Influence Diagnostics of a Region of Interest in Multi-regional Clinical Trials.

Multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) are an efficient way to enable recruitment of the planned number of subjects within a reasonable timeframe in drug development for rare diseases. One of the aim of MRCTs is to evaluate the applicability of overall trial results to a region of interest. Various statistical methods proposed for this purpose are primarily relying on regional estimates from subgroup analyses of a region of interest, thus they may not work well for studies with small sample size in rare diseases. This paper, instead, presented how to apply influence diagnostics to assessing influence of a region of interest on the overall results in MRCTs and showed this approach could be an analysis option for MRCTs in rare diseases through Monte Carlo simulation and analysis of an MRCT.

Development and Validation of Clinical Scoring Tool to Predict Outcomes of Treatment With Vedolizumab in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We created and validated a clinical decision support tool (CDST) to predict outcomes of vedolizumab therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: We performed logistic regression analyses of data from the GEMINI 1 trial, from 620 patients with UC who received vedolizumab induction and maintenance therapy (derivation cohort), to identify factors associated with corticosteroid-free remission (full Mayo score of 2 or less, no subscore above 1). We used these factors to develop a model to predict outcomes of treatment, which we called the vedolizumab CDST. We evaluated the correlation between exposure and efficacy. We validated the CDST in using data from 199 patients treated with vedolizumab in routine practice in the United States from May 2014 through December 2017. RESULTS: Absence of exposure to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist (+3 points), disease duration of 2 y or more (+3 points), baseline endoscopic activity (moderate vs severe) (+2 points), and baseline albumin concentration (+0.65 points per 1 g/L) were independently associated with corticosteroid-free remission during vedolizumab therapy. Patients in the derivation and validation cohorts were assigned to groups of low (CDST score, 26 points or less), intermediate (CDST score, 27-32 points), or high (CDST score, 33 points or more) probability of vedolizumab response. We observed a statistically significant linear relationship between probability group and efficacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.65), as well as drug exposure (P < .001) in the derivation cohort. In the validation cohort, a cutoff value of 26 points identified patients who did not respond to vedolizumab with high sensitivity (93%); only the low and intermediate probability groups benefited from reducing intervals of vedolizumab administration due to lack of response (P = .02). The vedolizumab CDST did not identify patients with corticosteroid-free remission during TNF antagonist therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We used data from a trial of patients with UC to develop a scoring system, called the CDST, which identified patients most likely to enter corticosteroid-free remission during vedolizumab therapy, but not anti-TNF therapy. We validated the vedolizumab CDST in a separate cohort of patients in clinical practice. The CDST identified patients most likely to benefited from reducing intervals of vedolizumab administration due to lack of initial response. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00783718.

Adapting the Goal Attainment Approach for Major Depressive Disorder.

The need for patient-centered care has become a focal point of healthcare improvement initiatives. Shared decision making-in which patients and clinicians communicate about various treatment options and goals and patient input is considered when making treatment decisions-has been associated with improved health and quality of life. A method of treatment evaluation allowing incorporation of patient-specific goals and perspectives is of increasing interest to healthcare providers, payers, and patients. An approach that allows incorporation of shared goal setting is possible via use of an instrument called the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). This scale provides the structure for measuring progress toward treatment goals set through patient-clinician collaboration. The goal attainment approach has been used as a primary outcomes measure in numerous studies but not in major depressive disorder (MDD). As MDD is a complex, multidimensional disorder affecting each patient differently, the use of GAS methodology is a relevant framework for setting personalized meaningful treatment goals. Initial research into the feasibility of using the GAS in MDD (GAS-D) to measure patient-centric outcomes that may be neglected when more traditional scales are used has been encouraging. The objective of this Commentary is to provide background and rationale for implementation of the GAS-D in clinical practice.Funding Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., and Lundbeck LLC.

