A randomized non-inferiority study comparing the addition of exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin or switching from sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily in patients with Type 2 diabetes experiencing inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and sitagliptin

Aims To test the hypothesis that glycaemic control achieved when switching sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily plus metformin is non-inferior to adding exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin and metformin. Methods Patients with Type?2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin plus metformin were randomly assigned to 20?weeks of treatment with twice-daily exenatide plus placebo and metformin (SWITCH, n?=?127) or twice-daily exenatide plus sitagliptin and metformin (ADD, n?=?128). Results Non-inferiority (0.4% margin) of SWITCH to ADD treatment, measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week?20, was not shown {between-treatment difference in least-squares mean [95%?CI 3?mmol/mol (0.30%)] [0.8-5.8 (0.07-0.53)]}. A greater reduction (P?=?0.012) in HbA(1c) [least-squares mean (se)] was experienced by patients in the ADD group {-7?mmol/mol [-0.68%] [0.9 (0.08)]}, compared with those in the SWITCH group {-4?mmol/mol [-0.38%] [1.0 (0.09)]} and a greater proportion (P?=?0.027) of patients in the ADD group (41.7%) reached 相似文献   

A study comparing insulin lispro mix 25 with glargine plus lispro therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control on oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication: results of the PARADIGM study

Diabet. Med. 29, e263-e272 (2012) ABSTRACT: Aims To test the hypothesis that initiation and intensification with 25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension (LM25), is non-inferior to initiation and intensification with glargine?+?insulin lispro therapy on change from baseline in HbA(1c) . Methods In this randomized, non-inferiority (margin of 0.4%), parallel, prospective, multi-country, 48-week, open-label study, patients (n?=?426) with Type?2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications were assigned to either initiating therapy with one daily LM25 injection, progressing up to three daily injections (full analysis set n?=?211; per protocol set n?=?177) or initiating therapy with one daily glargine injection and progressing up to three daily insulin lispro injections (full analysis set n?=?212; per protocol set n?=?184). Results LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to glargine?+?insulin lispro therapy by study end (upper limit of 95%?CI 相似文献   

Lispro insulin and metformin versus other combination in the diabetes mellitus type 2 management after secondary oral antidiabetic drug failure

The purpose of the study was to find out differences between treatments of diabetes type 2 after secondary oral antidiabetic drug failure. Three different methods of treatment were compared: lispro insulin in combination with metformin, glimepiride and metformin combination or two daily doses of biphasic insulin 30/70 together with bed-time NPH insulin. The study included 87 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 randomly distributed into 3 different treatment groups. Fasting and postprandial glucose were analyzed by enzymatic colorimetric method and HbA1c was measured by ion exchange chromatography. HbA1c significantly decreased in all three study groups. The decrease was mostly expressed among patients treated with lispro and metformin. When focused on postprandial glucose control, antihyperglycemic metformin and insulin lispro therapy has greater impact on the overall metabolic control (decrease in level of HbA1c) in comparison with the above mentioned more traditional approaches.     

A randomized,placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by glimepiride and metformin

Background

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease that often requires a patient to use multiple antihyperglycemic agents to achieve glycemic control with disease progression. Omarigliptin is a once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to the treatment regimen of patients with T2D inadequately controlled by dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride.

Methods

Patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and glimepiride (≥4 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (N = 154) or placebo (N = 153) for 24 weeks. The primary objective was to assess whether omarigliptin was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary objectives were to assess the effects of omarigliptin vs. placebo on FPG and the proportion of subjects attaining HbA1c goals of <7% and <6.5%.

Results

From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.5% (omarigliptin) and 8.6% (placebo), the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 was ?0.67% in the omarigliptin group and ?0.06% in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of ?0.61% (?0.85, ?0.38). Treatment with omarigliptin resulted in a significantly greater reduction in FPG relative to placebo (LS mean difference [95% CI] -0.9 mmol/L [?1.4, ?0.4]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving glycemic goals of <7.0% and <6.5% was higher in the omarigliptin group relative to the placebo group. The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuations were generally similar between treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 10.5% in the omarigliptin group and 8.5% in the placebo group. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin and placebo treatments were associated with LS mean changes in body weight of ?0.1 kg and ?0.9 kg, respectively.

