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.

Download full-text


Available from: Gary Meininger, Apr 08, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Once lifestyle measures implemented, if hyperglycemia persists, above individual HbA1c targets, a medication should be started in type 2 diabetic patients (T2DM). First, unless exception, an oral antidiabetic drug. Except in case of intolerance, the initial monotherapy, metformin remains the strengthening treatment. Latter, combination of two oral drugs, now offers several options, mainly the choice to associate a "conventional insulin-secretor", sulfonylureas, glinide, or a "new one" belonging the class of "incretin", more readily a gliptine (DPP-4 inhibitors) rather than injectable GLP-1 analogue which can also be sometimes chosen at this stage. These options are mostly new and have the advantage a neutral or favourable (for GLP-1) effect on body weight in obese type 2 DM patient and the absence of any hypoglycaemic risk in both classes of incretins. But this risk varies depending on the patient profile, much higher if the target HbA1c is low (6 to 6.5 or 7%), or in the elderly, fragile and/or in case of renal insufficiency. These two different situations with a high risk of hypoglycaemia, define best indications of this new class. If dual oral therapy does not achieve the goals we are faced with three options: triple oral therapy: metformin-sulfonylurea-gliptine or one of two approaches with injections, insulin or GLP-1 analogues. The use of GLP-1 analogues is often delayed today and put wrongly in balance with the transition to insulin, a use already delayed in France and insufficient. The use of incretins is new and needs to be validated by studies of sustainability on glycemic control, prevention of microvascular and macrovascular complications and after years on the market security of use, primarily on the exocrine pancreas. In short, individualization of strategies and HbA1c targets are required, the new molecules can help us in this process. This individualization can easily be done through the handy guide proposed by the experts ADA EASD statement, endorsed by the SFD, abandoning the complex algorithm recently again proposed by HAS and ANSM in 2013. A recommendation that prioritizes the costs of the strategies. An absolutely critical issue, while admitting not to have the tools to measure them in all their dimensions. Finally, we must reconsider every treatment after a maximum of 6months of use, if the results are deemed inadequate substitute rather than adding drugs.
    La Presse Médicale 05/2013; · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Une fois les mesures hygiénodiététiques mises en place, si l’hyperglycémie persiste et selon les cibles d’HbA1c visées, il convient d’entreprendre un traitement médicamenteux. En premier lieu, un antidiabétique oral hormis quelques exceptions. Si la monothérapie initiale, sauf intolérance, reste la metformine, le renforcement du traitement offre maintenant plusieurs options, principalement le choix de lui associer un « insulino-sécréteur conventionnel », sulfonylurées, glinide, ou un « nouvel insulino-sécréteur » de la classe des incrétines, plus volontiers une gliptine (inhibiteurs des DPP-4) plutôt qu’un analogue du GLP-1 injectable qui peut aussi être parfois choisi dès ce stade. Ces options sont nouvelles et offrent principalement l’avantage de l’absence de risque hypoglycémique et d’un effet neutre ou favorable sur le poids. Mais ce risque est très variable selon les patients, il est d’autant plus élevé que la cible HbA1c est basse (6,5 à 7 %) ou le sujet âgé, fragile et/ou insuffisant rénal. Ici dans ces deux situations le risque hypoglycémique, selon nous, définit les meilleures indications de cette nouvelle classe. Si la bithérapie orale ne permet pas d’atteindre les objectifs on est face à trois options : une trithérapie orale, metformine–sulfonylurées–gliptine ou une des deux approches injectables, la mise à l’insuline ou l’injection de GLP-1. L’usage des analogues du GLP-1 est donc souvent aujourd’hui retardé et mis, à tort, en balance avec le passage à l’insuline, recours déjà jugé tardif et insuffisant en France. L’usage des incrétines est récent et doit être validé par des études de durabilité sur le contrôle glycémique, sur la prévention des complications micro- et macrovasculaires (en cours) et après mise sur le marché sur la sécurité d’emploi, risque pancréatique exocrine principalement. En somme l’individualisation des prescriptions s’impose, les nouvelles molécules peuvent y contribuer, une fois déterminé le « profil patient ». Cette individualisation des objectifs et moyens de traitement peut aisément se faire grâce au guide très pratique proposé par la déclaration des experts ADA EASD, endossée par la SFD, abandonnant les algorithmes complexes encore récemment proposés par la HAS et l’ANSM dans sa recommandation 2013. Une recommandation qui priorise le coût des stratégies, question absolument cruciale, tout en admettant ne pas disposer des moyens de le mesurer dans toutes ses dimensions. Enfin, on doit savoir reconsidérer la thérapeutique choisie, après six mois d’utilisation au maximum, si les résultats sont jugés insuffisants, savoir la remplacer plutôt qu’additionner les molécules.
    La Presse Médicale 05/2013; 42(5):861–870. DOI:10.1016/j.lpm.2013.04.002 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim. We aimed to determine if sitagliptin added to standard postoperative standardized sliding-scale insulin regimens improved blood glucose. Methods. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted in diabetic cardiac surgery patients. Patients received sitagliptin or placebo after surgery for 4 days. The primary endpoint was to estimate the effect of adjunctive sitagliptin versus placebo on overall mean blood glucose in the 4-day period after surgery. Results. Sixty-two patients participated. Repeated measures tests indicated no significant difference between the groups in the overall mean blood glucose level with a mean of 147.2 ± 4.8 mg/dL and 153.0 ± 4.6 mg/dL for the test and the control group, respectively (P = 0.388). Conclusions. Sitagliptin added to normal postoperative glucose management practices did not improve overall mean blood glucose control in diabetic patients in the postoperative setting.
    International Journal of Endocrinology 01/2012; 2012:810926. DOI:10.1155/2012/810926 · 1.52 Impact Factor