LIBERTY randomized withdrawal study: relugolix combination therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

BACKGROUND: In the pivotal LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials and long-term extension study, once-daily relugolix combination therapy (40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate) reduced menstrual blood loss volume and pain among women with uterine fibroids. Relugolix combination therapy was well tolerated with preservation of bone mineral density through 52 weeks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the 2-year relugolix combination therapy efficacy and safety results of the phase 3 LIBERTY randomized withdrawal study. STUDY DESIGN: Women with uterine fibroid-associated heavy menstrual bleeding who completed the 24-week LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials, followed by the 28-week long-term extension study (up to 52 weeks total treatment), and who met the responder criteria (menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL and ≥50% reduction from pivotal study baseline at week 48 [week 24 of long-term extension]) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either blinded treatment with relugolix combination therapy or placebo for 52 weeks (total treatment period, 104 weeks). For women who had a relapse of heavy menstrual bleeding during the study (menstrual blood loss volume ≥80 mL), open-label relugolix combination therapy was offered. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who maintained menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL through week 76 (week 24 of randomized withdrawal study). Secondary endpoints included time to menstrual blood loss volume ≥80 mL, proportion of women who maintained a menstrual blood loss volume of <80 mL through week 104 (over the 52-week randomized treatment period), the proportion of women who achieved or maintained amenorrhea at week 76 at the end of treatment, and the change in Uterine Fibroid Symptom-Quality of Life Bleeding and Pelvic Discomfort Scale and symptom severity scores. Analyses were performed for the modified intent-to-treat population, including all randomized women who received ≥1 dose of the study drug. RESULTS: Of the 229 randomized women (relugolix combination therapy, n=115; placebo, n=114), 228 received the study drug and 175 (76.7%) completed the randomized withdrawal study. Through week 76, 78.4% of women on relugolix combination therapy maintained menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL vs 15.1% in the placebo group (difference, 63.4%; 95% confidence interval, 52.9%-73.9%; P<.0001). At week 104, 69.8% of women on relugolix combination therapy maintained menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL vs 11.8% in the placebo group (difference, 58.0%; 95% confidence interval, 47.0%-69.1%; P<.0001). Through week 104, 88.3% of women on placebo relapsed with heavy menstrual bleeding (median time to relapse, 5.9 weeks). Among the 89 women in the placebo group who relapsed and received open-label rescue treatment, 87 women responded to relugolix combination therapy with a menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL. The proportion of women who achieved or maintained amenorrhea were 57.4% vs 13.3% at week 76 (difference, 44.1%; 95% confidence interval, 33.10%-55.1%; P<.0001) and 58.3% vs 10.6% at week 104 (difference, 47.6%; 95% confidence interval, 37.0%-58.3%; nominal P<.0001) for relugolix combination therapy and the placebo group, respectively. Relugolix combination therapy was generally well tolerated; no new safety signals were identified, and the adverse event profile over the second year was consistent with that reported through the first year of treatment. Bone mineral density remained stable in women who received relugolix combination therapy from week 52 to week 104. In women continuously treated with relugolix combination therapy up to 2 years, bone mineral density was generally preserved. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of treatment with relugolix combination therapy, there was evidence of durability of the effect in maintaining low menstrual blood loss volume in women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Most women had return of heavy menstrual bleeding and associated symptoms after treatment cessation, which improved upon retreatment with relugolix combination therapy. Relugolix combination therapy was well tolerated, the adverse event profile remained consistent, and the mean bone mineral density was generally preserved through 2 years of treatment.