Conclusion

In patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride, compared with placebo, once-weekly omarigliptin provided greater improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01704261, EudraCT Number: 2012-002612-10. Trial Registration Date: October 8, 2012.

     

MARCH2: Comparative Assessment of Therapeutic Effects of Acarbose and Metformin in Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Patients

Background

The data of MARCH (Metformin and AcaRbose in Chinese as the initial Hypoglycaemic treatment) trial demonstrated that acarbose and metformin have similar efficacy as initial therapy for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether the therapeutic efficacy was diversified under different body mass index (BMI) status.

Methods

All 784 subjects were divided into normal-weight group (BMI<24 kg/m²), overweight group (BMI 24–28 kg/m²) and obese group (BMI≥28 kg/m²). Patients were assigned to 48 weeks of therapy with acarbose or metformin, respectively. The clinical trial registry number was ChiCTR-TRC-08000231.

Results

The reduction of HbA1c levels and the proportion of patients with HbA1c of 6.5% or less were similar in the three groups after acarbose and metformin treatment. In overweight group, fasting blood glucose (FBG) after metformin treatment showed greater decline compared to acarbose group at 48 weeks [−1.73 (−1.99 to −1.46) vs. −1.37 (−1.61 to −1.12), P<0.05), however the decrease of 2 h post-challenge blood glucose (PBG) after acarbose treatment at 48 weeks was bigger compared to metformin group [−3.34 (−3.83 to−2.84) vs. −2.35 (−2.85 to −1.85), P<0.01 ]. Both acarbose and metformin treatment resulted in a significant decrease in waist circumference, hip circumference, weight and BMI in the three groups (all P<0.05).

Conclusion

Acarbose and metformin decreased HbA1c levels similarly regardless of BMI status of Chinese type 2 diabetic patients. Acarbose and metformin resulted in a significant and modest improvement of anthropometric parametres in different BMI status. Thus, acarbose treatment may contribute a similar effect on plasma glucose control compared to metformin, even in obesity patients.

Trial Registration

ChiCTR.org ChiCTR-TRC-08000231     

Efficacy and Safety of Sitagliptin Added to Insulin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The EDIT Randomized Trial

Aims

To clarify the efficacy and safety of adding sitagliptin to insulin therapy in Japanese patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

Study Design and Methods

This was a 24-week, prospective, randomized, open-labeled, controlled trial. Patients with T2DM who were suboptimally controlled despite receiving at least twice daily injection of insulin were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomized to continuation of insulin treatment (Insulin group) or addition of sitagliptin 50 to 100 mg daily to insulin treatment (Ins+Sita group). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c at week 24.

Results

Adding sitagliptin to insulin significantly reduced HbA1c from 7.9 ± 1.0% at baseline to 7.0 ± 0.8% at week 24 (P <0.0001), while there was no significant change in HbA1c in the Insulin group (7.8 ± 0.7% vs. 7.8 ± 1.1%, P = 0.32). The difference in HbA1c reduction between the groups was 0.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.4 to 1.5, P = 0.01). There was no significant weight gain in either group. Incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly reduced in the Ins+Sita group compared with the Insulin group. Treatment satisfaction was improved in the Ins+Sita group. Baseline HbA1c level and beta cell function were associated with the magnitude of reduction in HbA1c in the Ins+Sita group.

Conclusion

Adding sitagliptin to insulin reduced HbA1c without weight gain or increase in hypoglycemia, and improved treatment satisfaction in Japanese patients with T2DM who were suboptimally controlled despite at least twice daily injection of insulin.

Trial Registration

The University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000004678     

Effect of sitagliptin on blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are treatment naive or poorly responsive to existing antidiabetic drugs: the JAMP study

Background

To investigate the ameliorating effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were previously untreated with or who have a poor responsive to existing antidiabetic drugs.

