Sugammadex hypersensitivity and underlying mechanisms: a randomised study of healthy non-anaesthetised volunteers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated potential for hypersensitivity reactions after repeated sugammadex administration and explored the mechanism of hypersensitivity. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00988065), 448 healthy volunteers were randomised to one of three arms to receive three repeat i.v. administrations of either sugammadex 4 mg kg-1, 16 mg kg-1, or placebo. Primary endpoint was percentage of subjects with hypersensitivity (assessed by an independent adjudication committee). Secondary endpoint of anaphylaxis was classified per Sampson and Brighton criteria. Exploratory endpoints included skin testing, serum tryptase, anti-sugammadex antibodies [immunoglobulin (Ig) E/IgG], and other immunologic parameters. RESULTS: Hypersensitivity was adjudicated for 1/148 (0.7%), 7/150 (4.7%), and 0/150 (0.0%) subjects after sugammadex 4 mg kg-1, 16 mg kg-1, and placebo, respectively. After sugammadex 16 mg kg-1, one subject met Sampson criterion 1 and Brighton level 1 (highest certainty) anaphylaxis criteria; two met Brighton level 2 criteria. After database lock it was determined that certain protocol deviations could have introduced bias in the reporting of hypersensitivity signs/symptoms in a subject subset. Objective laboratory investigations indicated that potential underlying hypersensitivity mechanisms were unlikely to have been activated; the results suggest that most of the observed hypersensitivity reactions were unlikely IgE/IgG-mediated. CONCLUSION: Dose-dependent hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis reactions to sugammadex were observed when administered without prior neuromuscular blocking agent. Laboratory investigations do not suggest prevalent allergen-specific IgE/IgG-mediated immunologic hypersensitivity. Because it could not be fully excluded that estimates of hypersensitivity/anaphylaxis incidence were unbiased, an additional study was conducted to characterise the potential for hypersensitivity reactions and is described in a companion report. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00988065; Protocol number P06042.

Long-term efficacy of sitagliptin as either monotherapy or add-on therapy to metformin: improvement in glycemic control over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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

Sitagliptin and pioglitazone provide complementary effects on postprandial glucose and pancreatic islet cell function.

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

Risk of acute renal failure in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: Progressive decline in renal function has been well described in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, but few studies have assessed the risk of acute renal failure in a large population of patients with Type 2 diabetes. This study quantified the risk of acute renal failure associated with Type 2 diabetes in the General Practice Research Database from the UK. METHODS: Patients with Type 2 diabetes (n = 119,966) and patients without diabetes (n = 1,794,516) were identified in the General Practice Research Database. Patients with end-stage renal disease were excluded. Crude incidence and multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios of acute renal failure were estimated for patients with diabetes relative to those without diabetes. Cox regression models were adjusted for a variety of comorbidities. Increase of acute renal failure risk resulting from additive effects of specific co-morbidities with Type 2 diabetes was also assessed. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2007, acute renal failure incidence was 198 per 100,000 person-years in patients with Type 2 diabetes compared with 27 per 100,000 patients-years among patients without diabetes (crude hazard ratio 8.0, 95% CI 7.4-8.7). Risk of acute renal failure for patients with Type 2 diabetes remained significant, but was attenuated in multivariate analyses adjusting for various comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio 2.5, 95% CI 2.2-2.7). Age and specific comorbidities (chronic kidney disease, hypertension and congestive heart failure) were also associated with increased risk of acute renal failure in Type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Type 2 diabetes have increased risk for acute renal failure compared with patients without diabetes, even after adjustment for known risk factors, particularly in the elderly and those with other comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure and hypertension.

Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin on ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To examine the effect of sitagliptin and metformin, alone and in combination, on modelled parameters of ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The data used in the present analyses are from a 104-week study, which included a 24-week, placebo- and active controlled phase followed by a 30-week, active controlled, continuation phase and an additional 50-week, active controlled extension phase. Patients were randomised to one of six blinded treatments: sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d., sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., metformin 1000 mg b.i.d., metformin 500 mg b.i.d., sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. or placebo. Patients on placebo were switched in a blinded manner to metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. at week 24. Subsets of patients volunteered to undergo frequently sampled meal tolerance tests at baseline and at weeks 24, 54 and 104. ß-cell responsivity was assessed with the C-peptide minimal model. The static component (Φ(s)) estimates the rate of insulin secretion related to above-basal glucose concentration. The dynamic component (Φ(d)) is related to the rate of change in glucose. The total index (Φ(total)) represents the overall response to a glycaemic stimulus and is calculated as a function of Φ(s) and Φ(d). Insulin sensitivity was estimated with the Matsuda index (ISI). The disposition index, which assesses insulin secretion relative to the prevailing insulin sensitivity, was calculated based on the Φ(total) and ISI. RESULTS: At week 24, substantial reductions in postmeal glucose were observed with all active treatment groups relative to the placebo group. Φ(s), Φ(total) and the disposition index were significantly improved from baseline at week 24 with all active treatments relative to placebo. Generally larger effects were observed with the initial combination of sitagliptin and metformin relative to the monotherapy groups. When expressed as median percent change from baseline, Φ(s) increased from baseline by 137 and 177% in the low- and high-dose combination groups and by 85, 54, 73 and -9% in the high-dose metformin, low-dose metformin, sitagliptin monotherapy and placebo groups, respectively. At weeks 54 and 104, the combination treatment groups continued to demonstrate greater improvements in ß-cell function relative to their respective monotherapy groups. CONCLUSIONS: After 24 weeks of therapy, relative to placebo, initial treatment with sitagliptin or metformin monotherapy improved ß-cell function; moreover, initial combination therapy demonstrated larger improvements than the individual monotherapies. Improvements in ß-cell function were found with treatments for up to 2 years.

The Finnish Diabetes Risk Score is associated with insulin resistance but not reduced ß-cell function, by classical and model-based estimates.

AIMS: The Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) is widely used for risk stratification in Type 2 diabetes prevention programmes. Estimates of ß-cell function vary widely in people without diabetes and reduced insulin secretion has been described in people at risk for diabetes. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate FINDRISC as a tool to characterize reduced ß-cell function in individuals without known diabetes. METHODS: In this population-based cohort from the Hoorn municipal registry, subjects received an oral glucose tolerance test and a meal tolerance test on separate days, in random order, within 2 weeks. One hundred and eighty-six subjects, age 41-66 years, with no known Type 2 diabetes were included. Of those, 163 (87.6%) had normal glucose metabolism and 23 (12.4%) had abnormal glucose metabolism (19 with impaired glucose metabolism; four with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes based on study results). Insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function (classical: insulinogenic index; ratio of areas under insulin/glucose curves; model-based: glucose sensitivity; rate sensitivity; potentiation) estimates were calculated from oral glucose tolerance test and meal tolerance test data. RESULTS: FINDRISC was associated with insulin sensitivity (r = -0.41, P < 0.0001), insulin/glucose areas under the curve (meal tolerance test: r = 0.29, P < 0.0001; oral glucose tolerance test: r = 0.21, P = 0.01) and potentiation factor (meal tolerance test: r = 0.21, P = 0.01). After adjusting for insulin sensitivity, these associations with ß-cell function were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for insulin sensitivity, FINDRISC was not associated with reduced ß-cell function in subjects without known Type 2 diabetes. While insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity are both components in Type 2 diabetes development, insulin sensitivity appears to be the dominant component behind the association between FINDRISC and diabetes risk.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin vs. pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

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

A treatment strategy implementing combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin results in superior glycaemic control versus metformin monotherapy due to a low rate of addition of antihyperglycaemic agents.

