Phase 1/2 AAV5-hRKp.RPGR (Botaretigene Sparoparvovec) Gene Therapy: Safety and Efficacy in RPGR-associated X-linked Retinitis Pigmentosa.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of AAV5-hRKp.RPGR in participants with retinitis pigmentosa GTPase regulator (RPGR)-associated X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP). DESIGN: Open-label, phase 1/2 dose escalation/expansion study (NCT03252847). METHODS: Males (≥5 years old) with XLRP-RPGR were evaluated. In the dose escalation phase, subretinal AAV5-hRKp.RPGR (low: 1.0×1011 vg/ml; intermediate: 2.0×1011 vg/ml; high: 4.0×1011 vg/ml) was administered to the poorer-seeing eye (n = 10). Dose confirmation (intermediate dose) was carried out in 3 pediatric participants. In the dose expansion phase, 36 participants were randomized 1:1:1 to immediate (low or intermediate dose) or deferred (control) treatment. The primary outcome was safety. Secondary efficacy outcomes included static perimetry, microperimetry, vision-guided mobility, best corrected visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity. Safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed for 52 weeks for immediate treatment participants and 26 weeks for control participants. RESULTS: AAV5-hRKp.RPGR was safe and well tolerated, with no reported dose-limiting events. Most adverse events (AEs) were transient and related to the surgical procedure, resolving without intervention. Two serious AEs were reported with immediate treatment (retinal detachment, uveitis). A third serious AE (increased intraocular pressure) was reported outside the reporting period. All ocular inflammation-related AEs responded to corticosteroids. Treatment with AAV5-hRKp.RPGR resulted in improvements in retinal sensitivity and functional vision compared with the deferred group at Week 26; similar trends were observed at Week 52. CONCLUSIONS: AAV5-hRKp.RPGR demonstrated an anticipated and manageable AE profile through 52 weeks. Safety and efficacy findings support investigation in a phase 3 trial.

Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Recent Acute Coronary Syndromes From the EXAMINE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in all Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care (EXAMINE) study participants and in those who experienced an on-study, major nonfatal CV event. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study randomly assigned 5,380 patients with type 2 diabetes to alogliptin or placebo within 15 to 90 days of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Deaths and nonfatal CV events (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, hospitalized heart failure [HHF], and hospitalization for unstable angina [UA]) were adjudicated. Patients were monitored until censoring or death, regardless of a prior postrandomized nonfatal CV event. Time-updated multivariable Cox models were used to estimate the risk of death in the absence of or after each nonfatal event. RESULTS: Rates of CV death were 4.1% for alogliptin and 4.9% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI 0.66, 1.10). A total of 736 patients (13.7%) experienced a first nonfatal CV event (5.9% MI, 1.1% stroke, 3.0% HHF, and 3.8% UA). Compared with patients not experiencing a nonfatal event, the adjusted HR (95% CI) for death was 3.12 after MI (2.13, 4.58; P < 0.0001) 4.96 after HHF (3.29, 7.47; P < 0.0001), 3.08 after stroke (1.29, 7.37; P = 0.011), and 1.66 after UA (0.81, 3.37; P = 0.164). Mortality rates after a nonfatal event were comparable for alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent ACS, the risk of CV death was higher after a postrandomization, nonfatal CV event, particularly heart failure, compared with those who did not experience a CV event. The risk of CV death was similar between alogliptin and placebo.

Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The EXAMINE trial showed non-inferiority of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo on major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes. Concerns about excessive rates of in-hospital heart failure in another DPP-4 inhibitor trial have been reported. We therefore assessed hospital admission for heart failure in the EXAMINE trial. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and an acute coronary syndrome event in the previous 15-90 days were randomly assigned alogliptin or placebo plus standard treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention. The prespecified exploratory extended MACE endpoint was all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, urgent revascularisation due to unstable angina, and hospital admission for heart failure. The post-hoc analyses were of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure, assessed by history of heart failure and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration at baseline. We also assessed changes in N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) from baseline to 6 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968708. FINDINGS: 5380 patients were assigned to alogliptin (n=2701) or placebo (n=2679) and followed up for a median of 533 days (IQR 280-751). The exploratory extended MACE endpoint was seen in 433 (16·0%) patients assigned to alogliptin and in 441 (16·5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·86-1·12). Hospital admission for heart failure was the first event in 85 (3·1%) patients taking alogliptin compared with 79 (2·9%) taking placebo (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·79-1·46). Alogliptin had no effect on composite events of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure in the post hoc analysis (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·82-1·21) and results did not differ by baseline BNP concentration. NT-pro-BNP concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes, alogliptin did not increase the risk of heart failure outcomes. FUNDING: Takeda Development Center Americas.

Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To assess potentially elevated cardiovascular risk related to new antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes, regulatory agencies require a comprehensive evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of new antidiabetic therapies. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes with alogliptin, a new inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), as compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and either an acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization within the previous 15 to 90 days to receive alogliptin or placebo in addition to existing antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drug therapy. The study design was a double-blind, noninferiority trial with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: A total of 5380 patients underwent randomization and were followed for up to 40 months (median, 18 months). A primary end-point event occurred in 305 patients assigned to alogliptin (11.3%) and in 316 patients assigned to placebo (11.8%) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Glycated hemoglobin levels were significantly lower with alogliptin than with placebo (mean difference, -0.36 percentage points; P<0.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia, cancer, pancreatitis, and initiation of dialysis were similar with alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were not increased with the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin as compared with placebo. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708.).

