin patients versus 42.1% of glimepiride patients (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.19-0.33; P < 0.0001) despite similar glycemic control. Body weight was slightly lower with linagliptin relative to glimepiride: weighted average mean difference over 256 weeks of - 1.82 kg (95% CI - 2.28 to - 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: In Asian patients, linagliptin demonstrated similar CV safety to glimepiride with a markedly lower rate of hypoglycemia and modestly lower weight.