Search

Abstract Background: In a previously-published study, adding sitagliptin or glipizide to ongoing metformin therapy provided similar HbA(1c) improvement (both groups, -0.7%) after 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Significantly fewer patients experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia with sitagliptin (5% of 588 patients) compared to glipizide (32% of 584 patients). Glycemic efficacy and patient characteristics may influence hypoglycemic events. The present analysis evaluated the risk of hypoglycemia with sitagliptin or glipizide after adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value. Methods: Data for this analysis were from the aforementioned 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. The primary endpoint was confirmed hypoglycemia (i.e., symptomatic hypoglycemia confirmed with a concurrent fingerstick glucose <=70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]); the secondary endpoint was severe hypoglycemia (requiring medical or non-medical assistance or symptoms of neuroglycopenia). Complementary log-log regression random effects models with terms for treatment, most recently measured HbA(1c) value, time (i.e., days since randomization), gender, and age (< or >=65 years) were used to assess adjusted subject-specific treatment effects. Results: Over the full range of HbA(1c) levels and follow-up time, the risk of confirmed hypoglycemic events was lower with sitagliptin compared with glipizide (31 vs. 448 events; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.05 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.09], p < 0.001). The risk was also lower with sitagliptin in the younger (HR = 0.06 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.12], p < 0.001) and older (HR = 0.02 [0.01, 0.08], p < 0.001) age groups compared with glipizide. For severe hypoglycemia events (2 vs. 22), the risk was lower with sitagliptin (HR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.47]; p = 0.005). Limitations: The actual time between the HbA(1c) measurement and the hypoglycemic event was variable and not controlled for in the analysis. Conclusion: In pre-specified analyses adjusting for the most recently measured HbA(1c) value, there was a substantial reduction in risk for confirmed hypoglycemia with sitagliptin compared to glipizide when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with T2DM. The risk of confirmed hypoglycemia was very low in younger and older patients treated with sitagliptin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin (SITA) monotherapy and SITA/metformin (MET) vs. pioglitazone (PIO) were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe hyperglycaemia (A1C = 7.5-12.0%). Methods: In an initial 12-week phase (Phase A), 492 patients were randomised 1 : 1 in a double-blind fashion to SITA (100 mg qd) or PIO (15 mg qd, up-titrated to 30 mg after 6 weeks). In Phase B (28 additional weeks), the SITA group was switched to SITA/MET (up-titrated to 50/1000 mg bid over 4 weeks) and the PIO group was up-titrated to 45 mg qd Results: At the end of Phase A, mean changes from baseline were -1.0% and -0.9% for A1C; -26.6 mg/dl and -28.0 mg/dl for fasting plasma glucose; and -52.8 mg/dl and -50.1 mg/dl for 2-h post-meal glucose for SITA and PIO, respectively. At the end of Phase B, improvements in glycaemic parameters were greater with SITA/MET vs. PIO: -1.7% vs. -1.4% for A1C (p = 0.002); -45.8 mg/dl vs. -37.6 mg/dl for fasting plasma glucose (p = 0.03); -90.3 mg/dl vs. -69.1 mg/dl for 2-h postmeal glucose (p = 0.001); and 55.0% vs. 40.5% for patients with A1C < 7% (p = 0.004). A numerically higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a significantly lower incidence of oedema were observed with SITA/MET vs. PIO. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was similarly low in both groups. Body weight decreased with SITA/MET and increased with PIO (-1.1 kg vs. 3.4 kg; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Improvements in glycaemic control were greater with SITA/MET vs. PIO, with weight loss vs. weight gain. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: In clinical trials, the degree of glucose lowering with sitagliptin has been correlated with the magnitude of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition over 24 h. Previous studies evaluating sitagliptin doses ranging from 25 to 200 mg/day demonstrated that the daily dose of 100 mg provided maximal glucose-lowering efficacy for this compound in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, sitagliptin 200 mg once daily provided numerically greater percent plasma DPP-4 inhibition compared with 100 mg once daily. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether sitagliptin 200 mg once daily provides greater improvement in glycemic efficacy as assessed by weighted mean glucose (WMG) over 24 h relative to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily and to relate the percent DPP-4 inhibition achieved with these doses to any between-treatment differences in glycemic efficacy. METHODS: In a double-blind crossover study, patients with type 2 diabetes (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 130-250 mg/dL) were randomized to one of six treatment sequences over three treatment periods (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, or sitagliptin 200 mg once daily). Each of the treatment periods was 7 days in duration, with 28-day washout periods between treatments. After each treatment period, patients underwent blood sampling at various time points over 24 h to determine 24-h WMG. Plasma DPP-4 activity was assessed at trough, 24 h following dosing on day 7; percent DPP-4 inhibition was corrected for sample assay dilution. RESULTS: The 103 randomized patients had a baseline mean FPG of 172 mg/dL. Following a planned interim analysis, the study was stopped because the 24-h WMG values were not different between the sitagliptin doses. Furthermore, a significant carryover effect across periods was observed for FPG; thus, efficacy results from period 1 are presented herein. The 24-h WMG values were significantly (p < 0.01) lower with sitagliptin relative to placebo, but the difference between sitagliptin doses was not significant (p = 0.365). Corrected percent plasma DPP-4 inhibition at trough was not significantly (p = 0.791) different with sitagliptin 200 mg (LS mean [95% CI] 96.9% [90.0, 100.0]) compared with sitagliptin 100 mg (95.6% [88.4, 100.0]). The early termination and the carryover effect described above are limitations to this study. CONCLUSION: Across sitagliptin doses in this study, the similarity of the 24-h WMG concentrations and the similarity of the corrected DPP-4 inhibition values support prior findings that the maximal glucose-lowering efficacy of sitagliptin is achieved with once-daily dosing of 100 mg. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00541229. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sitagliptin and glipizide added to metformin provided similar degrees of glycemic efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy at 1 year; however, significantly more patients in the sitagliptin group achieved an A1C reduction of >0.5% without hypoglycemia and without an increase in body weight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: This study assessed the effects of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon receptor co-agonist efinopegdutide relative to the selective GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide on liver fat content (LFC) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)., Methods: This was a phase IIa, randomized, active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study. A magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction assessment was performed to determine LFC at screening and Week 24. Participants with an LFC of ≥10% at screening were randomized 1:1 to efinopegdutide 10 mg or semaglutide 1 mg, both administered subcutaneously once weekly for 24 weeks. Participants were stratified according to the concurrent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Both drugs were titrated to the target dose over an 8-week time period. The primary efficacy endpoint was relative reduction from baseline in LFC (%) after 24 weeks of treatment., Results: Among 145 randomized participants (efinopegdutide n = 72, semaglutide n = 73), 33.1% had T2DM. At baseline, mean BMI was 34.3 kg/m 2 and mean LFC was 20.3%. The least squares (LS) mean relative reduction from baseline in LFC at Week 24 was significantly (p <0.001) greater with efinopegdutide (72.7% [90% CI 66.8-78.7]) than with semaglutide (42.3% [90% CI 36.5-48.1]). Both treatment groups had an LS mean percent reduction from baseline in body weight at Week 24 (efinopegdutide 8.5% vs. semaglutide 7.1%; p = 0.085). Slightly higher incidences of adverse events and drug-related adverse events were observed in the efinopegdutide