Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Inclusion and diversity in clinical trials: Actionable steps to drive lasting change.

BACKGROUND: Improving diversity in clinical trials is essential in order to produce generalizable results. Although the importance of representation has become increasingly recognized, identifying strategies to approach this work remains elusive. This article reviews the proceedings of a multi-stakeholder conference about the current state of diversity in clinical trials and outlines actionable steps for improvement. METHODS: Conference attendees included representatives from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), practicing clinical investigators, pharmaceutical and device companies, community-based organizations, data analytics companies, and patient advocacy groups. At this virtual event, attendees were asked to consider key questions around best practices for engagement of underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Community engagement is an integral part of recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups. Decentralization of sites and use of digital tools can enhance the accessibility of clinical research. Finally, improving representation among investigators and clinical research staff may translate to diverse clinical trial participants. CONCLUSION: Improving diversity in clinical trials is an ethical and scientific imperative, which requires a multifaceted approach.

The role of machine learning in clinical research: transforming the future of evidence generation.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the application of machine learning (ML) to the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials has grown, but the evidence base for such applications has not been surveyed. This manuscript reviews the proceedings of a multi-stakeholder conference to discuss the current and future state of ML for clinical research. Key areas of clinical trial methodology in which ML holds particular promise and priority areas for further investigation are presented alongside a narrative review of evidence supporting the use of ML across the clinical trial spectrum. RESULTS: Conference attendees included stakeholders, such as biomedical and ML researchers, representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), artificial intelligence technology and data analytics companies, non-profit organizations, patient advocacy groups, and pharmaceutical companies. ML contributions to clinical research were highlighted in the pre-trial phase, cohort selection and participant management, and data collection and analysis. A particular focus was paid to the operational and philosophical barriers to ML in clinical research. Peer-reviewed evidence was noted to be lacking in several areas. CONCLUSIONS: ML holds great promise for improving the efficiency and quality of clinical research, but substantial barriers remain, the surmounting of which will require addressing significant gaps in evidence.

Leveraging Blockchain Technology for Informed Consent Process and Patient Engagement in a Clinical Trial Pilot.

Objective: Despite the implementation of quality assurance procedures, current clinical trial management processes are time-consuming, costly, and often susceptible to error. This can result in limited trust, transparency, and process inefficiencies, without true patient empowerment. The objective of this study was to determine whether blockchain technology could enforce trust, transparency, and patient empowerment in the clinical trial data management process, while reducing trial cost. Design: In this proof of concept pilot, we deployed a Hyperledger Fabric-based blockchain system in an active clinical trial setting to assess the impact of blockchain technology on mean monitoring visit time and cost, non-compliances, and user experience. Using a parallel study design, we compared differences between blockchain technology and standard methodology. Results: A total of 12 trial participants, seven study coordinators and three clinical research associates across five sites participated in the pilot. Blockchain technology significantly reduces total mean monitoring visit time and cost versus standard trial management (475 to 7 min; P = 0.001; €722 to €10; P = 0.001 per participant/visit, respectively), while enhancing patient trust, transparency, and empowerment in 91, 82 and 63% of the patients, respectively. No difference in non-compliances as a marker of trial quality was detected. Conclusion: Blockchain technology holds promise to improve patient-centricity and to reduce trial cost compared to conventional clinical trial management. The ability of this technology to improve trial quality warrants further investigation.

Empagliflozin and Kidney Function Decline in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Slope Analysis from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin slowed the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial. In a prespecified statistical approach, we assessed treatment differences in kidney function by analyzing slopes of eGFR changes. METHODS: Participants (n=7020) were randomized (1:1:1) to empagliflozin 10 mg/d, empagliflozin 25 mg/d, or placebo added to standard of care. We calculated eGFR slopes using random-intercept/random-coefficient models for prespecified study periods: treatment initiation (baseline to week 4), chronic maintenance treatment (week 4 to last value on treatment), and post-treatment (last value on treatment to follow-up). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, empagliflozin was associated with uniform shifts in individual eGFR slopes across all periods. On treatment initiation, adjusted mean slope (eGFR change per week, ml/min per 1.73 m2) decreased with empagliflozin (-0.77; 95% confidence interval, -0.83 to -0.71; placebo: 0.01; 95% confidence interval, -0.08 to 0.10; P<0.001). However, annual mean slope (ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year) did not decline with empagliflozin during chronic treatment (empagliflozin: 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.40; placebo: -1.46; 95% confidence interval, -1.74 to -1.17; P<0.001). After drug cessation, the adjusted mean eGFR slope (ml/min per 1.73 m2 per week) increased and mean eGFR returned toward baseline level only in the empagliflozin group (0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.62; placebo -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.12 to 0.08; P<0.001). Results were consistent across patient subgroups at higher CKD risk. CONCLUSIONS: The hemodynamic effects of empagliflozin, associated with reduction in intraglomerular pressure, may contribute to long-term preservation of kidney function.