Market Access Analysis of Biologics and Small-Molecule Inhibitors for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Among US Health Insurance Policies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treatment pathways for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are shifting to a more individualized, risk-stratified approach. The perception is that insurance policies may not have implemented this paradigm shift, particularly regarding access to newer agents. We evaluated patient access to advanced therapies by analyzing policy information from the Managed Markets Insight and Technology database. METHODS: Coverage status as of December 2018 for all US lives was queried for adalimumab, infliximab, infliximab-dyyb, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab by indication (UC and/or CD) and medical or pharmacy coverage benefit. Coverage status was classified by the number of biologic steps before access to specified drug as "No Biologic," "1 Prior Biologic," "2+ Prior Biologics," "Not Covered." Unknown lives were excluded from the analyses. RESULTS: Coverage analysis was available for approximately 302 million lives under each medical and pharmacy benefit. Our analysis indicates that approximately half of covered lives had access to all agents (except tofacitinib) as first-line therapy; two-thirds had access after one biologic exposure. Among newer agents, vedolizumab had the widest coverage. For indications of UC and CD, 81% of known lives had access to vedolizumab with no prior biologic exposure required ("No Biologic"), 95% after "No Biologic" + "1 prior Biologic." Geographic variations were identified for coverage patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This US-based healthcare policy analysis points to an increased access to advanced therapies for UC and CD. An individualized, risk-stratified treatment approach integrating advanced therapies, including those recently approved, into treatment pathways for UC and CD is feasible.

Rapid Response to Vedolizumab Therapy in Biologic-Naive Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vedolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against α4ß7 integrin, is used to treat adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). We investigated the time course of clinical response to vedolizumab in patients who were and were not previously treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of data from phase 3, randomized, controlled trials of vedolizumab vs placebo in adult patients with UC (N = 374) or CD (N = 784). We collected data on patient-reported symptoms (rectal bleeding and stool frequency for patients with UC, abdominal pain and loose stool frequency for patients with CD) reported at weeks 2, 4, and 6 of treatment. We reported mean percentage score changes from baseline and proportions of patients who achieved predefined scores. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with an early response (at week 2). RESULTS: In patients with UC (overall or naive to TNF antagonist therapy), a significantly greater percentage of patients given vedolizumab achieved the predefined composite symptom score at weeks 2, 4, and 6 compared to those given placebo. In patients with CD who were naive to TNF antagonists, a significantly greater percentage of patients given vedolizumab achieved the predefined score at weeks 2 and 4 compared to those given placebo. Among patients with UC given vedolizumab, 19.1% (overall) and 22.3% (TNF antagonist naive) achieved a composite score of rectal bleeding of 0 and stool frequency ≤1 at week 2 compared to 10% (overall) and 6.6% (TNF antagonist naive) of those receiving placebo. Among TNF antagonist-naive patients with CD, 15.0% of those given vedolizumab achieved an average daily composite score of abdominal pain ≤1 and loose stool frequency ≤3 at week 2 (compared to 7.9% given placebo), and 23.8% of those given vedolizumab achieved these by week 4 (compared to 10.3% given placebo). CONCLUSIONS: In a post-hoc analysis of data from phase 3 clinical trials, vedolizumab significantly improved patient-reported symptoms of UC and CD as early as week 2 of treatment, continuing through the first 6 weeks-especially when given as first-line biologic therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00783718, NCT00783692, NCT01224171.