group compared with the semaglutide group, primarily related to an imbalance in gastrointestinal adverse events., Conclusions: In patients with NAFLD, treatment with efinopegdutide 10 mg weekly led to a significantly greater reduction in LFC than semaglutide 1 mg weekly., Clinical Trial Number: EudraCT: 2020-005136-30; NCT: 04944992., Impact and Implications: Currently, there are no approved therapies for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The weight loss associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has been shown to decrease hepatic inflammation in patients with NASH. In addition to reducing liver fat content (LFC) indirectly through weight loss, glucagon receptor agonism may also reduce LFC by acting on the liver directly to stimulate fatty acid oxidation and reduce lipogenesis. This study demonstrated that treatment of patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with the GLP-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist efinopegdutide (10 mg weekly) led to a significantly greater reduction in LFC compared to treatment with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (1 mg weekly), suggesting that efinopegdutide may be an effective treatment for NASH., (Copyright © 2023 Manuel Romero-Gómez, Eric Lawitz, R. Ravi Shankar, Eirum Chaudhri, Jie Liu, Raymond L.H. Lam, Keith D. Kaufman, Samuel S. Engel, MK-6024 P001 Study Group. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Adolescent males with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) have traditionally been treated with exogenous testosterone (T) or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to produce virilization; however, those modalities do not result in growth of the testes and may promote premature maturation and terminal differentiation of Sertoli cells prior to their proliferation, which may impact future fertility. Another option is to use gonadotropins in those individuals to induce testicular growth, proliferation and maturation of Sertoli cells, and production of endogenous T with consequent virilization., Objective: We examined the efficacy and safety of corifollitropin alfa (CFA) combined with hCG for the induction of testicular growth and pubertal development in adolescent boys with HH., Methods: This was a 64-week, multicenter, open-label, single-group study of CFA in adolescent boys, aged 14 to younger than 18 years, with HH. Seventeen participants initiated a 12-week priming period with CFA (100 μg if weight ≤ 60 kg, or 150 μg if weight > 60 kg) given subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, after which they entered a 52-week combined treatment period with CFA, once every 2 weeks, and subcutaneous hCG, twice-weekly (hCG dose adjusted between 500 IU and 5000 IU to keep total T and estradiol levels within protocol-specified ranges). The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in testicular volume (TV), measured as the sum of volumes of left and right testes by ultrasound., Results: After 64 weeks of therapy with CFA/CFA combined with hCG, geometric mean fold increase from baseline in TV was 9.43 (95% CI, 7.44-11.97) (arithmetic mean of change from baseline at week 64, 13.0 mL). Hormonal, Tanner stage, and growth velocity changes were consistent with initiation and progression of puberty. Treatment was generally well tolerated. No participant developed anti-CFA antibodies., Conclusion: Treatment of adolescent boys with HH with CFA alone for 12 weeks followed by CFA combined with hCG for 52 weeks induced testicular growth accompanied by pubertal progression, increased T, and a pubertal growth spurt (EudraCT: 2015-001878-18)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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/m 2 , 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)., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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)., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Phenotypic heterogeneity among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is ill defined. We used cluster analysis machine-learning algorithms to identify phenotypes among trial participants with T2DM and ASCVD., Research Design and Methods: We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study (n = 14,671), a cardiovascular outcome safety trial comparing sitagliptin with placebo in patients with T2DM and ASCVD (median follow-up 3.0 years). Cluster analysis using 40 baseline variables was conducted, with associations between clusters and the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. We replicated the results using the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial., Results: Four distinct phenotypes were identified: cluster I included Caucasian men with a high prevalence of coronary artery disease; cluster II included Asian patients with a low BMI; cluster III included women with noncoronary ASCVD disease; and cluster IV included patients with heart failure and kidney dysfunction. The primary outcome occurred, respectively, in 11.6%, 8.6%, 10.3%, and 16.8% of patients in clusters I to IV. The crude difference in cardiovascular risk for the highest versus lowest risk cluster (cluster IV vs. II) was statistically significant (hazard ratio 2.74 [95% CI 2.29-3.29]). Similar phenotypes and outcomes were identified in EXSCEL., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and ASCVD, cluster analysis identified four clinically distinct groups. Further cardiovascular phenotyping is warranted to inform patient care and optimize clinical trial designs., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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., (© 2021 Merck Sharp & Dohme Crop. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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 (AUC 0-2h ), 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 AUC 0-2h , 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., (© 2021 Merck sharp & Dohme Corp. a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenitworth, N.J., U.S.A. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased risk of diabetic nephropathy and mild renal insufficiency. This analysis compared the anti-hyperglycemic efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with dapagliflozin in patients ≥ 65 years of age with T2D and mild renal insufficiency., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of data from 410 patients ≥ 65 years old who participated in a 24-week, randomized, double-blind clinical trial (CompoSIT-R [comparison of sitagliptin with dapagliflozin in mild renal impairment]; NCT02532855) in T2D patients with mild renal insufficiency and on metformin ± a sulfonylurea; the primary efficacy end point was change in HbA1c at week 24., Results: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean HbA1c = 7.7/7.7% and eGFR = 79/76 ml/min/1.73 m 2 for sitagliptin/dapagliflozin). At week 24, LS mean (95% CI) change in HbA1c and percentage of patients with HbA1c < 7% were greater with sitagliptin, - 0.48% and 41%, respectively, compared with dapagliflozin, - 0.36% and 28%; between-group differences = - 0.12% (- 0.36, 0.01) and 12.8% (3.3, 22.2) for change in HbA1c and percentage with HbA1c < 7%, respectively. The sitagliptin group had greater reductions in PPG end points, while the dapagliflozin group had greater reductions in FPG. Treatments were generally well tolerated. There were fewer drug-related adverse events (AEs) with sitagliptin than with dapagliflozin but AE profiles were otherwise similar., Conclusions: In patients ≥ 65 years of age with T2D and mild renal insufficiency with inadequate glycemic control on metformin ± sulfonylurea, treatment with sitagliptin for 24 weeks resulted in improvement in HbA1c relative to treatment with dapagliflozin that is consistent with that previously observed in the overall population. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