Methods

Sitagliptin (50 mg/day) was added on to the pre-existing therapy for type 2 diabetes and changes in the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level after 3 months of treatment were compared with the baseline and performed exploratory analysis.

Results

HbA1c levels were significantly decreased after 1 month of treatment compared to baseline, with a mean change in HbA1c level from baseline of ?0.73% (range, ?0.80 to ?0.67) in the entire study population at 3 months. Patients who received a medium dose of glimepiride showed the least improvement in HbA1c levels. The percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c level of <7.0% significantly increased after 1 month of treatment, reaching 53.1% at 3 months. The percentage of patients who achieved a fasting blood glucose level of <130 mg/dL significantly increased after 1 month of treatment, reaching 50.9% at 3 months.

Conclusions

Sitagliptin improved the HbA1c level and rate of achieving the target control levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were previously untreated with, or poorly responsive to, existing antidiabetic drugs. Thus, sitagliptin is expected to be useful in this patient group. However, the additional administration of sitagliptin in patients treated with medium-dose glimepiride only slightly improved blood glucose control when corrected for baseline HbA1c level.

     

沙格列汀联合二甲双胍对2型糖尿病的疗效与安全性分析

目的:探讨沙格列汀联合二甲双胍对2型糖尿病的疗效与安全性。方法:选取200例2型糖尿病患者,按随机数字表法分为两组,沙格列汀组(102例)口服沙格列汀联合二甲双胍治疗,阿卡波糖组(98例)口服阿卡波糖联合二甲双胍治疗。通过观察并记录治疗前后糖代谢情况与体重指数水平,SF-36量表各项评分,治疗期间不良反应情况,评价沙格列汀联合二甲双胍对2型糖尿病的疗效与安全性。结果:治疗后,两组HbAlc,BMI,FBG,2hPBG水平均明显下降(P0.05),且沙格列汀组患者HbAlc,BMI,FBG,2 hPBG水平明显低于阿卡波糖组(P0.05);治疗后3个月两组患者SF-36表各项评分均明显提高(P0.05),但两组间差异没有统计学意义(P0.05);随访期间,两组不良反应率相比,差异没有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:沙格列汀联合二甲双胍可以明显控制患者血糖水平,减轻患者体重,提高患者生活质量用药安全性好,值得临床推广使用。     

Familial early puberty: presentation and inheritance pattern in 139 families

Background

To describe common type 2 diabetes treatment intensification regimens, patients’ characteristics and changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI).

Methods

We constructed a national retrospective cohort of veterans initially treated for diabetes with either metformin or sulfonylurea from 2001 through 2008, using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare data. Patients were followed through September, 2011 to identify common diabetes treatment intensification regimens. We evaluated changes in HbA1c and BMI post-intensification for metformin-based regimens.

Results

We identified 323,857 veterans who initiated diabetes treatment. Of these, 55 % initiated metformin, 43 % sulfonylurea and 2 % other regimens. Fifty percent (N = 89,057) of metformin initiators remained on metformin monotherapy over a median follow-up 58 months (interquartile range [IQR] 35, 74). Among 80,725 patients who intensified metformin monotherapy, the four most common regimens were addition of sulfonylurea (79 %), thiazolidinedione [TZD] (6 %), or insulin (8 %), and switch to insulin monotherapy (2 %). Across these regimens, median HbA1c values declined from a range of 7.0–7.8 % (53–62 mmol/mol) at intensification to 6.6–7.0 % (49–53 mmol/mol) at 1 year, and remained stable up to 3 years afterwards. Median BMI ranged between 30.5 and 32 kg/m² at intensification and increased very modestly in those who intensified with oral regimens, but 1–2 kg/m² over 3 years among those who intensified with insulin-based regimens.

Conclusions

By 1 year post-intensification of metformin monotherapy, HbA1c declined in all four common intensification regimens, and remained close to 7 % in subsequent follow-up. BMI increased substantially for those on insulin-based regimens.