Correction to: Comparison of Adipose Distribution Indices with Gold Standard Body Composition Assessments in the EMPA-REG H2H SU Trial: A Body Composition Sub-Study.

In the original publication, disclosure statement for the author Ian J. Neeland was published incorrectly. The correct statement should read as "Ian J. Neeland received financial assistance for publishing/article processing fees from Boehringer Ingelheim".

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the CArdiovascular safety and Renal Microvascular outcomE study with LINAgliptin (CARMELINA®): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardio-renal risk.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) have underrepresented patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), leading to uncertainty regarding their kidney efficacy and safety. The CARMELINA® trial aims to evaluate the effects of linagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, on both CV and kidney outcomes in a study population enriched for cardio-renal risk. METHODS: CARMELINA® is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 27 countries in T2D patients at high risk of CV and/or kidney events. Participants with evidence of CKD with or without CV disease and HbA1c 6.5-10.0% (48-86 mmol/mol) were randomized 1:1 to receive linagliptin once daily or matching placebo, added to standard of care adjusted according to local guidelines. The primary outcome is time to first occurrence of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. The key secondary outcome is a composite of time to first sustained occurrence of end-stage kidney disease, ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, or renal death. CV and kidney events are prospectively adjudicated by independent, blinded clinical event committees. CARMELINA® was designed to continue until at least 611 participants had confirmed primary outcome events. Assuming a hazard ratio of 1.0, this provides 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of linagliptin versus placebo within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.3 at a one-sided α-level of 2.5%. If non-inferiority of linagliptin for the primary outcome is demonstrated, then its superiority for both the primary outcome and the key secondary outcome will be investigated with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and August 2016, 6980 patients were randomized and took ≥ 1 dose of study drug (40.6, 33.1, 16.9, and 9.4% from Europe, South America, North America, and Asia, respectively). At baseline, mean ± SD age was 65.8 ± 9.1 years, HbA1c 7.9 ± 1.0%, BMI 31.3 ± 5.3 kg/m2, and eGFR 55 ± 25 mL/min/1.73 m2. A total of 5148 patients (73.8%) had prevalent kidney disease (defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or macroalbuminuria [albumin-to-creatinine ratio > 300 mg/g]) and 3990 patients (57.2%) had established CV disease with increased albuminuria; these characteristics were not mutually exclusive. Microalbuminuria (n = 2896 [41.5%]) and macroalbuminuria (n = 2691 [38.6%]) were common. CONCLUSIONS: CARMELINA® will add important information regarding the CV and kidney disease clinical profile of linagliptin by including an understudied, vulnerable cohort of patients with T2D at highest cardio-renal risk. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier-NCT01897532; registered July 9, 2013.

Empagliflozin and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Established Cardiovascular Disease, and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients). Urinary glucose excretion with empagliflozin decreases with declining renal function, resulting in less potency for glucose lowering in patients with kidney disease. We investigated the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 at screening were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo once daily in addition to standard of care. We analyzed cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with prevalent kidney disease (defined as eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 and/or urine albumin-creatinine ratio >300 mg/g) at baseline. Additional analyses were performed in subgroups by baseline eGFR (<45, 45-<60, 60-<90, ≥90 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2) and baseline urine albumin-creatinine ratio (>300, 30-≤300, <30 mg/g). RESULTS: Of 7020 patients treated, 2250 patients had prevalent kidney disease at baseline, of whom 67% had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus for >10 years, 58% were receiving insulin, and 84% were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. In patients with prevalent kidney disease at baseline, empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death by 29% compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.98), the risk of all-cause mortality by 24% (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99), the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 39% (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.87), and the risk of all-cause hospitalization by 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92). Effects of empagliflozin on these outcomes were consistent across categories of eGFR and urine albumin-creatinine ratio at baseline and across the 2 doses studied. The adverse event profile of empagliflozin in patients with eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 was consistent with the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin improved clinical outcomes and reduced mortality in vulnerable patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01131676.

Pooled analysis of Phase III trials indicate contrasting influences of renal function on blood pressure, body weight, and HbA1c reductions with empagliflozin.