Background: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis., Methods: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66)., Findings: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051)., Interpretation: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To characterize the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initiation of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin during metformin dose escalation in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal on a sub-maximal dose of metformin., Materials and Methods: Study participants with HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol and ≤97 mmol/mol (≥7.5% and ≤11.0%) while on 1000 mg/d metformin were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily or placebo. All were to uptitrate metformin to 2000 mg/d. A longitudinal data analysis model was used to test the primary hypothesis that sitagliptin is superior to placebo when initiated during uptitration of metformin in reducing HbA1c at week 20. [ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02791490, EudraCT: 2015-004224-59] RESULTS: A total of 458 participants (mean HbA1c 71.1 mmol/mol [8.7%], T2D duration 6.3 years) were treated. After 20 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -12.1 mmol/mol (-14.0, -10.1) (-1.10% [-1.28, -0.93]) and -7.6 mmol/mol (-9.6, -5.6) (-0.69% [-0.88, -0.51]) with sitagliptin and placebo, respectively; the between-group difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -4.5 mmol/mol (-6.5, -2.5) (-0.41% [-0.59, -0.23]); P < 0.001. The likelihood of having HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) at week 20 was higher in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group in the overall population (relative risk 1.7, P = 0.002) and in those with a baseline HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (≥8.5%) (relative risk 2.4, P = 0.026). There were no notable differences between groups with regard to adverse events overall, hypoglycaemia events, changes in body weight or other safety variables., Conclusion: In participants not at HbA1c goal on a sub-maximal dose of metformin, addition of sitagliptin at the time of metformin dose uptitration improved glycaemic response and HbA1c goal attainment, with similar safety and tolerability, compared to metformin uptitration alone., (© 2019 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To compare the effects of continuing versus discontinuing sitagliptin when initiating and intensively titrating insulin glargine., Materials and Methods: Eligible patients had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or a sulphonylurea. Those on metformin + sitagliptin were directly randomized; all others were switched to metformin + sitagliptin (discontinuing other DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas) and stabilized during a run-in period. At randomization, patients were allocated to continuing sitagliptin or discontinuing sitagliptin, with both groups initiating insulin glargine and titrating to a target fasting glucose of 4.0 to 5.6 mmol/L., Results: A total of 743 participants (mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 72.6 mmol/mol [8.8%], disease duration 10.8 years), were treated. After 30 weeks, the mean HbA1c and least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c were 51.4 mmol/mol (6.85%) and -20.5 mmol/mol (-1.88%) in the sitagliptin group and 56.4 mmol/mol (7.31%) and -15.5 mmol/mol (-1.42%) in the placebo group; the difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -5.0 mmol/mol (-0.46%; P < 0.001). The percentage of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) was higher (54% vs. 35%) and the mean daily insulin dose was lower (53 vs. 61 units) in the sitagliptin group. Despite lower HbA1c, event rates and incidences of hypoglycaemia were not higher in the sitagliptin group. Adverse events overall and changes from baseline in body weight were similar between the two treatment groups., Conclusion: When initiating insulin glargine therapy, continuation of sitagliptin, compared with discontinuation, resulted in a clinically meaningful greater reduction in HbA1c without an increase in hypoglycaemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738879., (© 2018 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin with the sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and mild renal insufficiency., Materials and Methods: Patients with HbA1c ≥7.0 to ≤9.5% (≥53 to ≤80 mmol/mol) and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 to <90 mL/min/1.73m 2 on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) ± sulfonylurea were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 307) or dapagliflozin 5 mg titrated to 10 mg (n = 306) once daily for 24 weeks. A longitudinal data analysis model was used to test the primary hypothesis that sitagliptin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin in reducing HbA1c at Week 24, with superiority to be tested if non-inferiority is met. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02532855., Results: Baseline mean HbA1c (% [mmol/mol]) was 7.7 (60.9) and 7.8 (61.2), and mean eGFR (mL/min/1.73m 2 ) was 79.4 and 76.9 for the sitagliptin and dapagliflozin groups, respectively. After 24 weeks, the between-group difference in least squares mean (95% CI) changes from baseline in HbA1c was -0.15% (-0.26, -0.04) (-1.67 mmol/mol [-2.86, -0.48]), P = 0.006, meeting the prespecified criteria for declaring both non-inferiority and superiority of sitagliptin versus dapagliflozin. The HbA1c goal of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) was met by 43% (sitagliptin) and 27% (dapagliflozin) of patients. No meaningful between-group difference was observed in a pre-specified analysis of 2-hour incremental postprandial glucose excursion. A review of adverse events (AEs) was notable for a lower incidence of drug-related AEs with sitagliptin compared with dapagliflozin., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes, mild renal insufficiency and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin ± sulfonylurea, sitagliptin treatment resulted in greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with dapagliflozin and was generally well tolerated., (© 2018 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies., Materials and Methods: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective., Results: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP)., Conclusions: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly omarigliptin as monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: People with T2DM not on glucose-lowering medications, or who were washed off monotherapy or low-dose dual therapy, were randomized double-blind to omarigliptin 25 mg (n=165) or matching omarigliptin placebo (n=164) for 24 weeks, followed by a 30-week period to assess continuing efficacy and safety longer-term of omarigliptin during which metformin was added to the placebo group and metformin placebo to the omarigliptin group., Results: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 (primary endpoint) was -0.49% (-0.73, -0.24) in the omarigliptin group and -0.10% (-0.34, 0.14) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.39% (-0.59, -0.19) (p<.001). Protocol deviation in use of metformin by 38 of 252 (15%) people whose samples were available for evaluation probably attenuated glycemic efficacy results, as suggested by the LS mean difference -0.53% (-0.75, -0.32) after censoring of such participants. At 24 and 54 weeks, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. During 54 weeks there were no AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia in the omarigliptin group and 5 AEs in the placebo group. Over 54 weeks, a majority of the omarigliptin treatment had a persistent reduction in HbA1c, remaining rescue-free., Conclusions: In people with T2DM, omarigliptin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 54 weeks and was generally well tolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01717313. EudraCT Number: 2012-003626-24., (Copyright © 2017 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,, The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We evaluated the specific causes of death and their associated risk factors in a contemporary cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)., Research Design and Methods: We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study ( n = 14,671), a cardiovascular (CV) safety trial adding sitagliptin versus placebo to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD (median follow-up 3 years). An independent committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated each cause of death. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk factors associated with each outcome., Results: A total of 1,084 deaths were adjudicated as the following: 530 CV (1.2/100 patient-years [PY], 49% of deaths), 338 non-CV (0.77/100 PY, 31% of deaths), and 216 unknown (0.49/100 PY, 20% of deaths). The most common CV death was sudden death ( n = 145, 27% of CV death) followed by acute myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke ( n = 113 [MI n = 48, stroke n = 65], 21% of CV death) and heart failure (HF) ( n = 63, 12% of CV death). The most common non-CV death was malignancy ( n = 154, 46% of non-CV death). The risk of specific CV death subcategories was lower among patients with no baseline history of HF, including sudden death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; P = 0.0036), MI/stroke death (HR 0.47; P = 0.049), and HF death (HR 0.29; P = 0.0057)., Conclusions: In this analysis of a contemporary cohort of patients with diabetes and ASCVD, sudden death was the most common subcategory of CV death. HF prevention may represent an avenue to reduce the risk of specific CV death subcategories., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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.

Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of omarigliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Methods: In a 24-week double-blind trial, 414 patients with T2D were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly, sitagliptin 50 mg once daily or placebo. The double-blind period was followed by a 28-week open-label extension during which all patients received omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly. Efficacy endpoints were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels., Results: After 24 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.66% for omarigliptin, -0.65% for sitagliptin and 0.13% for placebo. The difference in LS mean for omarigliptin vs placebo was -0.80% ( P  < .001). The difference in LS mean for omarigliptin vs sitagliptin was -0.02% (95% confidence interval -0.15, 0.12), which met the criterion for non-inferiority to sitagliptin. Both active treatments provided significant reductions in FPG and 2-hour PPG compared with placebo (P < .001). Over the 24-week double-blind period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence rates of adverse events among the treatment groups. There was 1 episode of symptomatic hypoglycaemia in the sitagliptin group and none in the omarigliptin or placebo groups. In the 28-week open-label period, omarigliptin provided persistent improvements in glycaemic control without notable change in safety profile compared with the double-blind period. Omarigliptin had no meaningful effect on body weight., Conclusions: In Japanese patients with T2D, omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly provided significant glucose-lowering compared with placebo and was non-inferior to sitagliptin 50 mg once daily. Omarigliptin was generally well tolerated for up to 52 weeks., (© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin monotherapy in young adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Unexpected efficacy results in this trial led to a series of investigations that identified the use of prohibited medication by a substantial number of trial patients., Methods: Patients with T2DM who were ≥18 to <45 years of age and either drug-naive or not on an antihyperglycemic agent for ≥12 weeks with inadequate glycemic control were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 102) or placebo once weekly (n = 101) for 24 weeks. The objectives of the trial were to assess the effect of treatment with omarigliptin on glycemic parameters, including levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ), 2-hour postmeal glucose, and fasting plasma glucose, and to assess the safety and tolerability of omarigliptin. Additional investigations into trial conduct included the measurement of drug levels for omarigliptin and metformin in blood samples collected for future biomedical research, available for approximately one half of the patients., Findings: The mean age of trial participants was 39.2 years, approximately 60% were male, mean body mass index was 32.5 kg/m2, and mean duration of diabetes was 3.1 years. The mean baseline HbA 1c value was 7.9% in the omarigliptin group and 8.1% in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, the least squares mean change (95% CI) in HbA 1c value from baseline was -0.33% (-0.60 to -0.06) in the omarigliptin group and -0.45% (-0.72 to -0.18) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference of 0.12% (-0.26 to 0.49; P = 0.535). Similarly, no between-group difference was observed for the other glycemic parameters (2-hour postmeal glucose and fasting plasma glucose levels). No issues were identified in drug allocation, dispensing or supply, patient compliance with trial medication, sample handling or analysis, or site trial conduct that explained the observed results. Measurement of drug levels from future biomedical research samples uncovered the use, with no investigator knowledge, of an antihyperglycemic agent that was prohibited by the protocol (ie, metformin) by 42.4% (39 of 92) of patients. Metformin was used by more patients in the placebo group (57% [25 of 44]) than in the omarigliptin group (29% [14 of 48])., Implications: The use of prohibited metformin in a trial of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, introduced a confounding factor that invalidated the results of the trial. This behavior may have been encouraged in the trial by protocol-specified self-monitoring of blood glucose levels. Use of prohibited medication may be an underappreciated confounder in clinical trial research., Trial Registrations: MK-3102-028 (US); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01814748; EudraCT number, 2012-004303-12 (EU)., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy., Methods: Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (n = 376) or glimepiride up to 6 mg once daily (n = 375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at week 54., Results: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.30% in the omarigliptin group and -0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.4 kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5 kg)., Conclusions: After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss vs weight gain.