     

Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) analogues are a new class of drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. They are given by injection, and regulate glucose levels by stimulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion and biosynthesis, suppressing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying and promoting satiety. This systematic review aims to provide evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the GLP-1 agonists in patients not achieving satisfactory glycaemic control with one or more oral glucose lowering drugs.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to find the relevant papers. We identified 28 randomised controlled trials comparing GLP-1 analogues with placebo, other glucose-lowering agents, or another GLP-1 analogue, in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate control on a single oral agent, or on dual therapy. Primary outcomes included HbA1c, weight change and adverse events.

Results

Studies were mostly of short duration, usually 26 weeks. All GLP-1 agonists reduced HbA1c by about 1% compared to placebo. Exenatide twice daily and insulin gave similar reductions in HbA1c, but exenatide 2 mg once weekly and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily reduced it by 0.20% and 0.30% respectively more than glargine. Liraglutide 1.2 mg daily reduced HbA1c by 0.34% more than sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Exenatide and liraglutide gave similar improvements in HbA1c to sulphonylureas. Exenatide 2 mg weekly and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily reduced HbA1c by more than exenatide 10 μg twice daily and sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Exenatide 2 mg weekly reduced HbA1c by 0.3% more than pioglitazone 45 mg daily. Exenatide and liraglutide resulted in greater weight loss (from 2.3 to 5.5 kg) than active comparators. This was not due simply to nausea. Hypoglycaemia was uncommon, except when combined with a sulphonylurea. The commonest adverse events with all GLP-1 agonists were initial nausea and vomiting. The GLP-1 agonists have some effect on beta-cell function, but this is not sustained after the drug is stopped.

Conclusions

GLP-1 agonists are effective in improving glycaemic control and promoting weight loss.     

瑞格列奈联合二甲双胍对西宁地区2 型糖尿病患者PAI-1水平的影响

目的:研究瑞格列奈联合二甲双胍对西宁地区2型糖尿病患者纤维蛋白溶酶原激活抑制因子-1(PAI-1)水平的影响。方法:选择2012年2月~2015年9月在我院进行诊治的2型糖尿病患者98例,随机分为三组,分别用瑞格列奈、二甲双胍单独治疗和两药联合治疗。在治疗前后分别检测空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白和PAI-1水平。结果:联合用药组的治疗总有效率为94.12%,明显高于瑞格列奈组(71.87%)和二甲双胍组(75.00%)(P0.05);瑞格列奈组和二甲双胍组治疗6周后,空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白和PAI-1水平均明显降低(P0.05),但两单独用药组间相比无显著性差异;联合治疗组上述指标均较单独用药明显降低(P0.05)。联合治疗期间低血糖和胃肠不适的发生率较单独用药无明显升高。结论:瑞格列奈和二甲双胍可较单药治疗进一步降低2型糖尿病患者的PAI-1水平,这可能有助于改善患者的血液凝固程度,减少血管相关并发症,且无明显不良反应,值得临床应用推广。     

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antidiabetic Drug Regimens Added to Metformin Monotherapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone.

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3–12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI).

Results

Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00–11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15–2.26kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19–2.44kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88–5.43mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16–8.03).

Conclusions

Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.     

