Exploring early combination strategy in Latin American patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a sub-analysis of the VERIFY study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from Latin American countries face challenges in access to healthcare, leading to under-diagnosis, under-achievement of glycemic target, and long-term complications. Early diagnosis and treatment initiation are of paramount importance in this population due to the high prevalence of risk factors such as obesity and metabolic syndrome. The VERIFY study in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM (across 34 countries), assessed the normoglycemic durability (5 years), with early combination (EC) therapy approach versus the traditional stepwise approach of initiating treatment with metformin monotherapy (MET). Here we present the results from the VERIFY study for participants from eight countries in Latin America. METHODS: Newly diagnosed adult patients with T2DM, HbA1c 6.5-7.5% and body-mass index (BMI) of 22-40 kg/m2 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was time to initial treatment failure (TF; HbA1c ≥ 7.0% at two consecutive scheduled visits 13 weeks apart). Time to second TF was evaluated when patients in both groups were receiving and failing on the vildagliptin combination. Safety and tolerability were also assessed for both treatment approaches during the study. RESULTS: A total of 537 eligible patients (female, 58.8%) were randomly assigned to receive either EC (n = 266) or MET (n = 271). EC significantly reduced the relative risk of time to initial TF by 47% versus MET [HR (95% CI) 0.53 (0.4, 0.7) p < 0.0001]. Overall, 46.4% versus 66.3% of patients achieved the primary endpoint in the EC and MET groups, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to TF of 59.8 (27.5, not evaluable) and 33.4 (12.2, 60.1) months, respectively. The risk for time to second TF was 31% lower with EC (p < 0.0092). A higher proportion of patients receiving EC maintained durable HbA1c < 7.0%, < 6.5%, and < 6.0%. Both treatment approaches were well tolerated, and only 3.2% of participants discontinued the study due to adverse events. All hypoglycemic events (EC: n = 7 and MET: n = 3) were single, mild episodes and did not lead to study discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Similar to the global population, long-term clinical benefits were achieved more frequently and without tolerability issues with EC versus standard-of-care MET in this Latin American sub-population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01528254.

Long-Term Glycaemic Durability of Early Combination Therapy Strategy versus Metformin Monotherapy in Korean Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

We assessed the glycaemic durability with early combination (EC; vildagliptin+metformin [MET], n=22) versus MET monotherapy (n=17), among newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) enrolled (between 2012 and 2014) in the VERIFY study from Korea (n=39). Primary endpoint was time to initial treatment failure (TF) (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥7.0% at two consecutive scheduled visits after randomization [end of period 1]). Time to second TF was assessed when both groups were receiving and failing on the combination (end of period 2). With EC the risk of initial TF significantly reduced by 78% compared to MET (n=3 [15%] vs. n=10 [58.7%], P=0.0228). No secondary TF occurred in EC group versus five patients (29.4%) in MET. Patients receiving EC treatment achieved consistently lower HbA1c levels. Both treatment approaches were well tolerated with no hypoglycaemic events. In Korean patients with newly diagnosed T2DM, EC treatment significantly and consistently improved the long-term glycaemic durability as compared with MET.

Licogliflozin, a Novel SGLT1 and 2 Inhibitor: Body Weight Effects in a Randomized Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the dose response of licogliflozin, a dual inhibitor of sodium/glucose cotransporter 1 (SGLT1) and 2 (SGLT2), by evaluating change in body weight in adults with overweight or obesity. METHODS: This dose-response analysis evaluated change in body weight following 24 weeks with four once-daily and twice-daily licogliflozin doses (2.5-150 mg) versus placebo (primary end point). A further 24-week analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of two once-daily licogliflozin doses in maintaining initial weight reduction. RESULTS: Licogliflozin once daily or twice daily produced a significant dose-response signal for weight loss versus placebo (P < 0.0001). However, mean adjusted percent changes in body weight after 24 weeks were modest, ranging from -0.45% to -3.83% (in the 50 mg twice daily group [95% CI: -5.26% to -2.48%]; n = 75). Responder analysis of ≥ 5% weight loss at week 24 revealed significant differences versus placebo, which were most pronounced with highest doses of 50 mg twice daily (45.3%) and 150 mg once daily (42.9%) (both P < 0.01). While weight loss was greater at higher doses, gastrointestinal adverse events were also more frequent. The 50-mg once-daily dose had perhaps the best balance between efficacy and tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: Licogliflozin produced significant reductions in body weight versus placebo. However, the magnitude of weight reduction was modest.