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with T2DM on a stable dose of metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.0-10.5% were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo (n = 201 in both) for 24 weeks (primary timepoint) followed by an additional 80-week treatment period., Results: At week 24, from a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c (primary end-point) was -0.54% (-0.69%, -0.40%) in the omarigliptin group and 0.00% (-0.14%, 0.15%) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.55% (-0.75%, -0.34%); p < .001. Between-group differences (LS mean 95% CI) for the secondary end-points of 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose (omarigliptin vs placebo) were -0.8 mmol/L (-1.4, -0.2) (p = .011) and -0.5 mmol/L (-0.9, -0.1) (p = .010), respectively. At week 24, the incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and subjects with one or more adverse event (AE), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to an AE were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. Over 104 weeks, omarigliptin treatment provided a clinically meaningful reduction in HbA1c., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM, adding omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. to metformin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 104 weeks and was generally welltolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Background: Omarigliptin is a once-weekly (q.w.) oral DPP-4 inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. To support approval of omarigliptin in the United States, the clinical development program included a cardiovascular (CV) safety study. Subsequently, a business decision was made not to submit a marketing application for omarigliptin in the United States, and the CV safety study was terminated. Herein we report an analysis of data from that early-terminated study., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, 4202 patients with T2DM and established CV disease were assigned to either omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo in addition to their existing diabetes therapy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to summarize the primary endpoint of time to first major adverse CV event (MACE, the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and the analysis of first event of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF)., Results: The median follow-up was approximately 96 weeks (range 1.1-178.6 weeks). The primary MACE outcome occurred in 114/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (5.45%; 2.96/100 patient-years) and 114/2100 patients in the placebo group (5.43%; 2.97/100 patient-years), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.29). The hHF outcome occurred in 20/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (0.96%; 0.51/100 patient-years) and 33/2100 patients in the placebo group (1.57%; 0.85/100 patient-years), with an HR of 0.60 (95% CI 0.35, 1.05). After 142 weeks, the least-squares mean difference (omarigliptin vs. placebo) in glycated hemoglobin levels was -0.3% (95% CI -0.46, -0.14). The numbers of patients with adverse events, serious adverse events or discontinued from study medication due to adverse events were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups., Conclusions: In this CV safety study of patients with T2DM and established CV disease, omarigliptin did not increase the risk of MACE or hHF and was generally well tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01703208. Registered 05 October 2012.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin when added to the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on acarbose monotherapy., Research Design and Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Patients (N = 381) with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥ 7.0% and ≤10.0%) on acarbose monotherapy (at least 50 mg three times daily) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the addition of sitagliptin 100 mg or matching placebo once daily for 24 weeks., Main Outcome Measures: Changes from baseline in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at Week 24., Results: The mean baseline HbA1c in randomized patients was 8.1%. At Week 24, the placebo-controlled, least squares mean changes from baseline (95% confidence interval) in HbA1c and FPG in the sitagliptin group were -0.62% and -0.8 mmol/L (p < .001), respectively. At Week 24, 37.8% of patients in the sitagliptin group were at HbA1c goal of <7% compared with 17.2% in the placebo group (p < .001). Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, and there were no significant between-group differences in prespecified safety parameters (symptomatic hypoglycemia, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting). A higher incidence of serious adverse events was observed in the sitagliptin group (5.2%) relative to placebo (0.5%); all but one, in the sitagliptin group, were not considered related to drug., Conclusions: Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated and provided statistically superior and clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control after 24 weeks of treatment compared to placebo when added to treatment of patients with inadequate glycemic control on acarbose monotherapy. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01177384.

Objective: Limited data exist regarding safety and efficacy of antihyperglycemic drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes. The Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin on a primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA 1c ≥6.5% [48 mmol/mol] and ≤8.0% [64 mmol/mol]) and cardiovascular disease. We analyzed baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes for TECOS participants aged ≥75 years., Research Design and Methods: Clinical and safety event summaries are presented for older versus younger participants and for the treatment groups within the older cohort., Results: Of 14,351 participants with age recorded, 2,004 (14%) were ≥75 years old (mean age 78.3 years [SD 3.1]), with 68% men and type 2 diabetes duration median 12.0 years (IQR 7, 21). During 2.9 years median follow-up, older participants had higher rates of the primary outcome (6.46 vs. 3.67 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio 1.72 [95% CI 1.52-1.94]), death (2.52 [2.20-2.89]), severe hypoglycemia (1.53 [1.15-2.03]), and fractures (1.84 [1.44-2.35]). In the older cohort, sitagliptin did not significantly impact the primary composite (1.10 [0.89-1.36]), death (1.05 [0.83-1.32]), heart failure hospitalization (0.99 [0.65-1.49]), severe hypoglycemia (1.03 [0.62-1.71]), rates of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, or serious adverse events., Conclusions: Among older patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, sitagliptin had neutral effects on cardiovascular risk and raised no significant safety concerns., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor omarigliptin or once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin., Materials and Methods: Patients with T2DM with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/d) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly (n = 322) or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily (n = 320). The primary analysis assessed whether omarigliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c at week 24, based on the criterion of having an upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) about the difference less than the non-inferiority bound of 0.3%., Results: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in both groups. After 24 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.47% in the omarigliptin group and -0.43% in the sitagliptin group, with a between-group difference of -0.03% (95% CI -0.15, 0.08). This result met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The LS mean change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose and the percentage of patients with HbA1c <7.0% or <6.5% at week 24 were similar in the two treatment groups. There were no notable differences in adverse events and the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was low and similar in the groups., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, the addition of omarigliptin 25 mg once weekly or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily led to similar improvements in glycaemic control. Both agents were generally well tolerated with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia., (© 2017 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To examine fracture incidence among participants in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS)., Research Design and Methods: We used data from 14 671 participants in the TECOS study who were randomized double-blind to sitagliptin (n = 7332) or placebo (n = 7339). Cumulative fracture incidence rates were calculated and their association with study treatment assignment