Deep Remission With Vedolizumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: A GEMINI 1 post hoc Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This GEMINI 1 post hoc analysis evaluated vedolizumab efficacy for inducing deep remission in patients with ulcerative colitis and correlation between vedolizumab trough concentrations and deep remission rates. METHODS: Week 6 vedolizumab responders were re-randomized to placebo or vedolizumab every 8 or 4 weeks. Deep remission at Week 52 was measured using four different definitions [from most to least stringent]: [1] Mayo Clinic endoscopic score = 0, rectal bleeding score = 0 and decrease or no change from baseline in stool frequency score; [2] endoscopic score ≤1, rectal bleeding score = 0 and stool frequency score = 0; [3] endoscopic score ≤1, rectal bleeding score = 0, decrease or no change from baseline stool frequency score, and total score [endoscopic score + rectal bleeding score + stool frequency score] ≤1; and [4] endoscopic score ≤1, rectal bleeding score = 0 and stool frequency score ≤1. Steady-state trough vedolizumab serum concentrations were evaluated. RESULTS: At Week 6, 373 vedolizumab responders were re-randomized to maintenance placebo [n = 126] or vedolizumab every 8 [n = 122] or 4 [n = 125] weeks. Significantly more vedolizumab patients achieved deep remission at Week 52 for the most (placebo 8.7%, every 8 weeks 27.0% [p = 0.0001], every 4 weeks 28.0% [p < 0.0001]) and least (placebo 15.9%, every 8 weeks 43.4% [p < 0.0001], every 4 weeks 43.2% [p < 0.0001]) stringent definitions. Patients with higher vedolizumab trough concentration quartiles had higher deep remission rates [all definitions] compared with those with the lowest quartile or who received placebo. CONCLUSION: Vedolizumab was associated with significantly higher deep remission rates than placebo at Week 52, regardless of deep remission definition [NCT00783718].

Fasiglifam-Induced Liver Injury in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Randomized Controlled Cardiovascular Outcomes Safety Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cardiovascular (CV) safety of fasiglifam, a first-in-man G-protein-coupled receptor 40 (GPR40) agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A phase 3 multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled two-arm trial was intended to randomize 5,000 participants with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk to fasiglifam or placebo. The primary objective of the trial was to rule out an upper noninferiority bound >1.3 for a one-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the hazard ratio (HR) for CV composite events during treatment with fasiglifam compared with placebo. The primary outcome was the time to first occurrence of any component of the major adverse CV event composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: The study enrolled 3,207 participants but was terminated because of liver safety concerns. Increased rates of liver enzyme elevation (AST/ALT ≥3-5 × upper limit of normal [ULN]) with fasiglifam were observed. The incidence of ALT or AST ≥3 × ULN with fasiglifam compared with placebo was 2.1% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001, and the incidence for ≥10 × ULN was 0.31% vs. 0.06%, P < 0.001. A primary CV composite outcome occurred in 40 participants, 2.5% each in the fasiglifam and placebo arms at 12 months (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67, 1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Development of fasiglifam was terminated due to concerns of drug-induced liver injury. Performance of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-mandated CV outcomes trial supported the termination of the fasiglifam clinical program.

A randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil combined with chlorthalidone.

INTRODUCTION: We measured the effects of azilsartan medoxomil co-administered with chlorthalidone 25 mg in stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: Azilsartan medoxomil 40 or 80 mg plus chlorthalidone were compared with placebo plus chlorthalidone once daily in a randomized, double-blind, 6-week trial. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. RESULTS: Patients ( N=551; mean age 59 years; 51.7% men) were randomly assigned to placebo plus chlorthalidone ( n=184), azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg plus chlorthalidone ( n=185), or azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg plus chlorthalidone ( n=182). Baseline systolic blood pressures were similar among groups. After 6 weeks, least squares mean (standard error) reductions with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 80 mg plus chlorthalidone were similar in magnitude (-31.7 (1.0) and -31.3 (1.0) mmHg, respectively), but greater than chlorthalidone alone (-15.9 (1.0) mmHg). Hypotension and serum creatinine elevations were more frequent with azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone than chlorthalidone alone (reversed with drug discontinuation). Notably, plasma potassium reduction of 0.43 meq/L with chlorthalidone was attenuated to 0.13 and 0.05 meq/L by azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively. CONCLUSION: Azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg or 80 mg plus chlorthalidone 25 mg was significantly more efficacious than chlorthalidone alone in reducing blood pressure and was well tolerated. Clinicaltrial.gov , https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00591773 , NCT00591773.