AIMS: Combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin has shown superior efficacy compared with metformin monotherapy. In this study, we compare two strategies: initial combination therapy with sitagliptin/metformin as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) and initial metformin monotherapy, with the option to add additional antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) in either treatment arm during the second phase of the study in order to reach adequate glycaemic control. METHODS: We evaluated the sitagliptin and metformin FDC compared with metformin monotherapy over 44 weeks in 1250 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a two-part, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The initial 18-week portion (Phase A) of this study in which additional AHAs were only allowed based on prespecified glycaemic criteria, has been previously reported. Here, we present results from the 26-week Phase B portion of the study during which double-blind study medication continued; however, unlike Phase A, during Phase B investigators were unmasked to results for haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and directed to manage glycaemic control by adding incremental AHA(s) as deemed clinically appropriate. RESULTS: There were 1250 patients randomized in the study with 965 completing Phase A and continuing in Phase B. Among patients receiving sitagliptin/metformin FDC or metformin monotherapy, 8.8% and 16.7% received additional AHA therapy, respectively. Although glycaemic therapy in both groups was to have been managed to optimize HbA1c reductions with the option for investigators to supplement with additional AHAs during Phase B, patients randomized to initial therapy with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had larger reductions of HbA1c from baseline compared with patients randomized to initial metformin monotherapy [least squares (LS) mean change: -2.3% and -1.8% (p < 0.001 for difference) for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and metformin monotherapy groups, respectively]. A significantly larger reduction in FPG from baseline was observed in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group compared with the metformin monotherapy group (p = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group had an HbA1c of less than 7.0% or less than 6.5% compared with those on metformin monotherapy. Both treatment strategies were generally well tolerated, with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia in both groups and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea in the sitagliptin/metformin FDC group compared with the metformin monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy initially implementing combination therapy with sitagliptin/metformin FDC was superior to a strategy initially implementing metformin monotherapy, even when accounting for the later addition of supplemental AHAs. Sitagliptin/metformin FDC was generally well tolerated.

The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This double-blind study (18-week Phase A and 26-week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein. RESULTS: At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was -2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and -1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (-3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (-3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with sitagliptin or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

AIM: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sitagliptin or glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: patients with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) of 6.5-9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥ 1500 mg/day) combined with diet and exercise for at least 12 weeks were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either sitagliptin 100 mg daily (N = 516) or glimepiride (starting dose 1 mg/day and up-titrated, based upon patient's self-monitoring of blood glucose results, to a maximum dose of up to 6 mg/day) (N = 519) for 30 weeks. The primary analysis assessed whether sitagliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA(1c) at week 30 (based on the criterion of having an upper bound of the 95% CI less than the prespecified non-inferiority bound of 0.4%). RESULTS: the mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.5% in both the sitagliptin group (n = 443) and the glimepiride group (n = 436). After 30 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA(1c) from baseline was -0.47% with sitagliptin and -0.54% with glimepiride, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.07% (-0.03, 0.16). This result met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The percentages of patients with an HbA(1c) < 7.0% at week 30 were 52 and 60% in the sitagliptin and glimepiride groups, respectively. The LS mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (95% CI) was -0.8 mmol/l (-1.0, -0.6) with sitagliptin and -1.0 mmol/l (-1.2, -0.8) with glimepiride, for a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.2 mmol/l (-0.1, 0.4). The percentages of patients for whom hypoglycaemia was reported were 7% in the sitagliptin group and 22% in the glimepiride group (percentage-point difference = -15, p < 0.001). Relative to baseline, sitagliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.8 kg), whereas glimepiride was associated with a mean weight gain (1.2 kg), yielding a between-group difference of -2.0 kg (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy, the addition of sitagliptin or glimepiride led to similar improvement in glycaemic control after 30 weeks. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated. Compared to treatment with glimepiride, treatment with sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and with weight loss versus weight gain (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00701090).

Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and pioglitazone on glycemic control and measures of ß-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the safety and efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone compared with pioglitazone monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 520 patients were randomised to initial combination therapy with sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. and pioglitazone 30 mg q.d. or pioglitazone 30 mg q.d. monotherapy for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone led to a mean reduction from baseline in A1C of -2.4% compared with -1.5% for pioglitazone monotherapy (p<0.001). Mean reductions from baseline were greater in patients with a baseline A1C≥10% (-3.0% with combination therapy vs. -2.1% with pioglitazone monotherapy) compared with patients with a baseline A1C<10% (-2.0% with combination therapy vs. -1.1% with pioglitazone monotherapy). Sixty percent of patients in the combination therapy group vs. 28% in the pioglitazone monotherapy group had an A1C of <7% at week 24 (p<0.001). Fasting plasma glucose decreased by -63.0 mg/dl (-3.5 mmol/l) in the combination therapy group compared with -40.2 mg/dl (-2.2 mmol/l) for pioglitazone monotherapy (p<0.001), and 2-h post meal glucose decreased by -113.6 mg/dl (-6.3 mmol/l) with combination therapy compared with -68.9 mg/dl (-3.8 mmol/l) for pioglitazone monotherapy (p<0.001). Measures related to ß-cell function also improved significantly with combination therapy compared with pioglitazone monotherapy. Combination therapy was generally well-tolerated compared with pioglitazone monotherapy, with similar incidences of hypoglycemia (1.1% and 0.8%, respectively), gastrointestinal adverse events (5.7% and 6.9%, respectively), and oedema (2.7% and 3.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and pioglitazone substantially improved glycemic control and was generally well-tolerated compared with pioglitazone monotherapy.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors administered in combination with metformin result in an additive increase in the plasma concentration of active GLP-1.

The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, of metformin, and of the combination of the two agents, on incretin hormone concentrations. Active and inactive (or total) incretin plasma concentrations, plasma DPP-4 activity, and preproglucagon (GCG) gene expression were determined after administration of each agent alone or in combination to mice with diet-induced obesity (DIO) and to healthy human subjects. In mice, metformin increased Gcg expression in the large intestine and elevated the plasma concentrations of inactive glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) (9-36) and glucagon. In healthy subjects, a DPP-4 inhibitor elevated both active GLP-1 and glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), metformin increased total GLP-1 (but not GIP), and the combination resulted in additive increases in active GLP-1 plasma concentrations. Metformin did not inhibit plasma DPP-4 activity either in vitro or in vivo. The study results show that metformin is not a DPP-4 inhibitor but rather enhances precursor GCG expression in the large intestine, resulting in increased total GLP-1 concentrations. DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin have complementary mechanisms of action and additive effects with respect to increasing the concentrations of active GLP-1 in plasma.

Characteristics of patients prescribed sitagliptin and other oral antihyperglycaemic agents in a large US claims database.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-randomised comparative studies of pharmacological agents can be biased because of differences in baseline demographics, medical history and health status of patients prescribed different therapies. Characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) taking sitagliptin were compared with patients taking other oral antihyperglycaemic agents (OAHA) in a large US insurance claims database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the United Health Care database, we identified T2DM patients with at least one OAHA prescription, and at least 1 year prior enrollment. Patients were classified into subcohorts including sitagliptin or other OAHA, add-on to monotherapy, and triple or more therapy. Comorbidities 12 months before the first OAHA prescription in study window were based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes and NDC codes for prescriptions. RESULTS: Prevalence of comorbidities was consistently higher for patients with sitagliptin prescriptions across most comorbidities (p < 0.05 for 20 of 30 assessed comorbidities). Overall, baseline differences were apparent (p < 0.0001) for retinopathy (5.7% vs. 3.4%), renal failure (5.1% vs. 2.6%), proteinuria (2.8% vs. 2.0%), hypertension (76.9% vs. 68.2%), congestive heart failure (3.4% vs. 2.6%), myocardial infarction (18.0% vs. 14.4%) and chronic neurological conditions (8.1% vs. 6.6%). Differences were most pronounced for initial monotherapy subcohorts. A higher proportion of sitagliptin users had prescriptions for cardiovascular medication (84.2% vs. 74.9%). CONCLUSION: Sitagliptin users had higher proportions of comorbidities and greater use of prescription medications and physician visits. Researchers should be aware that sitagliptin is prescribed to patients with seemingly worse health status. Ability to analyse observational, non-randomised studies may be limited by substantial differences in patient characteristics between different treatments.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have higher risk for acute pancreatitis compared with those without diabetes.