A Randomized Open-Label Study of Relugolix Alone or Relugolix Combination Therapy in Premenopausal Women.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Relugolix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist. Relugolix 40-mg monotherapy is associated with vasomotor symptoms and long-term bone mineral density loss due to hypoestrogenism. This study assessed whether the addition of estradiol (E2) 1 mg and norethindrone acetate (NETA) 0.5 mg to relugolix 40 mg (relugolix combination therapy) provides systemic E2 concentrations in the 20-50 pg/mL range to minimize these undesirable effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group study to assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of relugolix 40 mg alone or in combination with E2 1 mg and NETA 0.5 mg in healthy premenopausal women. Eligible women were randomized 1:1 to receive relugolix alone or relugolix plus E2/NETA for 6 weeks. Study assessments included pharmacokinetic parameters of E2, estrone, and relugolix in both treatment groups, and norethindrone in the relugolix plus E2/NETA treatment group at weeks 3 and 6. RESULTS: Median E2 24 h average concentrations with the relugolix plus E2/NETA group (N = 23) were 31.5 pg/mL, 26 pg/mL higher compared with the relugolix-alone group (6.2 pg/mL) (N = 25). There were 86.4% of participants in the relugolix plus E2/NETA group who had E2 average concentrations exceeding 20 pg/mL, the threshold expected to minimize bone mineral density loss, compared with 21.1% in the relugolix-alone group. Both treatments were generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Relugolix 40 mg in combination with E2 1 mg and NETA 0.5 mg provided systemic E2 concentrations within a range expected to minimize the risk of undesirable effects of hypoestrogenism associated with the administration of relugolix alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier no. NCT04978688. Trial registration date: 27 July, 2021; retrospectively registered.

Relugolix Combination Therapy for Uterine Leiomyoma-Associated Pain in the LIBERTY Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of once-daily relugolix combination therapy (relugolix-CT: relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg) compared with placebo on moderate-to-severe pain in women with uterine leiomyomas and heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: Two replicate, multinational, double-blind, 24-week, randomized, phase 3 studies (LIBERTY 1 and 2) were conducted in premenopausal women with uterine leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding (80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL or greater during one cycle). A predefined secondary objective was to determine the effect of relugolix-CT on moderate-to-severe uterine leiomyoma-associated pain in the pain subpopulation (women with maximum pain scores of 4 or higher on the 0-10 numerical rating scale at baseline, with pain score reporting compliance of 80% (ie, 28 days or more over the last 35 days of treatment). This key secondary endpoint was defined as the proportion of women achieving minimal-to-no uterine leiomyoma-associated pain (maximum numerical rating scale score 1 or lower) at week 24; menstrual and nonmenstrual pain were evaluated in prespecified secondary analyses. Treatment comparisons were performed in the pooled LIBERTY 1 and 2 pain subpopulation using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline menstrual blood loss volume. RESULTS: Across both trials, 509 women were randomized to relugolix-CT or placebo (April 2017-December 2018). Of these, 277 (54.4%) met pain subpopulation requirements. With relugolix-CT, 45.2% (95% CI 36.4-54.3) of women achieved minimal-to-no pain compared with 13.9% (95% CI 8.8-20.5) with placebo (nominal P<.001). The proportions of women with minimal-to-no pain during menstrual days and during nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT (65.0% [95% CI 55.6-73.5] and 44.6% [95% CI 32.3-57.5], respectively) compared with placebo (19.3% [95% CI 13.2-26.7], nominal P<.001, and 21.6% [95% CI 12.9-32.7], nominal P=.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: Over 24 weeks, relugolix-CT significantly reduced moderate-to-severe uterine leiomyoma-associated pain with a more pronounced effect on menstrual pain. These data support that relugolix-CT had clinically meaningful effects on women's experience of uterine leiomyoma-associated pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: LIBERTY 1, NCT03049735; LIBERTY 2, NCT03103087. FUNDING SOURCE: Myovant Sciences GmbH.

Onset of action of naldemedine in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain: results from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common side effect of chronic opioid therapy. Previously, naldemedine, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of OIC. In this exploratory analysis, the onset of action of naldemedine was evaluated in 2 identically designed phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Proportion of patients experiencing a spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 hours of treatment initiation, time from initial dose to first SBM and weekly SBM frequency were assessed. Naldemedine was associated with significant increases in the proportion of patients experiencing an SBM at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours after the initial dose compared with placebo (all P < 0.0001). Within 24 hours in both studies, statistically significantly (P < 0.0001) more patients treated with naldemedine compared with placebo experienced an SBM (61.2% vs 28.3% and 56.5% vs 33.6%, respectively). Median times to first SBM were significantly shorter in the naldemedine group vs placebo (COMPOSE-1, 16.1 vs 46.7 hours; COMPOSE-2, 18.3 vs 45.9 hours; P < 0.0001). Naldemedine was also associated with significant increases in weekly SBM frequency vs placebo within 1 week (P < 0.001). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal-related (abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported most frequently on day 1, followed by a decrease from days 2 to 7. Naldemedine had a timely onset of effect, and gastrointestinal adverse events largely resolved within the first week. These findings should assist clinicians counseling patients with chronic noncancer pain on expectations when initiating naldemedine for OIC.