was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: The baseline mean (standard deviation) participant age was 65.5 (8.0) years, diabetes duration was 11.6 (8.1) years and glycated haemoglobin level was 7.2 (0.5)% [55.2 (5.5) mmol/mol], and 29.3% of participants were women and 32.1% were non-white. During 43 222 person-years' follow-up, 375 (2.6%; 8.7 per 1000 person-years) had a fracture; 146 were major osteoporotic fractures (hip, n = 34; upper extremity, n = 81; and clinical spine, n = 31). Adjusted analyses showed fracture risk increased independently with older age (P < .001), female sex (P < .001), white race (P < .001), lower diastolic blood pressure (P < .001) and diabetic neuropathy (P = .003). Sitagliptin, compared with placebo, was not associated with a higher fracture risk [189 vs 186 incident fractures: unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.23, P = .944; adjusted HR 1.03, P = .745], major osteoporotic fractures (P = .673) or hip fractures (P = .761). Insulin therapy was associated with a higher fracture risk (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02-1.91; P = .035), and metformin with a lower risk (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98; P = .035)., Conclusion: Fractures were common among people with diabetes in the TECOS study, but were not related to sitagliptin therapy. Insulin and metformin treatment were associated with higher and lower fracture risks, respectively., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment generally requires multiple antihyperglycemic agents. When diet, exercise, and treatment with sulfonylurea and metformin do not achieve glycemic goals, several options are available. The present study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day added to therapy with sulfonylurea and metformin., Methods: Patients with HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on a sulfonylurea and metformin were randomized 1: 1 to sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo for 24 weeks. At Week 24, patients in the placebo group switched to pioglitazone 30 mg/day and both groups continued treatment for another 30 weeks., Results: Of 427 patients randomized, 339 (79.4%) completed the study. At Week 24, significantly greater (P < 0.001) mean reductions from baseline were seen in the sitagliptin versus placebo group for HbA1c (-0.84% vs -0.16%, respectively), 2-h post-meal glucose (-2.0 vs -0.2 mmol/L, respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (-0.7 vs 0.3 mmol/L, respectively). At Week 54, improvements in glycemic control continued. At Week 24, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was numerically greater with sitagliptin than placebo, primarily because of a higher incidence of hypoglycemia. At Week 54, the incidence of AEs was similar in both groups, primarily because of a higher incidence of hypoglycemia and edema in the placebo/pioglitazone group after Week 24. The only meaningful change in body weight was an increase in the placebo/pioglitazone group at Week 54., Conclusions: In this study, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated and provided improvement in glycemic control when added to the combination of sulfonylurea and metformin in patients with T2DM., (© 2016 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Introduction: The results of a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control are reported here., Materials and Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, 24-week clinical trial carried out in China. Patients (n = 744) with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin ≥7.5 and ≤11.0%) who were either drug-naïve or washed out of previous therapy were randomized in equal ratios to sitagliptin 100 mg once daily (q.d.; S100), metformin 500 mg twice daily (b.i.d.; M1000), metformin 850 mg b.i.d. (M1700), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. plus metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (S100/M1000), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. plus metformin 850 mg b.i.d. (S100/M1700), or placebo., Results: The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin in randomized patients was 8.7%. Least squares mean changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin were -0.59% (placebo), -0.99% (S100), -1.29% (M1000), -1.56% (M1700), -1.67% (S100/M1000) and -1.83% (S100/M1700) (P < 0.05 for each active group vs placebo, for S100/M1700 and S100/M1000 vs S100, and for S100/M1000 vs M1000). All treatments were generally well-tolerated. The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (symptomatic or asymptomatic) was higher in the two co-administration groups (S100/M1700 and S100/M1000) compared with the placebo. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was low, and similar, across all treatment groups. The incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were generally higher in high-dose metformin groups than in the placebo group., Conclusions: In Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin was generally well-tolerated, and provided improvement in glycemic control., (© 2016 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: This study was conducted to determine the optimal dose of omarigliptin, a once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and evaluate the long-term safety of that dose., Research Design and Methods: In a multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, dose-range finding study, 685 oral antihyperglycemic agent-naïve or washed-out subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of five once-weekly doses of omarigliptin (0.25 mg, 1 mg, 3 mg, 10 mg, or 25 mg) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in HbA1c, and secondary end points were 2-h postmeal glucose (PMG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of the study medication. Subjects who completed the base study were eligible to enter a 66-week extension study., Results: Once-weekly treatment for 12 weeks with omarigliptin provided dose-related reductions in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG. At week 12, the omarigliptin 25-mg dose provided the greatest glycemic efficacy. The placebo-adjusted least-squares mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c, 2-h PMG, and FPG were -0.72% (-7.8 mmol/mol), -2.5, and -1.3 mmol/L, respectively (all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across dose groups, with a low incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and no effect on body weight. Omarigliptin was generally well-tolerated throughout the base and extension studies., Conclusions: Omarigliptin 25 mg q.w., compared with placebo, provided significant glucose lowering and was generally well tolerated for up to 78 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes., (© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of once daily sitagliptin 100 mg as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 2 years of treatment., Research Design and Methods: The monotherapy analysis used pooled 104 week data from 64 patients in two randomized, double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin monotherapy. Data used were from patients who were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day, were not on an antihyperglycemic agent at the screening visit, had baseline A1C of 7.0%-10.0%, and had Week 104 A1C measurements. The add-on to metformin analysis used pooled data from 347 patients in two randomized double-blind trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin + metformin combination therapy. Data used were from patients who were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day + metformin ≥1500 mg/day, had baseline A1C of 7%-10%, and had Week 104 A1C measurements. Excluded from either analysis were patients who discontinued prior to 2 years (e.g., due to lack of efficacy, a need for rescue medications, or adverse experiences). Analysis endpoints were A1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HOMA-β, proinsulin/insulin (P/I) ratio, and for monotherapy, 2 hour post-meal plasma glucose (PMG)., Results: For the pooled monotherapy cohort, after 2 years of treatment, mean A1C, FPG, and 2 hour PMG decreased from baseline values of 7.9%, 156 mg/dL, and 223 mg/dL to 6.9%, 143 mg/dL, and 191 mg/dL, respectively, while HOMA-β increased from 67% to 85% and P/I ratio improved from 0.57 to 0.28. For the pooled add-on to metformin cohort, after 2 years of treatment, mean A1C and FPG decreased from baseline values of 7.7% and 160 mg/dL to 6.9% and 140 mg/dL, respectively, while HOMA-β increased from 50% to 62% and P/I ratio improved from 0.33 to 0.28. These analyses are limited in that only patients who were able to complete 104 weeks of study were included., Conclusion: In the subset of patients with T2DM who maintained and completed treatment for 2 years with sitagliptin as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin, improvements in glycemic control and measures of β-cell function were observed over the course of treatment.