Initial combination therapy with alogliptin and pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of alogliptin plus pioglitazone for initial combination therapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 26-week, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized 655 patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes to four arms: 25 mg alogliptin (A25) q.d. monotherapy, 30 mg pioglitazone (P30) q.d. monotherapy, or 12.5 (A12.5) or 25 mg alogliptin q.d. plus pioglitazone (P30) q.d. combination therapy. Primary efficacy was A1C change from baseline with the high-dose combination (A25+P30) versus each monotherapy. RESULTS: Combination therapy with A25+P30 resulted in greater reductions in A1C (-1.7±0.1% from an 8.8% mean baseline) vs. A25 (-1.0±0.1%, P<0.001) or P30 (-1.2±0.1%, P<0.001) and in fasting plasma glucose (-2.8±0.2 mmol/l) vs. A25 (-1.4±0.2 mmol/l, P<0.001) or P30 (-2.1±0.2 mmol/l, P=0.006). The A25+P30 safety profile was consistent with those of its component monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Alogliptin plus pioglitazone combination treatment appears to be an efficacious initial therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes.

Alogliptin use in elderly people: a pooled analysis from phase 2 and 3 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) enzyme inhibitor, in elderly (> or =65) and younger (<65) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of alogliptin. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 to 80 with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycemic control. INTERVENTIONS: Elderly (mean age 70.0; n=455) and younger (mean age 51.8; n=1,911) patients received alogliptin 12.5 mg (n=922), alogliptin 25 mg (n=910), or placebo (n=534) for 26 weeks (12 weeks in a Phase 2 study). The studies evaluated alogliptin as monotherapy and coadministered with pioglitazone, glyburide, metformin, or insulin. MEASUREMENTS: Efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), weight, and lipid values. Safety variables included hypoglycemic events, adverse events, and blood pressure. RESULTS: Least-squares mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 0.7% and 0.8% in elderly patients receiving alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg, respectively, and 0.5% and 0.6%, respectively, in younger patients (P<.001 for both alogliptin doses vs placebo for both age groups P=.70 for 12.5 mg and .68 for 25 mg for differences between age groups). Results were similar for FPG. Incidence of hypoglycemia was 8.3% or less in all alogliptin groups (< or =10.5% for placebo), with no apparent difference between elderly and younger patients. Changes in weight were negligible in all treatment groups in both age categories. The safety profiles of alogliptin were similar in the age and dose groups. CONCLUSION: Alogliptin was effective and well tolerated in the elderly patients enrolled in these studies. Improvements in HbA1c were similar to those seen in younger patients, and no increase in the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, or other adverse events was apparent in elderly patients.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin added to pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by therapy with a thiazolidinedione (TZD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, 493 patients 18-80 years old with inadequate glycemic control after stabilization (i.e., glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] 7.0-10.0%) despite ongoing treatment with a TZD were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to treatment with pioglitazone plus alogliptin 12.5 mg, alogliptin 25 mg or placebo once daily. Concomitant therapy with metformin or sulfonylurea at prestudy doses was permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to Week 26. Secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight, and incidences of marked hyperglycemia (FPG > or = 200 mg/dL [11.10 mmol/L]) and rescue for hyperglycemia. RESULTS: Least squares (LS) mean change in HbA(1c) was significantly (p < 0.001) greater for alogliptin 12.5 mg (-0.66%) or 25 mg (-0.80%) than for placebo (-0.19%). A significantly (p < or = 0.016) larger proportion of patients achieved HbA(1c) < or = 7% with alogliptin 12.5 mg (44.2%) or 25 mg (49.2%) than with placebo (34.0%). LS mean decreases in FPG were significantly (p = 0.003) greater with alogliptin 12.5 mg (-19.7 mg/dL [-1.09 mmol/L]) or 25 mg (-19.9 mg/dL [-1.10 mmol/L]) than with placebo (-5.7 mg/dL [-0.32 mmol/L]). The percentage of patients with marked hyperglycemia was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for alogliptin (< or =25.0%) than placebo (44.3%). The incidences of overall adverse events and hypoglycemia were similar across treatment groups, but cardiac events occurred more often with active treatment than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of alogliptin to pioglitazone therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and was generally well tolerated. The study did not evaluate the effect of combination therapy on long-term clinical outcomes and safety. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00286494, clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor alogliptin in drug-naïve patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study included 329 patients with poorly controlled diabetes randomized to once-daily treatment with 12.5 mg alogliptin (n = 133), 25 mg alogliptin (n = 131), or placebo (n = 65) for 26 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was mean change from baseline in A1C at the final visit. RESULTS: At week 26, mean change in A1C was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for 12.5 mg (-0.56%) and 25 mg (-0.59%) alogliptin than placebo (-0.02%). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose were also greater (P < 0.001) in alogliptin-treated patients than in those receiving placebo. Overall, incidences of adverse events (67.4-70.3%) and hypoglycemia (1.5-3.0%) were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Alogliptin monotherapy was well tolerated and significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, without raising the incidence of hypoglycemia.

Effects of pioglitazone on lipid and lipoprotein profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone while continuing stable statin therapy.

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone while maintaining stable statin and other lipid-altering therapies. A total of 305 patients were enrolled in this open-label study. Patients had been taking stable dosages of rosiglitazone and statins for > 90 days. At baseline, patients discontinued rosiglitazone and started pioglitazone 30 mg/day, but continued statins and other lipid-altering therapies. The primary end point was change from baseline in fasting triglyceride levels. At 17 weeks after treatment conversion, patients had significant reductions in triglycerides (-15.2%), total cholesterol (-9.0%), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle concentration (-189 nmol/L), and increases in LDL cholesterol (+2.2%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (+1.8%), and LDL particle diameter (+0.23 nm). In conclusion, after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone while maintaining stable statin therapy, patients with type 2 diabetes had marked improvements in lipid profiles along with stable glycaemic control.