Development and Validation of a Scoring System to Predict Outcomes of Vedolizumab Treatment in Patients With Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: As more treatment options for inflammatory bowel diseases become available, it is important to identify patients most likely to respond to different therapies. We created and validated a scoring system to identify patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who respond to vedolizumab. METHODS: We collected data from the GEMINI 2 phase 3 trial of patients with active CD treated with vedolizumab for 26 weeks (n = 814) and performed logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with clinical, steroid-free, and durable remission (derivation set). We used these data to develop a clinical decision support tool, which we validated using data from 366 participants in a separate clinical practice observational cohort of patients with active CD treated with vedolizumab for 26 weeks (the VICTORY cohort). We evaluated the ability of this tool to identify patients in clinical remission or corticosteroid-free remission, or those with mucosal healing (MH), clinical remission with MH, or corticosteroid-free remission with MH after vedolizumab therapy using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analyses. The primary outcome was to develop and validate a list of factors associated with achieving remission by vedolizumab in patients with active CD. RESULTS: In the derivation analysis, we identified absence of previous treatment with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist (+3 points), absence of prior bowel surgery (+2 points), absence of prior fistulizing disease (+2 points), baseline level of albumin (+0.4 points per g/L), and baseline concentration of C-reactive protein (reduction of 0.5 points for values between 3.0 and 10.0 mg/L and 3.0 points for values >10.0 mg/L) as factors associated with remission. In the validation set, our model identified patients in clinical remission with an AUC of 0.67, patients in corticosteroid-free remission with an AUC of 0.66, patients with MH with an AUC of 0.72, patients in clinical remission with MH with an AUC of 0.73, and patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission with MH with an AUC of 0.75. A cutoff value of 13 points identified patients in clinical remission after vedolizumab therapy with 92% sensitivity, patients in corticosteroid-free remission with 94% sensitivity, patients with MH with 98% sensitivity, patients with clinical remission and MH with 100% sensitivity, and patients with corticosteroid-free clinical remission with MH with 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify patients with CD most likely to respond to 26 weeks of vedolizumab therapy. Further studies are needed to optimize its accuracy in select populations and determine its cost-effectiveness.

Evaluation of the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil in African-American patients with hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) were evaluated in African-American patients with hypertension in a 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, for which the primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (BP). There were 413 patients, with a mean age of 52 years, 57% women, and baseline 24-hour BP of 146/91 mm Hg. Treatment differences in 24-hour systolic BP between AZL-M 40 mg and placebo (-5.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -8.0 to -2.0) and AZL-M 80 mg and placebo (-7.8 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -10.7 to -4.9) were significant (P≤.001 vs placebo for both comparisons). Changes in the clinic BPs were similar to the ambulatory BP results. Incidence rates of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups, including those of a serious nature. In African-American patients with hypertension, AZL-M significantly reduced ambulatory and clinic BPs in a dose-dependent manner and was well tolerated.

Combining the G-protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist fasiglifam with sitagliptin improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes with or without metformin: A randomized, 12-week trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fasiglifam, an orally active G-protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist, in combination with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet/exercise (± metformin). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase II study, 368 patients received once-daily placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg, fasiglifam 25 or 50 mg, or the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg plus fasiglifam 25 or 50 mg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 12 weeks; a key secondary endpoint was change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). RESULTS: The fasiglifam 25 and 50 mg combination regimens produced significantly greater HbA1c reductions than sitagliptin (treatment differences of -0.45% and -0.61%; P < .01, respectively) or respective doses of fasiglifam monotherapy (-0.43% and -0.48%; P < .01) and significantly greater FPG reductions than sitagliptin (-1.1 mmol/L for both combination regimens; P < .01). Improved glycaemic control occurred by week 1 for FPG and week 4 for HbA1c in all groups. Hypoglycaemia rates were low (≤3.3%) and similar across treatments. Liver enzymes >3 × upper limit of normal occurred in four patients (fasiglifam 25 mg, n = 1; fasiglifam 50 mg, n = 2; 1 fasiglifam/sitagliptin 50/100 mg, n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Combination of fasiglifam and sitagliptin provided significant additional effects on glycaemic control, with hypoglycaemia rates similar to placebo with or without metformin. This study provides supportive clinical evidence for the complementary mechanism of actions of this GPR40 agonist and DPP-4 inhibitor.