Phase 1, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies on the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Naldemedine in Healthy Volunteers.

Naldemedine (S-297995) is a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation, a common side effect of opioid therapy. We determined the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles of oral naldemedine in healthy volunteers in 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 studies. In the single ascending dose study, subjects received a single dose of naldemedine (0.1-100 mg; n = 42) or placebo (n = 14). In the multiple ascending dose study, subjects received once-daily naldemedine (3-30 mg; n = 27) or placebo (n = 9) for 10 days. On day 1 of the single ascending dose studies and day 10 of the multiple ascending dose studies, respectively, the maximum plasma concentration levels of naldemedine were 1.98 to 2510 ng/mL and 73.8 to 700 ng/mL, peaked at 0.5 hours and 0.5 to 0.75 hours, and the fraction excreted in urine was 15.9% to 20.5% and 19.7% to 19.1%. There were no major safety or tolerability concerns even at naldemedine doses 150 to 500 times the therapeutic dose of 0.2 mg. The incidence of adverse events was not dose dependent. Gastrointestinal adverse events occurred more frequently with naldemedine vs placebo, and all of these were considered treatment related. Overall, naldemedine was rapidly absorbed, and no safety or tolerability issues were noted at the doses evaluated.

Prevalence of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in the United States Predominated by Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative pathogens are recognized as a major health concern. This study examined the prevalence of infections due to 4 CR Gram-negative species (Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli) in the United States and assessed their impact on hospital stays and mortality. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed infection due to any of the 4 Gram-negative pathogens were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Proportions of CR were calculated by pathogen and infection site (blood, respiratory, urinary, or other) for the United States as whole and by census regions. Crude and adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital mortality were produced using logistic regression. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2013, 13 262 (4.5%) of 292 742 infections due to these 4 Gram-negative pathogens were CR. Of these CR infections, 82.3% were caused by A. baumannii (22%) or P. aeruginosa (60.3%), while 17.7% were caused by K. pneumoniae or E. coli. CR patients had longer hospital stays than carbapenem-susceptible (CS) patients in all pathogen-infection site cohorts, except in the A. baumannii-respiratory cohort. The crude all cause in-hospital mortality was greater for most pathogen-infection site cohorts of the CR group compared with the CS group, especially for A. baumannii infection in the blood (crude odds ratio [OR], 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69-5.70). This difference for the A. baumannii-blood cohort remained after adjusting for the relevant covariates (adjusted OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.43-4.22). CONCLUSION: The majority of CR infections and disease burden in the United States was caused by nonfermenters A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa. Patients with CR infections had longer hospital stays and higher crude in-hospital mortality.