AIM: The aetiology of acute pancreatitis (AP) is complex, and many risk factors for AP are shared by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, few have assessed risk factors for AP specifically in T2DM patients. METHODS: Patients in the General Practice Research Database (2 984 755, 5.0% with T2DM) were used to estimate incidence of AP for T2DM relative to non-diabetes, adjusting for prior pancreatitis, gallbladder disease, obesity, smoking and alcohol use. Multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusting for risk factors and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2007, 301 of 148 903 patients with T2DM and 2434 of almost 3 million patients without diabetes developed AP. Patients with T2DM had higher risk for AP compared with patients without diabetes (crude HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 2.56-3.27). Patients with T2DM had significantly higher rates of prior alcohol and tobacco exposure (44.2 and 61.9% vs. 34.1 and 35.9%, p < 0.001) and of comorbid conditions (14.7% with CCI > or =1 vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001). Histories of obesity, pancreatitis, gallbladder disease, smoking or alcohol use were significant predictors of AP. After adjusting for these factors, age, gender and comorbidities, the risk of developing AP remained elevated in patients with T2DM (adjusted HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.31-1.70). CONCLUSION: After adjusting for risk factors, patients with T2DM had an elevated risk of AP compared with patients without diabetes. Physicians should be aware of the increased risk in patients with T2DM, particularly in those with prior pancreatitis.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the 104-week efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA(1c) 7.5-11%) on diet and exercise. METHODS: This study was a 50-week, double-blind extension of a 54-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial study of the initial combination of sitagliptin and metformin, metformin monotherapy and sitagliptin monotherapy (104 weeks total duration). Patients assigned to active therapy in the 54-week base study remained on those treatments in the extension study: sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (higher dose combination), sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (lower dose combination), metformin 1000 mg b.i.d. (higher dose), metformin 500 mg b.i.d. (lower dose) and sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. Patients randomized to receive the sequence of placebo/metformin were switched, in a blinded manner, from placebo to metformin monotherapy uptitrated to 1000 mg b.i.d. beginning at week 24 and remained on higher dose metformin through the extension. RESULTS: Amongst patients who entered the extension study without having initiated glycaemic rescue therapy, least-squares mean changes in HbA(1c) from baseline at week 104 were -1.7% (higher dose combination), -1.4% (lower dose combination), -1.3% (higher dose), -1.1% (lower dose) and -1.2% (sitagliptin). The proportions of patients with an HbA(1c) <7% at week 104 were 60% (higher dose combination), 45% (lower dose combination), 45% (higher dose), 28% (lower dose) and 32% (sitagliptin). Fasting and postmeal measures of glycaemic control and beta-cell function improved in all groups, with glycaemic responses generally maintained over the 104-week treatment period. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was low across all groups. The incidences of gastrointestinal adverse experiences were generally lower in the sitagliptin group and similar between the metformin monotherapy and combination groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin and monotherapy with either drug alone provided substantial and sustained glycaemic improvements and were well tolerated over 104 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Sitagliptin: review of preclinical and clinical data regarding incidence of pancreatitis.