The Impact of Azilsartan Medoxomil Treatment (Capsule Formulation) at Doses Ranging From 10 to 80 mg: Significant, Rapid Reductions in Clinic Diastolic and Systolic Blood Pressure.

In this phase 2, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, dose-ranging study, hypertensive adults (n=449) were randomized to receive one of five doses of a capsule formulation of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M; 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 mg), olmesartan medoxomil (OLM) 20 mg, or placebo once daily. The primary endpoint was change in trough clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at week 8. AZL-M provided rapid statistically and clinically significant reductions in DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) vs placebo at all doses except 5 mg. Placebo-subtracted changes were greatest with the 40 mg dose (DBP, -5.7 mm Hg; SBP, -12.3 mm Hg). Clinic changes with AZL-M (all doses) were statistically indistinguishable vs OLM, although there were greater reductions with AZL-M 40 mg using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure. Adverse event frequency was similar in the AZL-M and placebo groups. Based on these and other findings, subsequent trials investigated the commercial AZL-M tablet in the dose range of 20 to 80 mg/d.

Azilsartan in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension Using Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements.

This was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind dose-ranging study. Hypertensive adults (n=555) received one of five doses of azilsartan (AZL; 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40 mg), olmesartan medoxomil (OLM) 20 mg, or placebo once daily. The primary endpoint was change in trough clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at week 8. Compared with placebo, all AZL doses (except 2.5 mg) provided statistically and clinically significant reductions in DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) based on both clinic blood pressure (BP) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). AZL 40 mg was statistically superior vs OLM. Clinic BP was associated with a pronounced placebo effect (-6 mm Hg), whereas this was negligible with ABPM (±0.5 mm Hg). Adverse event frequency was similar in the AZL and placebo groups. Based on these and other findings, subsequent trials investigated the commercial AZL medoxomil tablet at doses 20 to 80 mg/d using 24-hour ABPM.

Standardized Mixed-Meal Tolerance and Arginine Stimulation Tests Provide Reproducible and Complementary Measures of ß-Cell Function: Results From the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium Investigative Series.

OBJECTIVE: Standardized, reproducible, and feasible quantification of ß-cell function (BCF) is necessary for the evaluation of interventions to improve insulin secretion and important for comparison across studies. We therefore characterized the responses to, and reproducibility of, standardized methods of in vivo BCF across different glucose tolerance states. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants classified as having normal glucose tolerance (NGT; n = 23), prediabetes (PDM; n = 17), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; n = 22) underwent two standardized mixed-meal tolerance tests (MMTT) and two standardized arginine stimulation tests (AST) in a test-retest paradigm and one frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIGT). RESULTS: From the MMTT, insulin secretion in T2DM was >86% lower compared with NGT or PDM (P < 0.001). Insulin sensitivity (Si) decreased from NGT to PDM (∼50%) to T2DM (93% lower [P < 0.001]). In the AST, insulin secretory response to arginine at basal glucose and during hyperglycemia was lower in T2DM compared with NGT and PDM (>58%; all P < 0.001). FSIGT showed decreases in both insulin secretion and Si across populations (P < 0.001), although Si did not differ significantly between PDM and T2DM populations. Reproducibility was generally good for the MMTT, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from ∼0.3 to ∼0.8 depending on population and variable. Reproducibility for the AST was very good, with ICC values >0.8 across all variables and populations. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized MMTT and AST provide reproducible and complementary measures of BCF with characteristics favorable for longitudinal interventional trials use.

Phase 2 study of TAK-442, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, in patients following acute coronary syndrome.