Effects of Colesevelam,Rosiglitazone, or Sitagliptin on Glycemic Control and Lipid Profile in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Metformin Monotherapy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the glycemic effect of colesevelam, rosiglitazone, or sitagliptin when added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and to examine the effects of these antidiabetes agents on lipid and lipoprotein levels.MethodsThis 16-week, open-label pilot study conducted between May 2007 and April 2008 at 20 sites in the United States, 7 sites in Mexico, and 6 sites in Colombia, enrolled adults with inadequately controlled type 2 DM (glycated hemoglobin [HbA_1c], 7.0%-10.0%) on a stable metformin regimen (1500-2550 mg daily for ≥ 3 months). At Week 0, participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to open-label colesevelam hydrochloride, 3.75 g daily; openlabel rosiglitazone maleate, 4 mg daily; or open-label sitagliptin phosphate, 100 mg daily, in addition to existing metformin therapy. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA_1c from baseline to Week 16 with last (postbaseline) observation carried forward.ResultsIn total, 169 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (colesevelam, n = 57; rosiglitazone, n = 56; and sitagliptin, n = 56), and 141 participants (83.4%) completed the study. Least-squares mean reductions in HbA_1c from baseline were observed in all groups at Week 16 last observation carried forward (colesevelam, -0.3% [P <.031]; rosiglitazone: -0.6% [P <.001]; sitagliptin: -0.4% [P <.009]) At study end, 10 of 56 participants (17.9%) in the colesevelam group, 19 of 54 (35.2%) in the rosiglitazone group, and 15 of 55 (27.3%) in the sitagliptin group achieved HbA_1c < 7.0%. Colesevelam significantly reduced mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels relative to baseline (11.6%), whereas levels were significantly increased with rosiglitazone and sitagliptin at Week 16 last observation carried forward (7.8% and 7.7%, respectively). Twenty-two of 52 participants (42.3%) in the colesevelam group, 12 of 51 (23.5%) in the rosiglitazone group, and 13 of 53 (24.5%) in the sitagliptin group achieved LDL cholesterol < 100 mg/dL at Week 16 last observation carried forward.ConclusionAll 3 antidiabetes agents significantly improved glycemic control, but only colesevelam also significantly reduced LDL-cholesterol levels in patients with type 2 DM. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:53-63)     

Once-daily insulin glargine administration in the morning compared to bedtime in combination with morning glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes: an assessment of treatment flexibility.

AIMS: To compare the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control following bedtime or morning insulin glargine (LANTUS; glargine) plus glimepiride. METHODS: In this 24-week, multinational, open, randomized study, 624 patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on oral therapy received morning or bedtime glargine plus morning glimepiride (2, 3 or 4 mg) titrated to a target fasting blood glucose level < or = 5.5 mmol/l. RESULTS: The incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was equivalent between the two groups, with morning glargine non-inferior to bedtime (13.0 VS. 14.9 % of patients; between-treatment difference -1.9 %; one-sided 95 % confidence interval -100 %; 2.84 %). At endpoint, similar improvements in glycemic control were observed with morning compared to bedtime glargine: HbA1c: -1.65 +/- 1.21 VS. -1.57 +/- 1.16 %; p = 0.42; fasting blood glucose: -4.25 +/- 2.82 VS. -4.48 +/- 2.75 mmol/l; p = 0.08. The endpoint mean daily glargine dose was comparable (34.7 +/- 17.4 VS. 32.4 +/- 17.0 IU; p = 0.15), and there was no significant between-treatment difference in the change in body weight (2.1 VS. 1.8 kg; p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily glargine can be administered in a flexible morning or bedtime regimen (plus morning glimepiride) to achieve good glycemic control without any difference in hypoglycemia.     

Sitagliptin Compared with Thiazolidinediones as a Third-Line Oral Antihyperglycemic Agent in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare sitagliptin and thiazolidinediones as third-line oral antihyperglycemic agents among ethnic minority patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsIn an open-label, single-arm design, we treated type 2 diabetic patients who had suboptimal diabetes control on maximum tolerated dosages of metformin plus sulfonylureas with the addition of sitagliptin, 100 mg daily, and compared their responses with findings from a historical control group of similar patients treated with rosiglitazone, 8 mg daily, or pioglitazone, 45 mg daily, as their third-line oral agent. Patients were assessed bimonthly, and those who achieved hemoglobin A_1c levels less than 7.5% at 4 months continued through 1 year of follow-up.Results:One hundred eight patients were treated with sitagliptin, and 104 patients constituted the historical control group treated with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. At baseline, sitagliptinand thiazolidinedione-treated patients had identical hemoglobin A_1c levels (mean ± SD) (9.4 ± 1.8% and 9.4 ± 1.9%, respectively) and similar known diabetes duration (6.7 ± 5.0 years and 7.6 ± 5.8 years, respectively). Hemoglobin A_1c was reduced in both groups at 4 months (P < .001), but the reduction was greater with thiazolidinediones than with sitagliptin (-2.0 ± 1.7% vs -1.3 ± 1.8%; P = .006), as was the proportion of patients achieving a hemoglobin A_1c level less than 7.5% (62% vs 46%; P = .026). Of all patients achieving a hemoglobin A_1c level less than 7.5% at 4 months, the same proportions in each group sustained their hemoglobin A_1c level less than 7.5% by 12 months (59% vs 58%). Sitagliptin was well tolerated.ConclusionsAmong ethnic minority patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes while taking maximum tolerated dosages of metformin and sulfonylureas, thirdline add-on therapy with a thiazolidinedione controlled hyperglycemia more effectively than sitagliptin after 4 months. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:691-698)     