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce HbA1c, blood pressure, and weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. To investigate the effect of renal function on reductions in these parameters with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, we assessed subgroups by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) in pooled data from five 24-week trials of 2286 patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to empagliflozin or placebo. Reductions in HbA1c with empagliflozin versus placebo significantly diminished with decreasing baseline eGFR. Reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) with empagliflozin were maintained in patients with lower eGFR. The mean placebo-corrected changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 24 with empagliflozin were -3.2 (95% confidence interval -4.9,-1.5) mmHg, -4.0 (-5.4, -2.6) mmHg, -5.5 (-7.6, -3.4) mmHg, and -6.6 (-11.4, -1.8) mmHg in patients with an eGFR of 90 or more, 60 to 89, 30 to 59, and under 30 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively. Similar trends were observed for diastolic blood pressure. Weight loss with empagliflozin versus placebo tended to be attenuated in patients with a lower eGFR. Results were consistent in a 12-week ambulatory blood pressure monitoring trial in 823 patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Thus, unlike HbA1c reductions, systolic blood pressure and weight reductions with empagliflozin are generally preserved in patients with chronic kidney disease.

The effect of empagliflozin on muscle sympathetic nerve activity in patients with type II diabetes mellitus.

Inhibition of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 with empagliflozin results in caloric loss by increasing urinary glucose excretion and has a mild diuretic effect. Diuretic effects are usually associated with reflex-mediated increases in sympathetic tone, whereas caloric loss is associated with decreased sympathetic tone. In an open-label trial, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) (burst frequency, burst incidence, and total MSNA) was assessed using microneurography performed off-treatment and on day 4 of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily in 22 metformin-treated patients with type II diabetes (mean [range] age 54 [40-65] years). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate, urine volume, and body weight were assessed before and on day 4 (BP, heart rate), day 5 (urine volume), or day 6 (body weight) of treatment with empagliflozin. After 4 days of treatment with empagliflozin, no significant changes in MSNA were apparent despite a numerical increase in urine volume, numerical reductions in BP, and significant weight loss. There were no clinically relevant changes in heart rate. Empagliflozin is not associated with clinically relevant reflex-mediated sympathetic activation in contrast to increases observed with diuretics in other studies. Our study suggests a novel mechanism through which sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition affects human autonomic cardiovascular regulation.

Composite Primary End Points in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Involving Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Should Unstable Angina Be Included in the Primary End Point?

Reductions in cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in recently reported trials, along with the recent approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of an additional indication for empagliflozin to reduce the risk of CV death in type 2 diabetes patients with evidence of CV disease, have renewed interest in CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of glucose-lowering drugs. Composite end points are a pragmatic necessity in CVOTs to ensure that sample size and duration of follow-up remain reasonable. Combining clinical outcomes into a composite end point increases the numbers of events ascertained and thus statistical power and precision. Historically, composite CV end points in diabetes trials have included a larger number of components, while more recent CVOTs almost exclusively use a composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke-the so-called three-point major adverse CV event (3P-MACE) composite-or add hospitalization for unstable angina (HUA) to these three outcomes (4P-MACE). The inclusion of HUA increases the number of events for analysis, but noteworthy disadvantages include clinical subjectivity in ascertainment of HUA and its lower prognostic relevance compared with CV death, MI, or stroke. Furthermore, results from recent CVOTs indicate that glucose-lowering agents seem to have minimal impact on HUA. Its inclusion therefore potentially favors a shift of the hazard ratio (HR) toward the null, which is especially problematic in trials designed to demonstrate noninferiority. The primary outcome of 3P-MACE may offer a better balance than 4P-MACE between statistical efficiency, operational complexity, the likelihood of diagnostic precision (and therefore clinical relevance) for each of the component outcomes, clinical importance, and the aim to adequately capture any potential treatment effect of the intervention. Nevertheless, as individual medications may mechanistically differ in their impact on CV outcomes, no particular individual or composite end point can be seen as a "gold standard" for CVOTs of all glucose-lowering drugs.

Empagliflozin and Cerebrovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at High Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), empagliflozin added to standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk reduced the risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, with no significant difference between empagliflozin and placebo in risk of myocardial infarction or stroke. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, the hazard ratio for stroke was 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.56; P=0.26). We further investigated cerebrovascular events. METHODS: Patients were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo; 7020 patients were treated. Median observation time was 3.1 years. RESULTS: The numeric difference in stroke between empagliflozin and placebo in the modified intent-to-treat analysis was primarily because of 18 patients in the empagliflozin group with a first event >90 days after last intake of study drug (versus 3 on placebo). In a sensitivity analysis based on events during treatment or ≤90 days after last dose of drug, the hazard ratio for stroke with empagliflozin versus placebo was 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.45; P=0.60). There were no differences in risk of recurrent, fatal, or disabling strokes, or transient ischemic attack, with empagliflozin versus placebo. Patients with the largest increases in hematocrit or largest decreases in systolic blood pressure did not have an increased risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, there was no significant difference in the risk of cerebrovascular events with empagliflozin versus placebo. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01131676.