TAK-442 is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. We sought to determine the dose-dependent effect of TAK-442 on major bleeding when added to standard treatment in stabilised patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this phase II double-blind study, 2,753 ACS patients were randomised to TAK-442 or placebo in addition to usual care using a three-stage adaptive design. Patients were randomised to placebo in all stages, but doses of TAK-442 escalated from 10 mg BID, 20 mg twice-daily (BID), or 40 mg once-daily (QD) in stage 1; to 40 mg BID, 80 mg QD, or 80 mg BID in stage 2; and to 160 mg QD or 120 mg BID in stage 3. Study drug was started 36 hours after emergent treatment of ACS and within seven days of admission, and continued for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was incidence of TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) major bleeding. TIMI major bleeding incidence was low, but higher with the pooled TAK-442 doses than with placebo (17 [0.9%] vs 4 [0.5%]; p=0.47), although the difference was neither significant nor dose-dependent. However, a dose response was evident when using the modified ISTH scale. The incidence of cardiovascular events was similar among TAK-442 dose groups and placebo. When administered over a wide range of doses after an ACS event, TAK-442 treatment did not result in a dose-dependent increase in TIMI major bleeding, but increased bleeding was observed when a more sensitive bleeding scale was used. There was no evidence for efficacy.

Effects of combining azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to measure the effects on blood pressure (BP) of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, in 40 and 80 mg doses, combined with 5 mg of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine and to compare these effects with placebo plus amlodipine 5 mg. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind study of 6 weeks' duration in 566 patients with stage 2 hypertension. The primary endpoint was 24-h systolic BP by ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 58 years; men and women were equally represented, and baseline 24-h BP (153-154/93 mmHg) and clinic BP (165-166/94-95 mmHg) were similar across the three treatment groups. After 6 weeks, 24-h BP decreased by 25/15 mmHg in both the azilsartan medoxomil/amlodipine 40/5 and 80/5 mg groups. These reductions were each greater than the 14/8 mmHg decrease with placebo plus amlodipine 5 mg (P≤0.001 for both comparisons). All treatments were well tolerated, and adverse events did not increase with the azilsartan medoxomil doses. Edema or fluid retention was less common in both combination groups (2.6 and 2.7%) than with placebo plus amlodipine (7.6%). CONCLUSION: Coadministration of azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine was well tolerated and led to meaningful additional BP reductions compared with placebo plus amlodipine.

TAK-875 versus placebo or glimepiride in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of free fatty acid receptor 1 (FFAR1; also known as G-protein-coupled receptor 40) by fatty acids stimulated glucose-dependent ß-cell insulin secretion in preclinical models. We aimed to assess whether selective pharmacological activation of this receptor by TAK-875 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus improved glycaemic control without hypoglycaemia risk. METHODS: We undertook a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled and active-comparator-controlled trial in outpatients with type 2 diabetes who had not responded to diet or metformin treatment. Patients were randomly assigned equally to receive placebo, TAK-875 (6·25, 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg), or glimepiride (4 mg) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was change in haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) from baseline. Analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of double-blind study drug. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01007097. FINDINGS: 426 patients were randomly assigned to TAK-875 (n=303), placebo (n=61), and glimepiride (n=62). At week 12, significant least-squares mean reductions in HbA(1c) from baseline occurred in all TAK-875 (ranging from -1·12% [SE 0·113] with 50 mg to -0·65% [0·114] with 6·25 mg) and glimepiride (-1·05% [SE 0·111]) groups versus placebo (-0·13% [SE 0·115]; p value range 0·001 to <0·0001). Treatment-emergent hypoglycaemic events were similar in the TAK-875 and placebo groups (2% [n=7, all TAK-875 groups] vs 3% [n=2]); significantly higher rates were reported in the glimepiride group (19% [n=12]; p value range 0·010-0·002 vs all TAK-875 groups). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in the TAK-875 overall (49%; n=147, all TAK-875 groups) and placebo groups (48%, n=29) and was lower than in the glimepiride group (61%, n=38). INTERPRETATION: TAK-875 significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes with minimum risk of hypoglycaemia. The results show that activation of FFAR1 is a viable therapeutic target for treatment of type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Takeda Global Research and Development.

Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a unique angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) under development for the treatment of hypertension. To compare this ARB with another in the class, the authors studied the effects of AZL-M and valsartan (VAL) in 984 patients with primary hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study using ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. The primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP following 24 weeks of treatment. Hierarchical analysis testing for noninferiority was followed by superiority testing of AZL-M (80 mg then 40 mg) vs VAL. The mean age of participants was 58 years, 52% were men, and 15% were black. Baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was similar (approximately 145.6 mm Hg) in each group. AZL-M 40 mg and 80 mg lowered 24-hour mean systolic BP (-14.9 mm Hg and -15.3 mm Hg, respectively) more than VAL 320 mg (-11.3 mm Hg; P<.001 for 40-mg and 80-mg comparisons vs VAL). Clinic systolic BP reductions were consistent with the ambulatory results (-14.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 40 mg and -16.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 80 mg vs -11.6 mm Hg for VAL; P=.015 and P<.001, respectively). The reductions in 24-hour mean and clinic diastolic BPs were also greater with both doses of AZL-M than with VAL (P≤.001 for all comparisons). Small, reversible changes in serum creatinine occurred more often with AZL-M than with VAL; otherwise, safety and tolerability parameters were similar among the three groups. These data demonstrate that AZL-M across the effective dose range had superior efficacy to VAL at its maximal recommended dose without any meaningful increase in adverse events. These findings suggest that AZL-M could provide higher rates of hypertension control compared with other ARBs in the class.

Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension.

Azilsartan medoxomil is an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) being developed for hypertension treatment. To compare this ARB with others in the class, we studied the effects of 2 doses of azilsartan medoxomil, with valsartan 320 mg and olmesartan medoxomil (olmesartan) 40 mg, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and clinic BP measurements. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic BP. Hierarchical analysis testing for superiority over placebo was followed by noninferiority analysis and then superiority testing of azilsartan medoxomil (80 mg and then 40 mg) versus the comparator ARBs. For 1291 randomized patients, mean age was 56 years, 54% were men, and baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was 145 mm Hg. Azilsartan medoxomil at 80 mg had superior efficacy to both valsartan at 320 mg and olmesartan at 40 mg: placebo-adjusted 24-hour systolic BP was lowered (-14.3 mm Hg) more than 320 mg of valsartan (-10.0 mm Hg; P<0.001) and 40 mg of olmesartan (-11.7 mm Hg; P=0.009). Azilsartan medoxomil at 40 mg was noninferior to 40 mg of olmesartan (difference: -1.4 mm Hg [95% CI: -3.3 to 0.5]). For clinic systolic BP, both doses of azilsartan medoxomil were superior to the comparator ARBs. Safety and tolerability were similar among the placebo and 4 active treatments. These data demonstrate that azilsartan medoxomil at its maximal dose has superior efficacy to both olmesartan and valsartan at their maximal, approved doses without increasing adverse events. Azilsartan medoxomil could provide higher rates of hypertension control within the ARB class.

The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure.

The current study assesses the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the investigational angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), compared with placebo and the ARB olmesartan medoxomil (OLM-M). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study assessed change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) following 6 weeks of treatment. Patients with primary hypertension (n=1275) and baseline 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg and ≤ 170 mm Hg were studied; 142 received placebo and the remainder received 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg AZL-M or 40 mg OLM-M. Mean age of participants was 58 ± 11 years, baseline mean 24-hour SBP was 146 mm Hg. Dose-dependent reductions in 24-hour mean SBP at study end occurred in all AZL-M groups. Reduction in 24-hour mean SBP was greater with AZL-M 80 mg than OLM-M 40 mg by 2.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -4.0 to -0.1; P=.038), while AZL-M 40 mg was noninferior to OLM-M 40 mg. The side effect profiles of both ARBs were similar to placebo. AZL-M is well tolerated and more efficacious at its maximal dose than the highest dose of OLM-M.