Introduction: In the USA, 45% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are elderly (≥ 65 years old). In general, use of sulfonylurea increases with patient age as does the associated risk for hypoglycaemia, and the consequences of hypoglycaemia can be more pronounced in elderly patients. Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, improves glycaemic control in adult patients of all ages with T2DM, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia when used alone or in combination with other antidiabetic agents that are not generally associated with hypoglycaemia when used independently., Methods: In a post hoc analysis, pooled data from elderly patients who participated in one of three double-blind studies comparing the effects of therapy with sitagliptin (100 mg/day) vs. sulfonylurea (in titrated doses) were analysed for changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight and for the incidence of reported symptomatic hypoglycaemia. In these studies, patients on diet alone or metformin were randomised to sitagliptin or glipizide for 104 weeks (studies 1 and 2) or glimepiride for 30 weeks (study 3). The analysis included 372 elderly patients who completed a trial through 25 or 30 weeks., Results: Both HbA1c and FPG decreased from baseline with each treatment, with no statistically significant differences between treatments. A significantly lower incidence of reported hypoglycaemia was observed with sitagliptin compared with sulfonylurea (6.2% vs. 27.8%; p < 0.001). Body weight decreased significantly with sitagliptin but not with sulfonylurea. Significantly more patients on sitagliptin than on sulfonylureas achieved a composite end-point of >0.5% HbA1c reduction with no reported hypoglycaemia or increase in body weight (44.1% vs. 16.0%; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In this analysis of elderly patients with T2DM, compared with sulfonylurea, sitagliptin provided similar glycaemic efficacy with less hypoglycaemia and with body weight loss., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of sitagliptin on insulin dose in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who titrate basal insulin to a target fasting glucose level after initiating sitagliptin., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week clinical trial in which treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day or placebo was administered concurrently with insulin glargine titration, targeting a fasting glucose of 4.0-5.6 mmol/L (72-100 mg/dL). The trial randomized 660 patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on insulin, with or without metformin (≥1500 mg/day) or sulfonylurea, for ≥10 weeks. Patients could remain on metformin but not sulfonylurea after randomization., Results: The increase from baseline in the daily dose of insulin was less in the sitagliptin group (N = 329) compared to placebo (N = 329) (between group difference = -4.7 IU [95% confidence interval [CI] -8.3, -1.2]; p = 0.009). Patients in the sitagliptin group had lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels after 24 weeks (between-group difference of -0.4% [95% CI -0.6, -0.3; -4.9 mmol/mol (95% CI -6.6, -3.2)]; p < 0.001), and more patients in the sitagliptin group reached the HbA1c goal of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), with a between-group difference of 17.3% (95% CI 10.4%, 24.1%; p < 0.001). Fewer patients in the sitagliptin group experienced an adverse event of hypoglycemia (between-group difference = -15.5%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Administration of sitagliptin prior to intensive titration of basal insulin glargine reduces the insulin dose requirement while providing superior glycemic control and less hypoglycemia, compared to an insulin-only regimen., Funding: Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Introduction: Impaired renal function is a major complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Mild renal impairment is present in 38% of patients with T2DM and may impact choice of antihyperglycemic agent. Sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are commonly used to treat hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM and renal impairment. Although in general sulfonylurea use is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain, while DPP-4 inhibitor use is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and is weight neutral, the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents in patients with mild renal impairment has not been evaluated., Methods: In a post hoc analysis, data from 1,211 subjects with T2DM and mild renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rates of 60 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), who completed 25 or 30 weeks of one of three double-blind clinical trials comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin 100 mg/day with sulfonylureas in titrated doses, were pooled. The analysis compared change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and the percentages of subjects meeting a composite endpoint of HbA1c decrease >0.5% without symptomatic hypoglycemia or body weight gain between sitagliptin and sulfonylurea treatment groups., Results: HbA1c and FPG decreased similarly with sitagliptin or sulfonylurea. A lower incidence of hypoglycemia was observed with sitagliptin. Body weight decreased with sitagliptin but increased with sulfonylurea. A greater percentage of subjects treated with sitagliptin (41.1%) than treated with sulfonylurea (16.9%) achieved the composite endpoint of >0.5% HbA1c reduction with no symptomatic hypoglycemia or body weight gain., Conclusion: In this analysis of subjects with T2DM and mild renal impairment, treatment with sitagliptin provided glycemic efficacy similar to sulfonylurea, with less hypoglycemia and with body weight loss compared to body weight gain seen with sulfonylurea., Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00482079, #NCT00094770, #NCT00701090.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes., Design: A post hoc pooled analysis of 25 randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical studies with results available as of 1 December 2011., Setting: Multicenter, international clinical trials., Subjects: Patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older., Interventions: Patients were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 1,261) or a comparator (n = 1,185) for 12 weeks to 2 years., Main Outcome Measures: In each study, investigators reported serious and non-serious adverse events that occurred during the study, and serious adverse events occurring within 14 days following the last dose of study drug. This analysis used patient-level data from each study to assess the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of specific adverse events that occurred following initiation of study drug., Results: Summary measures of adverse events overall were similar between the sitagliptin and non-exposed (active comparator or placebo) groups, except for higher incidences of deaths and drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were generally similar between the two groups, with the exception of hypoglycemia. A lower incidence rate of hypoglycemia was observed in the sitagliptin group compared with the non-exposed group [7.0 vs. 14.3 per 100 patient-years; difference -7.6 (95 % CI -11.2 to -4.3]), primarily due to greater use of sulfonylureas in the non-exposed group., Conclusions: In this pooled safety analysis of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated for up to 2 years.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy of sitagliptin 100 mg/day coadministered with all marketed doses of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes., Methods: Patients with A1c ≥7.5 and ≤11.0% were randomized among seven arms that received, once daily, 100 mg sitagliptin alone; 15, 30 or 45 mg pioglitazone alone, or 100 mg sitagliptin plus 15, 30 or 45 mg pioglitazone for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c at week 24. Protocol-specified analyses compared combination therapies with monotherapies at respective dose-strengths and combination of sitagliptin plus pioglitazone 30 mg with pioglitazone 45 mg monotherapy. Post-hoc analyses compared sitagliptin plus pioglitazone 15 mg with pioglitazone monotherapy at the two higher doses., Results: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone provided significantly greater reductions in A1c (0.4-0.7% differences) and other glycaemic endpoints than either monotherapy at the same doses. Combining sitagliptin with low-dose pioglitazone generally produced greater glycaemic improvements than higher doses of pioglitazone monotherapy (0.3-0.4% differences in A1c). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated; adverse events (AEs) of hypoglycaemia were reported with similar incidence (7.8-11.1%) in all treatment groups over the 54 weeks of study; oedema was reported in 0.5% of patients in the sitagliptin monotherapy group and 2.7-5.3% among pioglitazone-treated groups. Significant weight gain was observed in all combination-treated groups compared with the sitagliptin monotherapy group., Conclusions: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone provided better glycaemic control than either monotherapy and was generally well tolerated., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Sitagliptin, an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, lowers blood glucose when administered as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents. TECOS will evaluate the effects of adding sitagliptin to usual diabetes care on cardiovascular outcomes and clinical safety. TECOS is a pragmatic, academically run, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial recruiting approximately 14,000 patients in 38 countries who have type 2 diabetes (T2DM), are at least 50 years old, have cardiovascular disease, and have an hemoglobin A1c value between 6.5% and 8.0%. Eligible participants will be receiving stable mono- or dual therapy with metformin, sulfonylurea, or pioglitazone, or insulin alone or in combination with metformin. Randomization is 1:1 to double-blind sitagliptin or matching placebo, in addition to existing therapy in a usual care setting. Follow-up occurs at 4-month intervals in year 1 and then twice yearly until 1300 confirmed primary end points have occurred. Glycemic equipoise between randomized groups is a desired aim. The primary composite cardiovascular endpoint is time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, with cardiovascular events adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to study therapy. TECOS is a pragmatic-design cardiovascular outcome trial assessing the cardiovascular effects of sitagliptin when added to usual T2DM management., (© 2013.)

