Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sitagliptin or non-sitagliptin comparators. Methods A post hoc assessment of cardiovascular safety in 14,611 patients was performed by pooling data from 25 double-blind studies, which randomised patients at baseline to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or a non-sitagliptin comparator (i.e., non-exposed). Included studies were limited to those at least 12 weeks in duration (range: 12 to 104 weeks). Patient-level data were used in this analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including ischaemic events and cardiovascular deaths. Analyses were performed in three cohorts: the entire 25-study cohort, the cohort from placebo-controlled portions of studies (n=19), and the cohort from studies comparing sitagliptin to a sulphonylurea (n=3). Results In the entire cohort analysis, 78 patients had at least 1 reported MACE-related event, with 40 in the sitagliptin group and 38 in the non-exposed group. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.65 per 100 patient-years in the sitagliptin group and 0.74 in the non-exposed group (incidence rate ratio = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53, 1.30]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to placebo, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.80 per 100-patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.76 with placebo (incidence rate ratio = 1.01 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.86]). In the analysis comparing sitagliptin to sulphonylurea, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate was 0.00 per 100 patient-years with sitagliptin and 0.86 with sulphonylurea (incidence rate ratio = 0.00 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.31]). Conclusion A pooled analysis of 25 randomised clinical trials does not indicate that treatment with sitagliptin increases cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In a subanalysis, a higher rate of cardiovascular-related events was associated with sulphonylurea relative to sitagliptin.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the pattern of comorbidities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Commercial Data Delivery database. Patients were ≥18 years on their last encounter between 1 October 2014 and 30 September 2015 and had either a type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosis or a prescription for an oral diabetes medication. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was confirmed by diagnosis codes. Comorbidities were identified using diagnosis codes, clinical measurements, and/or medication use.Results: A total of 1,522,526 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were included in the analysis, 25% of whom had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The most common comorbidities were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, overweight/obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and neuropathy. These were present, respectively, in the following percentages of patients with and without cardiovascular disease: 98.3 and 91.0%, 94.8 and 78.5%, 80.5 and 80.6%, 38.5 and 18.9, 20.2, and 4.3%, and 13.7 and 8.6%. Thus, the frequencies of hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure were notably higher in patients with cardiovascular disease. This trend held true for patients grouped by sex, age, and race.Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease have different rates of certain comorbidities compared to those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]