Recent case reports of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with incretin-based therapies have triggered interest regarding the possibility of a mechanism-based association between pancreatitis and glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetics or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The objective of this review was to describe the controlled preclinical and clinical trial data regarding the incidence of pancreatitis with sitagliptin, the first DPP-4 inhibitor approved for use in patients with T2DM. Tissue samples from multiple animal species treated with sitagliptin for up to 2 years at plasma exposures substantially in excess of human exposure were evaluated to determine whether any potential gross or histomorphological changes suggestive of pancreatitis occurred. Sections were prepared by routine methods, stained with haematoxylin and eosin and examined microscopically. A pooled analysis of 19 controlled clinical trials, comprising 10,246 patients with T2DM treated for up to 2 years, was performed using patient-level data from each study for the evaluation of clinical and laboratory adverse events. Adverse events were encoded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 12.0 system. Incidences of adverse events were adjusted for patient exposure. Tissue samples from preclinical studies in multiple animal species did not reveal any evidence of treatment-related pancreatitis. The pooled analysis of controlled clinical trials revealed similar incidence rates of pancreatitis in patients treated with sitagliptin compared with those not treated with sitagliptin (0.08 events per 100 patient-years vs. 0.10 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). Preclinical and clinical trial data with sitagliptin to date do not indicate an increased risk of pancreatitis in patients with T2DM treated with sitagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of monotherapy of sitagliptin compared with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sitagliptin and metformin in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a double-blind study, 1050 treatment-naïve patients (i.e. not taking an antihyperglycaemic agent for > or =16 weeks prior to study entry) with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) 6.5-9% were randomized (1:1) to treatment with once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 528) or twice-daily metformin 1000 mg (N = 522) for 24 weeks. Metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 2000 mg per day (or maximum tolerated daily dose > or =1000 mg) over a period of 5 weeks. The primary analysis used a per-protocol (PP) approach to assess whether sitagliptin was non-inferior to metformin based on HbA(1c) change from baseline at week 24. Non-inferiority was to be declared if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference in this endpoint was <0.40%. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA(1c) of 7.2% in the PP population, HbA(1c) change from baseline was -0.43% with sitagliptin (n = 455) and -0.57% with metformin (n = 439). The between-group difference (95% CI) was 0.14% (0.06, 0.21), thus confirming non-inferiority. Baseline HbA(1c) influenced treatment response, with larger reductions in HbA(1c) observed in patients with baseline HbA(1c)> or =8% in the sitagliptin (-1.13%; n = 74) and metformin (-1.24%; n = 73) groups. The proportions of patients at week 24 with HbA(1c) values at the goals of <7 or <6.5% were 69 and 34% with sitagliptin and 76 and 39% with metformin, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose changes from baseline were -11.5 mg/dL (-0.6 mmol/l) and -19.4 mg/dl (-1.1 mmol/l) with sitagliptin and metformin, respectively (difference in LS mean change from baseline [95% CI] = 8.0 mg /dl [4.5,11.4]). Both treatments led to similar improvements from baseline in measures of homeostasis model assessment-beta cell function (HOMA-beta) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). The incidence of hypoglycaemia was 1.7% with sitagliptin and 3.3% with metformin (p = 0.116). The incidence of gastrointestinal-related adverse experiences was substantially lower with sitagliptin (11.6%) compared with metformin (20.7%) (difference in incidence [95% CI] = -9.1% [-13.6,-4.7]), primarily because of significantly decreased incidences of diarrhoea (3.6 vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001) and nausea (1.1 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.032). Body weight was reduced from baseline with both sitagliptin (LS mean change [95% CI] = -0.6 kg [-0.9,-0.4]) and metformin (-1.9 kg [-2.2, -1.7]) (p < 0.001 for sitagliptin vs. metformin). CONCLUSIONS: In this 24-week monotherapy study, sitagliptin was non-inferior to metformin in improving HbA(1c) in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Although both treatments were generally well tolerated, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal-related adverse experiences was observed with sitagliptin.

Sitagliptin 100 mg daily effect on DPP-4 inhibition and compound-specific glycemic improvement.