Renal Outcomes of Pioglitazone Compared with Acarbose in Diabetic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of pioglitazone on renal outcome, including urinary albumin excretion and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in diabetic patients.DesignA prospective, randomized, open-labeled, controlled study.SettingTaipei Veterans General Hospital.PatientsSixty type 2 diabetic patients treated with sulfonylureas and metformin, whose glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were between 7% and 10% and eGFR was between 45 and 125 mL/min/1.73 m².InterventionThe patients were randomized to receive acarbose or pioglitazone and followed up for 6 months. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to receive acarbose, and 30 patients were assigned to receive pioglitazone.MeasurementsThe primary study endpoint was the changes in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The secondary endpoint was the changes in eGFR and other parameters.ResultsAfter 6 months of treatment, the mean changes in UACR were −18 ± 104 and 12 ± 85 (p = 0.25, between groups) for the acarbose and pioglitazone groups, respectively. The mean changes in eGFR were 0 ± 14 and −7 ± 16 mL/min/1.73 m² (p = 0.09, between groups) for the acarbose and pioglitazone groups, respectively. The reductions in HbA1c were similar in both groups. Fasting blood glucose was lower in the pioglitazone group than in the acarbose group. Significant body weight gain was observed in the pioglitazone group as compared with the acarbose group (1.3 ± 2.8 vs. −0.6 ± 1.5 kg, p = 0.002).ConclusionIn type 2 diabetic patients who were treated with sulfonylureas and metformin and possessed HbA1c levels between 7% and 10%, additional acarbose or pioglitazone for 6 months provided similar glycemic control and eGFR and UACR changes. In the pioglitazone group, the patients exhibited significant body weight gain.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01175486","term_id":"NCT01175486"}}NCT01175486     

Data on vildagliptin and vildagliptin plus metformin combination in type-2 diabetes mellitus management

It is of interest to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin as monotherapy and combination therapy of vildagliptin and metformin for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Indian settings. The study included patients with T2DM (aged >18 years) receiving vildagliptin monotherapy and vildagliptin in combination with metformin therapy of various strengths. Data related to demographics, risk factors, medical history, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and medical therapies were retrieved from medical records. Out of 9678 patients (median age, 52.0 years), 59.1% were men. A combination of vildagliptin and metformin (50/500 mg) was the most commonly used therapy (54.8%), and the median duration of therapy was 24.0 months. The predominant reason for selecting vildagliptin therapy was to improve HbA1c levels (87.8%). A total of 87.5% of patients required dosage up-titration. Vildagliptin therapy was used in patients with T2DM and associated complications (peripheral neuropathy, CAD, nephropathy, retinopathy, autonomous neuropathy, stroke/TIA, and peripheral artery disease). Among 5175 patients who experienced body weight changes, a majority of patients showed a loss of weight (68.6%). The target glycemic control was achieved in 95.3% of patients. The mean HbA1c levels were significantly decreased post-treatment (mean change: 1.34%; p<0.001). Adverse events were reported in 0.4% of patients. Physicians rated the majority of patients as good to excellent on the global evaluation of efficacy and tolerability scale (98.9%, each). Vildagliptin as monotherapy and combination therapy of vildagliptin and metformin was an effective therapy in reducing HbA1c helps in achieving target glycemic control, and was well tolerated in Indian patients with T2DM continuum.     

