Empagliflozin as Add-on Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Linagliptin and Metformin: A 24-Week Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control with linagliptin and metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≥8.0% and ≤10.5% (≥64 and ≤91 mmol/mol) while receiving stable-dose metformin received open-label linagliptin 5 mg (n = 606) for 16 weeks. Subsequently, those with HbA1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.5% (≥53 and ≤91 mmol/mol) were randomized to receive double-blind, double-dummy treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 112), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 111), or placebo (n = 110) for 24 weeks; all patients continued treatment with metformin and linagliptin 5 mg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment. RESULTS: At week 24, empagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c (mean baseline 7.96-7.97% [63-64 mmol/mol]) versus placebo; the adjusted mean differences in the change from baseline with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg versus placebo were -0.79% (95% CI ‒1.02, ‒0.55) (-8.63 mmol/mol [‒11.20, ‒6.07 mmol/mol]) and -0.70% (95% CI ‒0.93, ‒0.46) (-7.61 mmol/mol [‒10.18, ‒5.05 mmol/mol]), respectively (both P < 0.001). Fasting plasma glucose and weight were significantly reduced in both empagliflozin groups versus placebo (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). More patients receiving placebo than empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg reported adverse events during double-blind treatment (68.2%, 55.4%, and 51.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin treatment for 24 weeks improved glycemic control and weight versus placebo as an add-on to linagliptin 5 mg and metformin and was well tolerated.

Linagliptin and pioglitazone combination therapy versus monotherapy with linagliptin or pioglitazone: A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational clinical trial.

Linagliptin plus pioglitazone single-pill combinations were evaluated. Patients (n = 936) with insufficient glycaemic control, despite lifestyle interventions, were randomised for 30 weeks to either monotherapy with linagliptin 5 mg; pioglitazone 15, 30 or 45 mg; or single-pill combination with linagliptin 5 mg plus pioglitazone 15, 30 or 45 mg. An extension (⩽54 weeks) planned to evaluate linagliptin plus pioglitazone 30 or 45 mg single-pill combinations was not completed due to a protocol amendment. Adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) differences in HbA1c change from baseline at week 30 for linagliptin plus pioglitazone 15, 30 and 45 mg were -0.17% (-0.41, 0.07), -0.37% (-0.60, -0.14) and -0.41% (-0.64, -0.18) versus pioglitazone monotherapies, respectively, and -0.44% (-0.67, -0.20), -0.68% (-0.91, -0.44) and -0.89% (-1.12, -0.66) versus linagliptin monotherapy, respectively. Single-pill combinations were generally well tolerated. Hypoglycaemia frequency was ⩽1.5% per group. Linagliptin plus pioglitazone combinations were efficacious, with safety profiles comparable to the individual monotherapies.