Influence of common polymorphisms in the SLC5A2 gene on metabolic traits in subjects at increased risk of diabetes and on response to empagliflozin treatment in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Inhibition of the renal sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) is a novel concept in the therapy of diabetes mellitus. In this study, we first assessed whether common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the SGLT2-encoding gene SLC5A2 affect diabetes-related metabolic traits in subjects at risk for type 2 diabetes and, second, whether these have pharmacogenetic relevance by interfering with the response to empagliflozin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Samples from a metabolically well-phenotyped cross-sectional study population (total N=2600) at increased risk for type 2 diabetes and pooled pharmacogenetic samples from patients from four phase III trials of empagliflozin (in total: 603 receiving empagliflozin, 305 receiving placebo) were genotyped for five common SNPs (minor allele frequencies ≥5%) present in the SLC5A2 gene locus. RESULTS: In the cross-sectional study, none of the SLC5A2 SNPs significantly influenced metabolic traits such as body fat, insulin sensitivity/resistance, insulin release, HbA1c, plasma glucose, or systolic blood pressure when multiple testing was taken into account (all P≥0.0083). Further, no relevant effect on response to treatment with empagliflozin on HbA1c, fasting glucose, weight, or systolic blood pressure was observed for the SNPs tested in the pharmacogenetic study. CONCLUSION: Common genetic variants in the SLC5A2 gene neither affects diabetes-related metabolic traits nor have a clinically relevant impact on response to treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin.

Glucose Exposure and Variability with Empagliflozin as Adjunct to Insulin in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data from a 4-Week, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial (EASE-1).

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effect of empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin on 24-h glucose exposure and variability in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (N = 75) with HbA1c ≥7.5% to ≤10.5% were randomized to receive empagliflozin 2.5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo once daily as adjunct to insulin for 4 weeks. Insulin dose was to be kept as stable as possible during week 1 of treatment and was freely adjustable thereafter. Markers of glucose exposure and variability were assessed from 7-day blinded continuous glucose monitoring intervals. This study is completed ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969747). RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced hourly mean glucose area under the median curve over 24 h versus placebo within week 1 (adjusted mean differences: -12.2 mg/dL·h [95% confidence interval -23.9 to -0.5], -30.2 mg/dL·h [-42.2 to -18.2], and -33.0 mg/dL·h [-44.8 to -21.1] with empagliflozin 2.5, 10, and 25 mg, respectively; all P < 0.05) and increased time in glucose target range (>70 to ≤180 mg/dL). Results were sustained to week 4 with empagliflozin 25 mg. All empagliflozin doses significantly reduced glucose variability (interquartile range and mean amplitude of glucose excursions) versus placebo at weeks 1 and 4. Except for small increases in hours per day with glucose ≤70 mg/dL during the stable insulin period, empagliflozin did not increase time in hypoglycemia compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin decreased glucose exposure and variability and increased time in glucose target range.

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 as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: Two 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trials.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin vs placebo as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with inadequate glycaemic control despite stable-dose metformin received open-label empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or 25 mg (study 2) as add-on therapy for 16 weeks. Subsequently, those with HbA1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.5% (>53 and ≤91 mmol/mol) (N = 482) were randomized to 24 weeks' double-blind, double-dummy treatment with linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 1, or to linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 2; all patients continued treatment with metformin and empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or metformin and empagliflozin 25 mg (study 2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline (defined as the last value before first intake of randomized, double-blind treatment) in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: At week 24, HbA1c (mean baseline 7.82-8.04 [62-64 mmol/mol]) was significantly reduced with linagliptin vs placebo; adjusted mean (SE) differences in change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin vs placebo were -.32% (.10) (-3.59 [1.08] mmol/mol) ( P = .001) for patients on empagliflozin 10 mg and metformin, and -0.47% (0.10) (-5.15 [1.04] mmol/mol) ( P < 0.001) for patients on empagliflozin 25 mg and metformin. Adverse events were reported in more patients receiving placebo than in those receiving linagliptin: 55.5% vs 48.4% in study 1 and 58.9% vs 52.7% in study 2. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin for 24 weeks improved glycaemic control vs placebo, and was well tolerated.