Sitagliptin in Glutamic Acid Decarboxylase Antibody-Positive Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo describe a case illustrating the use of sitagliptin, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4), in anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody-positive diabetes mellitus in association with a rare ataxic variant of stiff person syndrome.MethodsWe present our experience with use of the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin for management of autoimmune diabetes in a elderly woman and highlight the association of diabetes with other autoimmune conditions.ResultsA 68-year-old Japanese woman presented with poorly controlled “type 2” diabetes mellitus, cerebral palsy, cerebellar ataxia, and hypothyroidism. She complained of stiffness and spasms, which had resulted in multiple falls and immobility. Antidiabetic medications included gliclazide, rosiglitazone, and acarbose; various insulins had been tried but discontinued because they worsened her stiffness and spasms. Her hemoglobin A_1c values remained above 9% despite maximal doses of the aforementioned orally administered hypoglycemic agents. After sitagliptin therapy was initiated, her hemoglobin A_1c level decreased from 9.3% (78 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (56 mmol/mol) in 5 months. Investigations confirmed the presence of an ataxic variant of stiff person syndrome. On repeated testing 18 months later, her anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody levels had declined by more than 85%.ConclusionApart from the well-known mechanism of an increase in glucagonlike peptide-1, sitagliptin may exert its glucose-lowering effect by other mechanisms in patients with autoimmune diabetes. Further studies should be undertaken to address the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in non-type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18: e65-e68)     

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in clinical studies: a pooled analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes

Background

In a previous pooled analysis of 12 double-blind clinical studies that included data on 6,139 patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As clinical development of sitagliptin continues, additional studies have been completed, and more patients have been exposed to sitagliptin. The purpose of the present analysis is to update the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by pooling data from 19 double-blind clinical studies.

Methods

The present analysis included data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 5,429; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 4,817; non-exposed group). The 19 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized studies that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years and for which results were available as of July 2009. These 19 studies assessed sitagliptin taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin. The analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events.

Results

Summary measures of overall adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups, except for an increased incidence of drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were also generally similar between the two groups, except for increased incidence rates of hypoglycemia, related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea, and diarrhea, related to the greater use of metformin, in the non-exposed group and constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Conclusions

In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.     

Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis

Background

Sitagliptin, a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is the first in a new class of oral antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a life-long disease requiring chronic treatment and management. Therefore, robust assessment of the long-term safety and tolerability of newer therapeutic agents is of importance. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin by pooling 12 large, double-blind, Phase IIb and III studies up to 2 years in duration. Methods: This analysis included 6139 patients with type 2 diabetes receiving either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 3415) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 2724; non-exposed group). The 12 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized, Phase IIB and III studies that included patients treated with the clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for at least 18 weeks up to 2 years and that were available in a single safety database as of November 2007. These 12 studies assessed sitagliptin as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin, or add-on combination therapy with other oral AHAs (metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylurea, sulfonylurea + metformin, or metformin + rosiglitazone). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, pioglitazone, metformin, sulfonylurea, sulfonylurea + metformin, or metformin + rosiglitazone. This safety analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate clinical and laboratory adverse experiences.

Results

For clinical adverse experiences, the incidence rates of adverse experiences overall, serious adverse experiences, and discontinuations due to adverse experiences were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups. The incidence rates of specific adverse experiences were also generally similar in the two groups, with the exception of an increased incidence rate of hypoglycemia observed in the non-exposed group. The incidence rates of drug-related adverse experiences overall and discontinuations due to drug-related adverse experiences were higher in the non-exposed group, primarily due to the increased incidence rate of hypoglycemia in this group. For cardiac- and ischemia-related adverse experiences (including serious events), there were no meaningful between-group differences. No meaningful differences between groups in laboratory adverse experiences, either summary measures or specific adverse experiences, were observed.

Conclusion

In patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was well tolerated in clinical trials up to 2 years in duration.