Dose-finding evaluation of once-daily treatment with olodaterol, a novel long-acting ß2-agonist, in patients with asthma: results of a parallel-group study and a crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Olodaterol is a novel, inhaled long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) with >24-hour duration of action investigated in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: Two multicentre studies examined the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks' once-daily (QD) olodaterol (2, 5, 10 and 20 µg, with background inhaled corticosteroids) in patients with asthma. One randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study (1222.6; 296 patients) administered treatment in the morning. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed pre-dose (trough) and ≤3 hours post-dose (weeks 1 and 2), and ≤6 hours post-dose after 4 weeks; primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) response (change from baseline mean FEV1) after 4 weeks. A second randomised, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled (formoterol 12 µg twice-daily) incomplete-block crossover study (1222.27; 198 patients) administered QD treatments in the evening. PFTs were performed over a 24-hour dosing interval after 4 weeks; primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0-24 hours (AUC0-24) response (change from study baseline [mean FEV1] after 4 weeks). RESULTS: Study 1222.6 showed a statistically significant increase in trough FEV1 response with olodaterol 20 µg (0.147 L; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.059, 0.234; p = 0.001) versus placebo, with more limited efficacy and no evidence of dose response compared to placebo across the other olodaterol doses (2, 5 and 10 µg). Study 1222.27 demonstrated increases in FEV1 AUC0-24 responses at 4 weeks with all active treatments (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean (95 % CI) differences from placebo were 0.140 (0.097, 0.182), 0.182 (0.140, 0.224), 0.205 (0.163, 0.248) and 0.229 (0.186, 0.272) L for olodaterol 2, 5, 10 and 20 µg, respectively, and 0.169 (0.126, 0.211) for formoterol, providing evidence of increased efficacy with higher olodaterol dose. Olodaterol was generally well tolerated, with a few events associated with known sympathomimetic effects, mainly with 20 µg. CONCLUSIONS: The LABA olodaterol has >24-hour duration of action. In patients with asthma, evidence of bronchodilator efficacy was demonstrated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in the primary end point of trough FEV1 response measured in clinics over placebo for the highest administered dose of 20 µg in Study 1222.6, and statistically and clinically significant improvements versus placebo in FEV1 AUC0-24 responses at 4 weeks for all doses tested in Study 1222.27, which also exhibited a dose response. Bronchodilator efficacy was seen over placebo for all olodaterol doses for morning and evening peak expiratory flow in both studies. All doses were well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT00467740 (1222.6) and NCT01013753 (1222.27).

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 µg (5 µg QD [AM] or 2.5 µg BID) or placebo, or 10 µg (10 µg QD [AM] or 5 µg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 µg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 µg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 µg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 µg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 µg QD and 5 µg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 µg olodaterol daily (5 µg QD or 2.5 µg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily versus 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often not achieved or not sustained using monotherapy such as metformin, necessitating the addition of other antihyperglycaemic agents. Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is licensed for 5 mg once-daily dosing. As metformin is administered twice daily, a fixed-dose combination of these compounds would require twice-daily administration of linagliptin. This study evaluated whether 2.5 mg twice-daily dosing of linagliptin has comparable efficacy and safety to 5 mg once-daily dosing when given in addition to metformin twice daily in patients with inadequate glycaemic control. METHODS: A total of 491 T2DM patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0% were randomised (5:5:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 5 mg once daily or placebo, respectively, in addition to continuing metformin twice daily (≥1500 mg/day or maximally tolerated dose). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 12 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01012037. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA1c for all patients was 7.97%. After 12 weeks, linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily and 5 mg once daily both significantly reduced HbA1c (placebo-adjusted changes from baseline -0.74% (95% CI -0.97, -0.52) and -0.80% (95% CI -1.02, -0.58), respectively, both p<0.0001). The treatment difference (twice daily-once daily) between the linagliptin regimens was 0.06 (95% CI -0.07, 0.19), the upper bound of which was less than the predefined noninferiority margin (0.35%). The overall incidence of adverse events with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 5 mg once daily and placebo was 43.0%, 34.8%, and 38.6% respectively. Hypoglycaemia was rare (3.1% with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 0.9% with 5 mg once daily, 2.3% with placebo) with no severe episodes. Study limitations include duration, patient population (mainly white) and absence of postprandial glucose data. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily had non-inferior HbA1c-lowering effects after 12 weeks compared to 5 mg once daily, with comparable safety and tolerability, in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with metformin.

Use of simulation to compare the performance of minimization with stratified blocked randomization.

Minimization is an alternative method to stratified permuted block randomization, which may be more effective at balancing treatments when there are many strata. However, its use in the regulatory setting for industry trials remains controversial, primarily due to the difficulty in interpreting conventional asymptotic statistical tests under restricted methods of treatment allocation. We argue that the use of minimization should be critically evaluated when designing the study for which it is proposed. We demonstrate by example how simulation can be used to investigate whether minimization improves treatment balance compared with stratified randomization, and how much randomness can be incorporated into the minimization before any balance advantage is no longer retained. We also illustrate by example how the performance of the traditional model-based analysis can be assessed, by comparing the nominal test size with the observed test size over a large number of simulations. We recommend that the assignment probability for the minimization be selected using such simulations.