Effects of the dual sodium-glucose linked transporter inhibitor, licogliflozin vs placebo or empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure.

AIMS: Explore the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the dual sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 inhibitor, licogliflozin in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel-group phase IIA study randomized 125 patients with T2DM and heart failure (New York Heart Association II-IV; plasma N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] >300 pg/mL) to licogliflozin (2.5 mg, 10 mg, 50 mg) taken at bedtime, empagliflozin (25 mg) or placebo (44 patients completed the study). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in NT-proBNP after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, weight, blood pressure, fasting lipid profile, high-sensitivity c-reactive protein, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Licogliflozin 10 mg for 12 weeks significantly reduced NT-proBNP vs placebo (Geometric mean ratio 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.33, 0.95], P = .033). A trend was observed with 50 mg licogliflozin (0.64 [95% confidence interval: 0.40, 1.03], P = .064), with no difference between licogliflozin and empagliflozin. The largest numerical decreases in glycated haemoglobin were with licogliflozin 50 mg (-0.58 ± 0.34%) and empagliflozin (-0.44 ± 1.18%) vs placebo (-0.04 ± 0.91%). The reduction in body weight was similar with licogliflozin 50 mg (-2.15 ± 2.40 kg) and empagliflozin (-2.25 ± 1.89 kg). A numerical reduction in systolic blood pressure was seen with licogliflozin 50 mg (-9.54 ± 16.88 mmHg) and empagliflozin (-6.98 ± 15.03 mmHg) vs placebo (-2.85 ± 11.97 mmHg). Adverse events (AEs) were mild, including hypotension (6.5%), hypoglycaemia (8.1%) and inadequate diabetes control (1.6%). The incidence of diarrhoea (4.9%) was lower than previously reported. CONCLUSION: The reduction in NT-proBNP with licogliflozin suggests a potential benefit of SGLT1 and 2 inhibition in patients with T2DM and heart failure.

Glycaemic durability of an early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus sequential metformin monotherapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (VERIFY): a 5-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Early treatment intensification leading to sustained good glycaemic control is essential to delay diabetic complications. Although initial combination therapy has been suggested to offer more opportunities than a traditional stepwise approach, its validity remains to be determined. METHODS: Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmIn For earlY treatment of type 2 diabetes (VERIFY) was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes conducted in 254 centres across 34 countries. The study consisted of a 2-week screening visit, a 3-week metformin-alone run-in period, and a 5-year treatment period, which was further split into study periods 1, 2, and 3. Patients aged 18-70 years were included if they had type 2 diabetes diagnosed within 2 years prior to enrolment, and centrally confirmed glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 48-58 mmol/mol (6·5-7·5%) and a body-mass index of 22-40 kg/m2. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to the early combination treatment group or to the initial metformin monotherapy group, with the help of an interactive response technology system and simple randomisation without stratification. Patients, investigators, clinical staff performing the assessments, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. In study period 1, patients received either the early combination treatment with metformin (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily, or standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and placebo twice daily. If the initial treatment did not maintain HbA1c below 53 mmol/mol (7·0%), confirmed at two consecutive scheduled visits which were 13 weeks apart, patients in the metformin monotherapy group received vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily in place of the placebo and entered study period 2, during which all patients received the combination therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from randomisation to initial treatment failure, defined as HbA1c measurement of at least 53 mmol/mol (7·0%) at two consecutive scheduled visits, 13 weeks apart from randomisation through period 1. The full analysis set included patients who received at least one randomised study medication and had at least one post-randomisation efficacy parameter assessed. The safety analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01528254. FINDINGS: Trial enrolment began on March 30, 2012, and was completed on April 10, 2014. Of the 4524 participants screened, 2001 eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the early combination treatment group (n=998) or the initial metformin monotherapy group (n=1003). A total of 1598 (79·9%) patients completed the 5-year study: 811 (81·3%) in the early combination therapy group and 787 (78·5%) in the monotherapy group. The incidence of initial treatment failure during period 1 was 429 (43·6%) patients in the combination treatment group and 614 (62·1%) patients in the monotherapy group. The median observed time to treatment failure in the monotherapy group was 36·1 (IQR 15·3-not reached [NR]) months, while the median time to treatment failure time for those receiving early combination therapy could only be estimated to be beyond the study duration at 61·9 (29·9-NR) months. A significant reduction in the relative risk for time to initial treatment failure was observed in the early combination treatment group compared with the monotherapy group over the 5-year study duration (hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·45-0·58]; p<0·0001). Both treatment approaches were safe and well tolerated, with no unexpected or new safety findings, and no deaths related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Early intervention with a combination therapy of vildagliptin plus metformin provides greater and durable long-term benefits compared with the current standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Novartis.