Naldemedine versus placebo for opioid-induced constipation (COMPOSE-1 and COMPOSE-2): two multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group trials.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced constipation is a frequent side-effect of opioid treatment, and standard interventions have limited or inconsistent efficacy. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of naldemedine, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: We report two double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials in adults with chronic non-cancer pain and opioid-induced constipation. The first (COMPOSE-1) was done in 68 outpatient sites in seven countries and the second (COMPOSE-2) at 69 outpatient sites in six countries; both studies were done in Europe and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years, did not use laxatives, and had a stable opioid regimen for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain with a total daily dose averaging at least 30 mg (morphine equivalent) for at least 1 month before screening. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral naldemedine 0·2 mg or matching placebo once a day for 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by average total daily opioid dose (30-100 mg and >100 mg equivalents of oral morphine sulphate). The primary endpoint was proportion of responders. A responder had at least three spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week with an increase from baseline of at least one SBM per week for at least 9 weeks of the 12-week treatment period including at least three of the last 4 weeks. Efficacy endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and the safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials have both been completed and are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01965158 and NCT01993940. FINDINGS: In COMPOSE-1, 547 patients were recruited between Aug 29, 2013, and Jan 22, 2015, and were randomly assigned to receive naldemedine (n=274) or placebo (n=273). Patients for COMPOSE-2 were recruited between Nov 4, 2013, and June 9, 2015; 553 patients were randomly assigned to receive naldemedine (n=277) or placebo (n=276). Five patients were enrolled at more than one site, so were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (COMPOSE-1: one per group; COMPOSE-2: one in the naldemedine group, two from the placebo group), with intention-to-treat group sizes of 273 in the naldemedine group and 272 in the placebo group in COMPOSE-1, and 276 in the naldemedine group and 274 in the placebo group in COMPOSE-2. The proportion of responders in both trials was significantly higher with naldemedine than with placebo in COMPOSE-1 (130 responders [47·6%] of 273 in the naldemedine group vs 94 responders [34·6%] of 272 in the placebo group, difference 13·0% [95% CI 4·8-21·3]; p=0·002) and in COMPOSE-2 (145 [52·5%] of 276 vs 92 [33·6%] of 274, difference 18·9% [10·8-27·0]; p<0·0001). Incidence of adverse events with naldemedine was similar to placebo (COMPOSE-1: 132 [49%] of 271 in the naldemedine group vs 123 [45%] of 272 in the placebo group; COMPOSE-2: 136 [50%] of 271 vs 132 [48%] of 274). Treatment-related adverse events were noted in 59 (22%) of 271 patients in the naldemedine group and 45 (17%) of 272 in the placebo group in COMOPOSE-1, and in 54 (20%) of 271 patients in the naldemedine group and 31 (11%) of 274 in the placebo group of COMPOSE-2; the between-group differences were largely due to gastrointestinal disorders, which were more common with naldemedine than placebo (COMPOSE-1: 40 [15%] patients in the naldemedine group vs 18 [7%] in the placebo group; COMPOSE-2: 42 [16%] vs 20 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Naldemedine treatment led to a significantly higher responder rate than did placebo and was generally well tolerated. These results support that naldemedine could be a new option for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. FUNDING: Shionogi & Co, Ltd.

A Phase 2b, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral naldemedine 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, or 0.4 mg once daily in patients who had opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and maintained a stable laxative regimen. METHODS: This four-week, phase 2b, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01443403) enrolled patients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain with OIC. The primary efficacy end point was change in weekly spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency from baseline to the last two weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the proportion of SBM responders (patients with ≥3 SBMs/week and an increase of ≥1 SBM/week from baseline over the last 2 weeks of treatment). Safety parameters assessed included adverse events, effects on analgesia, and opioid withdrawal symptoms. RESULTS: Overall, 244 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to naldemedine 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, 0.4 mg, or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were comparable. Weekly SBM frequency was significantly higher with naldemedine 0.2 mg (3.37, P = 0.0014) and 0.4 mg (3.64, P = 0.0003), but not with 0.1 mg (1.98, P = 0.3504), vs placebo (1.42). The proportion of SBM responders was significantly higher with naldemedine 0.2 mg (71.2%, P = 0.0005) and 0.4 mg (66.7%, P = 0.003), but not with 0.1 mg (52.5%, P = 0.1461), vs placebo (39.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity; incidences increased with naldemedine dose. No clinically meaningful changes in other safety parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: Naldemedine 0.2 mg once daily is the optimal dose for future confirmatory trials in OIC.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation of Cefiderocol, a Parenteral Siderophore Cephalosporin, for Dose Adjustment Based on Renal Function.

Cefiderocol, a novel parenteral siderophore cephalosporin, exhibits potent efficacy against most Gram-negative bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant strains. Since cefiderocol is excreted primarily via the kidneys, this study was conducted to develop a population pharmacokinetics (PK) model to determine dose adjustment based on renal function. Population PK models were developed based on data for cefiderocol concentrations in plasma, urine, and dialysate with a nonlinear mixed-effects model approach. Monte-Carlo simulations were conducted to calculate the probability of target attainment (PTA) of fraction of time during the dosing interval where the free drug concentration in plasma exceeds the MIC (Tf>MIC) for an MIC range of 0.25 to 16 µg/ml. For the simulations, dose regimens were selected to compare cefiderocol exposure among groups with different levels of renal function. The developed models well described the PK of cefiderocol for each renal function group. A dose of 2 g every 8 h with 3-h infusions provided >90% PTA for 75% Tf>MIC for an MIC of ≤4 µg/ml for patients with normal renal function, while a more frequent dose (every 6 h) could be used for patients with augmented renal function. A reduced dose and/or extended dosing interval was selected for patients with impaired renal function. A supplemental dose immediately after intermittent hemodialysis was proposed for patients requiring intermittent hemodialysis. The PK of cefiderocol could be adequately modeled, and the modeling-and-simulation approach suggested dose regimens based on renal function, ensuring drug exposure with adequate bactericidal effect.