Aims: The effects of sitagliptin and pioglitazone, alone and in combination, on α- and β-cell function were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes., Methods: Following a 6-week diet/exercise period, 211 patients with HbA1c of 6.5-9.0% and fasting plasma glucose of 7.2-14.4 mmol/l were randomized (1 :1 :1 : 1) to sitagliptin, pioglitazone, sitagliptin + pioglitazone or placebo. At baseline and after 12 weeks, patients were given a mixed meal followed by frequent blood sampling for measurements of glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon., Results: After 12 weeks, 5-h glucose total area under the curve (AUC) decreased in all active treatments versus placebo; reduction with sitagliptin + pioglitazone was greater versus either monotherapy. The 5-h insulin total AUC increased with sitagliptin versus all other treatments and increased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus pioglitazone. The 3-h glucagon AUC decreased with sitagliptin versus placebo and decreased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus pioglitazone or placebo. Φ(s), a measure of dynamic β-cell responsiveness to above-basal glucose concentrations, increased with either monotherapy versus placebo and increased with sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus either monotherapy. The insulin sensitivity index (ISI), a composite index of insulin sensitivity, improved with pioglitazone and sitagliptin + pioglitazone versus placebo. The disposition index, a measure of the relationship between β-cell function and insulin sensitivity, improved with all active treatments versus placebo., Conclusions: Sitagliptin and pioglitazone enhanced β-cell function (increasing postmeal Φ(s)), and sitagliptin improved α-cell function (decreasing postmeal glucagon) after 12 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes. Through these complementary mechanisms of action, the combination of sitagliptin and pioglitazone reduced postmeal glucose more than either treatment alone., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) diabetes algorithm recommends a stratified approach to initial therapy to achieve a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of ≤6.5% in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have inadequate glycemic control. Data from a double-blind study in drug-naïve T2DM patients comparing initial monotherapy with metformin (MET) with initial dual therapy with a fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and MET (SITA/MET FDC) was used to determine AACE/ACE HbA1c goal attainment in these treatment groups., Methods: A total of 1,250 patients (mean baseline HbA1c = 9.9%) were randomized 1:1 to SITA/MET FDC 50/500 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or MET 500 mg b.i.d. for 18 weeks. SITA/MET FDC and MET were uptitrated over 4 weeks to 50/1,000 mg b.i.d. and 1,000 mg b.i.d., respectively., Results: At week 18, a higher percentage of patients receiving SITA/MET FDC had HbA1c levels ≤6.5% and <7% than those receiving MET alone within each of the 3 AACE/ACE HbA1c categories (6.5-7.5%, >7.5-9.0%, and >9.0%). Of patients with a baseline HbA1c >7.5-9.0% who initiated SITA/MET FDC, 48.6% achieved an HbA1c ≤6.5% at week 18 compared with 23.1% of patients who initiated MET monotherapy (P<.001). In patients with a baseline HbA1c >9.0%, 24.0% on SITA/MET FDC achieved an HbA1c ≤6.5% compared with 12.8% on MET alone (P<.001)., Conclusion: In T2DM patients with a baseline HbA1c >7.5-9.0%, substantially more achieved the HbA1c goal of ≤6.5% with initial dual therapy (SITA/MET FDC) than with initial monotherapy (MET), which is in agreement with the AACE/ACE diabetes algorithm.

Introduction: In a previous pooled analysis of 19 double-blind clinical studies conducted by Merck, which included data available as of July 2009 on 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), treatment with sitagliptin was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As the sitagliptin clinical development program continues, additional studies with sitagliptin have been completed. The present analysis updates the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by examining pooled data from 25 double-blind clinical studies., Methods: The present analysis included data from 14,611 patients in 25 studies with T2DM who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 7,726; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (n = 6,885; non-exposed group). These studies represent all randomized, double-blind trials conducted by Merck 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 December 2011. These studies assessed sitagliptin, versus comparator agents, 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 metformin + pioglitazone or rosiglitazone). Patient-level data from each study were used to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events (AEs)., Results: Overall incidence rates of AEs and drug-related AEs were higher in the non-exposed group compared with the sitagliptin group. Incidence rates of specific AEs were generally similar between the two groups, except for higher 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 of constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancy, or pancreatitis., Conclusion: In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 14,611 patients with T2DM, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.

Objective: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease have an increased risk of micro- and macrovascular disease, but limited options for antihyperglycemic therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with glipizide in patients with T2DM and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency and inadequate glycemic control., Research Design and Methods: Patients (n = 426) were randomized 1:1 to sitagliptin (50 mg every day [q.d.] for moderate renal insufficiency and 25 mg q.d. for severe renal insufficiency) or glipizide (2.5 mg q.d., adjusted based on glycemic control to a 10-mg twice a day maximum dose). Randomization was stratified by: 1) renal status (moderate or severe renal insufficiency); 2) history of cardiovascular disease; and 3) history of heart failure., Results: At week 54, treatment with sitagliptin was noninferior to treatment with glipizide in A1C change from baseline (-0.8 vs. -0.6%; between-group difference -0.11%; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.06) because the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%. There was a lower incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia adverse events (AEs) with sitagliptin versus glipizide (6.2 and 17.0%, respectively; P = 0.001) and a decrease in body weight with sitagliptin (-0.6 kg) versus an increase (1.2 kg) with glipizide (difference, -1.8 kg; P < 0.001). The incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was low with both treatments., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and chronic renal insufficiency, sitagliptin and glipizide provided similar A1C-lowering efficacy. Sitagliptin was generally well-tolerated, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia and weight loss versus weight gain, relative to glipizide.