A pre-specified statistical analysis plan for the VERIFY study: Vildagliptin efficacy in combination with metformin for early treatment of T2DM.

AIMS: To ensure the integrity of the planned analyses and maximize the clinical utility of the VERIFY study results by describing the detailed concepts behind its statistical analysis plan (SAP) before completion of data collection and study database lock. The SAP will be adhered to for the final primary data analysis of the VERIFY trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Vildagliptin efficacy in combination with metformin for early treatment of T2DM (VERIFY) is an ongoing, multicentre, randomized controlled trial aiming to demonstrate the clinical benefits of glycaemic durability and glucose control achieved with an early combination therapy in newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. RESULTS: The SAP was initially designed at the study protocol conception phase and later modified, as reported here, in collaboration between the steering committee members, statisticians, and the VERIFY study leadership team. All authors were blinded to treatment allocation. An independent statistician has additionally retrieved and presented unblinded data to the independent data safety monitoring committee. An overview of the trial design with a focus on describing the fine-tuning of the analysis plan for the primary efficacy endpoint, risk of initial treatment failure, and secondary, exploratory and pre-specified subgroup analyses is provided here. CONCLUSION: According to optimal trial practice, the details of the statistical analysis and data-handling plan prior to locking the database are reported here. The SAP accords with high-quality standards of internal validity to minimize analysis bias and will enhance the utility of the reported results for improved outcomes in the management of T2DM.

FTY720 combined with tacrolimus in de novo renal transplantation: 1-year, multicenter, open-label randomized study.

BACKGROUND: FTY720 (fingolimod), a novel immunomodulator, has demonstrated potential for prevention of acute rejection in combination with cyclosporine. METHODS: This study evaluated FTY720 2.5 mg versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in a combination regimen with standard tacrolimus and corticosteroids in de novo renal transplant recipients for the composite efficacy within 6 months of transplantation. RESULTS: Incidence of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection was 22.9% with FTY720 and 18.5% with MMF. Increased incidence of macular oedema, transient decrease in heart rate and low rate of infections were seen in the FTY720 arm. CONCLUSION: FTY720 combined with tacrolimus and steroids did not show a significant therapeutic advantage over MMF for the prevention of acute rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients.

Pharmacokinetics of sotrastaurin combined with tacrolimus or mycophenolic acid in de novo kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Sotrastaurin is a protein kinase C inhibitor in the development for prevention of organ rejection after renal transplantation. METHODS: In a multicenter phase 2 trial, 216 de novo renal transplant recipients were randomized to mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure tacrolimus (treatment A, n=74), 200 mg sotrastaurin twice daily with standard-exposure tacrolimus (treatment B, n=76), or 200 mg sotrastaurin twice daily with reduced-exposure tacrolimus (treatment C, n=66). After month 3, tacrolimus was replaced with MPA in arms B and C. The longitudinal pharmacokinetics of sotrastaurin and tacrolimus were prospectively evaluated through month 6. RESULTS: Sotrastaurin predose drug concentration (C0) was 0.6±0.4 µg/mL and did not differ when combined with standard-exposure versus reduced-exposure tacrolimus (P=0.99) nor when tacrolimus was replaced by MPA (P=0.11). Sotrastaurin peak concentration was 1.6±0.6 µg/mL, and area under the drug concentration-time curve over a dosing interval (AUC) was 12.2±4.2 µg hr/mL. Intersubject variability in AUC was 27% and not significantly influenced by age (18-67 years), weight (47-121 kg), sex, or creatinine clearance (36-173 mL/min). Sotrastaurin C0 was positively correlated with AUC (r=0.62, P<0.0001). Sotrastaurin increased tacrolimus concentrations by a pharmacokinetic interaction inasmuch as the tacrolimus dose needed to achieve a given C0 was up to 47% lower when combined with sotrastaurin versus with MPA. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrastaurin pharmacokinetics were similar when combined with reduced-exposure or standard-exposure tacrolimus or with MPA. Tacrolimus exposure was significantly increased by sotrastaurin in the initial weeks posttransplant by a pharmacokinetic interaction.