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

Safety and efficacy of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic renal insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate [creatinine clearance (CrCl) > or =30 to <50 ml/min] or severe renal insufficiency [CrCl <30 ml/min including patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis]. The efficacy of sitagliptin in this patient population was also assessed. METHODS: In a 54-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) values of 6.5-10% were allocated (2:1) to sitagliptin (for 54 weeks) or the sequence of placebo (for 12 weeks) followed by active treatment with glipizide (for 42 weeks). To achieve plasma concentrations similar to those observed in patients with normal renal function treated with 100 mg sitagliptin once daily, patients with moderate renal insufficiency were allocated to receive sitagliptin 50 mg once daily and patients with severe renal insufficiency to receive 25 mg once daily. Glipizide treatment was initiated at 2.5 or 5 mg/day and uptitrated to a maximum of 20 mg/day. RESULTS: Patients (N = 91) with a mean baseline HbA(1c) value of 7.7% (range: 6.2-10.3%) were randomized to sitagliptin (n = 65) or placebo (n = 26). After 12 weeks, the mean change [95% confidence interval (CI)] from baseline in HbA(1c) was -0.6% (-0.8, -0.4) in the sitagliptin group compared with -0.2% (-0.4, 0.1) in the placebo group [between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.4% (-0.7, -0.1)]. At 54 weeks, patients continuously treated with sitagliptin had a mean change (95% CI) from baseline in HbA(1c) of -0.7% (-0.9, -0.4). The overall incidence of adverse experiences was generally similar between groups. Between-group differences in incidences of specific clinical adverse experiences were generally small; however, the proportion of patients for whom hypoglycaemia was reported was lower in the sitagliptin group (4.6%) compared with the placebo/glipizide group (23.1%). Consistent with the high mortality risk in this patient population, there were six deaths during this 54-week study [5 of 65 patients (7.7%) in the sitagliptin group and 1 of 26 patients (3.8%) in the placebo/glipizide group]; no death was considered by the investigator to be drug related. The overall incidences of drug-related and serious adverse experiences and discontinuations because of adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated and provided effective glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate to severe renal insufficiency, including patients with ESRD on dialysis.

Effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on beta-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes: a model-based approach.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to assess the effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on pancreatic beta-cell function using a model-based analysis. METHODS: Data for this analysis were from three large, placebo-controlled clinical studies that examined sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. as add-on to metformin therapy or as monotherapy over 18 or 24 weeks. In these studies, subsets of patients consented to undergo extensive blood sampling as part of a nine-point meal tolerance test performed at baseline and study end-point. Blood samples were collected at -10, 0, 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 min relative to the start of a meal and subsequently were assayed for plasma glucose and serum C-peptide concentrations. Parameters for beta-cell function were calculated using the C-peptide minimal model, which estimates insulin secretion rate (ISR) and partitions the ISR into basal (Phi(b); ISR at basal glucose concentrations), static (Phi(s); ISR at above basal glucose concentrations following a meal) and dynamic (Phi(d); ISR in response to the rate of increase in above basal glucose concentrations following a meal) components. The total responsivity index (Phi(total); average ISR over the average glucose concentration) is calculated as a function of Phi(s), Phi(d )and Phi(b. )Insulin sensitivity was assessed with a validated composite index (ISI). Disposition indices (DI), which assess insulin secretion in the context of changes in insulin sensitivity, were calculated as the product of Phiand ISI. RESULTS: When administered in combination with ongoing metformin therapy or as monotherapy, sitagliptin was associated with substantial reductions in postprandial glycaemic excursion following a meal challenge relative to placebo. Sitagliptin produced significant (p < 0.05 vs. placebo) improvements in Phi(s )and Phi(total), regardless of treatment regimen (add-on to metformin or as monotherapy). For Phi(d), there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement with sitagliptin relative to placebo. Treatment with sitagliptin increased Phi(b), but the difference relative to placebo was only significant with monotherapy. ISI was not significantly different between sitagliptin and placebo. The DIs for the static, dynamic and total measures were significantly (p < 0.05) increased with sitagliptin treatment relative to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this model-based analysis, sitagliptin improved beta-cell function relative to placebo in both fasting and postprandial states in patients with type 2 diabetes.