Cefiderocol, a Siderophore Cephalosporin for Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: Pharmacokinetics and Safety in Subjects With Renal Impairment.

Cefiderocol, a new injectable siderophore cephalosporin antibiotic, has promising in vitro and in vivo activity against Gram-negative bacteria including multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Cefiderocol is mainly renally eliminated. The pharmacokinetics and safety of cefiderocol in subjects with renal impairment were assessed following a single 1000-mg intravenous 1-hour infusion of cefiderocol. Subjects with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis were compared with demographically (age, body mass index, and sex) matched healthy subjects with normal renal function. The effect of hemodialysis on the clearance of cefiderocol was also assessed. Total drug clearance from plasma (CL) and terminal half-life (t1/2 ) correlated with renal function. Ratios (90% confidence intervals) of area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC) in mild, moderate, severe, and ESRD groups compared to those with normal renal function were 1.0 (0.8-1.3), 1.5 (1.2-1.9), 2.5 (2.0-3.3), and 4.1 (3.3-5.2), respectively. Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) was similar between renal-impairment groups and the normal-renal-function group. Approximately 60% of cefiderocol was removed by hemodialysis for 3 to 4 hours. The plasma-protein-unbound fraction was similar between various renal function groups. The incidence of adverse events did not appear to have any correlation with the degree of renal impairment. Single 1000-mg intravenous doses of cefiderocol were generally well tolerated in subjects with impaired renal function except for 1 subject who discontinued due to urticaria. In conclusion, renal impairment impacted AUC, CL, and t1/2 without affecting Cmax . Cefiderocol was significantly removed by intermittent hemodialysis.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin versus glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency.

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.

Sitagliptin added to voglibose monotherapy improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease that frequently requires patients to use more than one oral antihyperglycemic agent to achieve adequate glycemic control. The present multicenter, randomized study assessed the efficacy and safety of the addition of sitagliptin to ongoing voglibose monotherapy (0.2-0.3 mg three times daily) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had inadequate glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin ≥6.9% and <10.5%). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study had an initial 12-week, double-blind treatment period in which patients were randomized (1:1) to sitagliptin 50 mg/day (n = 70) or placebo (n = 63), followed by a 40-week, open-label treatment period during which all patients received sitagliptin 50 mg/day, that could have been increased to 100 mg/day for patients meeting predefined glycemic criteria. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, treatment with sitagliptin resulted in placebo-subtracted mean changes from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (the primary end-point), fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postmeal glucose of -0.9%, -22.5 mg/dL and -51.3 mg/dL, respectively (all, P < 0.001). During the double-blind period, adverse experiences were reported with similar frequency in both treatment groups, and the occurrences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse experiences were low. In the open-label period, sustained improvements in glycemic parameters were observed with sitagliptin treatment, and sitagliptin was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin added on to ongoing voglibose monotherapy provided significant improvements in glycemic parameters and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had inadequate glycemic control. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00837577).

Dose-ranging efficacy of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Sitagliptin is an oral, potent, highly selective, once-daily DPP-4 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To assess the dose-ranging efficacy and safety/tolerability profile of once-daily sitagliptin 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg in Japanese patients with T2DM. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 363 Japanese patients with inadequate glycemic control (HbA(1c)=6.5-10%; FPG< or =270 mg/dL) were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to placebo, sitagliptin 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg q.d. for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA(1c) at Week 12. At Week 12, treatment with sitagliptin at all doses tested provided significant (p<0.001) reductions in HbA(1c) (-0.69 to -1.04%) from baseline (7.49 to 7.65%) relative to placebo. Sitagliptin significantly (p<0.001) reduced fasting plasma glucose (FPG; -15.9 to -23.2 mg/dL) and 2-hour postprandial glucose (2-hr PPG; -40.3 to -65.0 mg/dL) relative to placebo, in a dose-dependent manner. At doses > or =50 mg, differences in HbA(1c), FPG, and 2-hr PPG between the sitagliptin groups were not statistically significant. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycemia and minimal weight gain relative to placebo. Treatment with sitagliptin for 12 weeks provided significant and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA(1c), FPG, and 2-hr PPG across the dose range studied and was generally well tolerated in Japanese patients with T2DM.