Article

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, compared with the sulfonylurea, glipizide, in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin alone: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Diabeteszentrum Bad Lauterberg im Harz, Bad Lauterberg, Germany.
Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (Impact Factor: 5.46). 04/2007; 9(2):194-205. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2006.00704.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin vs. glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control [haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) > or = 6.5 and < or = 10%] on metformin monotherapy.
After a metformin dose titration/stabilization period (> or = 1500 mg/day), 1172 patients were randomized to the addition of sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. (N = 588) or glipizide 5 mg/day (uptitrated to a potential maximum 20 mg/day) (N = 584) for 52 weeks. The primary analysis assessed whether sitagliptin was non-inferior to glipizide regarding HbA(1c) changes from baseline at Week 52 using a per-protocol approach.
From a mean baseline of 7.5%, HbA(1c) changes from baseline were -0.67% at Week 52 in both groups, confirming non-inferiority. The proportions achieving an HbA(1c) < 7% were 63% (sitagliptin) and 59% (glipizide). Fasting plasma glucose changes from baseline were -0.56 mmol/l (-10.0 mg/dl) and -0.42 mmol/l (-7.5 mg/dl) for sitagliptin and glipizide, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia episodes was significantly (p < 0.001) higher with glipizide (32%) than with sitagliptin (5%), with 657 events in glipizide-treated patients compared with 50 events in sitagliptin-treated patients. Sitagliptin led to weight loss (change from baseline =-1.5 kg) compared with weight gain (+1.1 kg) with glipizide [between-treatment difference (95% confidence interval) =-2.5 kg (-3.1, -2.0); p < 0.001].
In this study, the addition of sitagliptin compared with glipizide provided similar HbA(1c)-lowering efficacy over 52 weeks in patients on ongoing metformin therapy. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to glipizide and with weight loss compared with weight gain with glipizide.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
282 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: asi todas las guías a nivel mundial colocan a metformina como el antidiabético de primera elección en el manejo de pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 en conjunto con la modificación de estilos de vida. (1,2) Los argumentos a favor de usar metformina incluyen su experiencia a través del tiempo, bajo riesgo de hipoglicemia, su efecto neutro sobre el peso (en algunas ocasiones pérdida de peso) y seguridad cardiovascular. Sin embargo, la evidencia clínica (3) indica que con el pasar del tiempo, el paciente no sostiene el control glicémico con este agente y eventualmente desarrolla hiperglicemia. Posterior a 1997, han aparecido una gran cantidad de grupos terapéuticos tanto en forma de agentes orales como parenterales para el manejo de diabetes tipo 2. Éstos incluyen tiazolidinedionas, inhibidores de alfa glucosidasa, meglitinides, inhibidores de DPP-4, análogos de GLP-1, análogos de amilina, resinas captadoras de ácidos biliares, bromocriptina, análogos de insulina e inhibidores del transporte renal de glucosa (SGLT-2). Cada uno de estos grupos terapéuticos tienen sus pros y contras. La prueba del tiempo ha hecho que muchos de estos grupos no se usan extensamente, ya sea por tolerancia, falta de eficacia o costos. No está bien establecido cuál debe ser el mejor acompañante de la metformina para ser usado como agente de segunda línea. En este artículo se revisan los riesgos y beneficios de las clases terapéuticas más usadas y se enfatizará en ensayos clínicos comparativos cuando exista la evidencia. Cuándo hay que pensar en agregar un segundo agente? En la historia natural de la diabetes tipo 2, hay una falla progresiva de la célula beta (4) que hasta el momento no podemos modificar. El tratamiento con metformina no modifica tampoco esta evolución. Las guías de tratamiento hoy en día recomiendan individualizar metas de Hba1c basado en características de cada paciente que incluyen morbilidad asociada, edad, tiempo de evolución, riesgo de hipoglicemia y presencia de enfermedad cardiovascular. (1) Las recomendaciones más estrictas incluyen metas de Hba1c menores de 6.5% y las menos estrictas hasta 7-7.5%. El momento de agregar un segundo agente a la metformina es básicamente cuando no alcanzamos la meta que definimos para ese paciente luego de 3-4 meses de tratamiento con este fármaco.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since their introduction to clinical practice in the 1950s, sulfonylureas have been widely prescribed for use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Of all the other medications currently available for clinical use, only metformin has been used more frequently. However, several new drug classes have emerged that are reported to have equal glucose-lowering efficacy and greater safety when added to treatment of patients in whom metformin monotherapy is no longer sufficient. Moreover, current arguments also suggest that the alternative drugs may be superior to sulfonylureas with regard to the risk of cardiovascular complications. Thus, while there is universal agreement that metformin should remain the first-line pharmacologic therapy for those in whom lifestyle modification is insufficient to control hyperglycemia, there is no consensus as to which drug should be added to metformin. Therefore, given the current controversy, we provide a Point-Counterpoint on this issue. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Abrahamson provides his argument suggesting that avoiding use of sulfonylureas as a class of medication as an add-on to metformin is not appropriate as there are many patients whose glycemic control would improve with use of these drugs with minimal risk of adverse events. In the counterpoint narrative below, Dr. Genuth suggests there is no longer a need for sulfonylureas to remain a first-line addition to metformin for those patients whose clinical characteristics are appropriate and whose health insurance and/or financial resources make an alternative drug affordable.-William T. CefaluEditor in Chief, Diabetes Care. © 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.
    Diabetes Care 01/2015; 38(1):170-5. DOI:10.2337/dc14-0565 · 8.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The specification of a margin in a noninferiority trial is often subject to challenge and disagreement. One reason for the contentious discussion is the concern about the validity of the constancy and assay sensitivity assumptions that accompany all such trials. But the main reason for disagreement is the subjectivity associated with the different current procedures that are used to determine the noninferiority margin. This article introduces the concept of an inferiority index between two distributions and establishes its link to an effect measure. Through this relationship, the inferiority index can be used as a standard measure to assess the degree of tightness of any given noninferiority margin and, in conjunction with clinical knowledge and available historical data, it can also guide the selection of a margin. Specifically, this relationship is investigated under survival, normal, and binomial distributions. A general theorem is given that establishes the asymptotic normality of a test statistic for the noninferiority hypothesis defined by the noninferiority margin so derived. Some examples from noninferiority trials are used to illustrate the usefulness of the inferiority index.
    Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 05/2011; 3(2):288-301. DOI:10.1198/sbr.2011.10027 · 0.70 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download