-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor) and voglibose (an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor) monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c > or =6.5% and <10.0%) on diet and exercise.
In a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 319 patients were randomized (1:1) to 12-week treatment with sitagliptin 50 mg once daily or voglibose 0.2 mg thrice daily before meals. The primary analysis assessed whether sitagliptin was non-inferior to voglibose in lowering HbA1c.
After 12 weeks, sitagliptin was non-inferior to voglibose for HbA1c-lowering efficacy. Furthermore, sitagliptin was superior to voglibose, providing significantly greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline [least squares mean changes in HbA1c [95% confidence intervals (CI)] = -0.7% (-0.8 to -0.6) and -0.3% (-0.4 to -0.2), respectively; between-group difference = -0.4% (-0.5 to -0.3), p < 0.001]. Sitagliptin was also superior to voglibose on other key efficacy endpoints, including change from baseline in 2-h postmeal glucose (-2.8 mmol/l vs. -1.8 mmol/l, p < 0.001) and fasting plasma glucose (-1.1 mmol/l vs. -0.5 mmol/l, p < 0.001). After 12 weeks, the incidences of clinical adverse experiences (AEs), drug-related AEs and gastrointestinal AEs in the sitagliptin group (48.5, 10.4 and 18.4%, respectively) were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those in the voglibose group (64.7, 26.3 and 34.6%, respectively). The incidences of hypoglycaemia, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were low and similar in both groups.
In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, once-daily sitagliptin monotherapy showed greater efficacy and better tolerability than thrice-daily voglibose over 12 weeks.
Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 07/2010; 12(7):613-22. · 3.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To develop predictive formulas using short-term changes in glycaemic parameters [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG)] with sitagliptin, a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, to assess longer term steady-state changes in HbA1c.
Results from two, 12-week, double-blind studies of sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg were used to construct linear models to develop predictive formulas based on study 1 (S1) and to validate them using study 2 (S2). HbA1c and FPG were the primary and the key secondary end-point for both studies and were both used to develop predictive formulas.
The predictive formulas using HbA1c+/-FPG results (slope of change) from week 0 to week 4 in S1 showed high correlations between fitted and observed week 12 HbA1c: for HbA1c alone R2=0.76, for HbA1c+FPG R2=0.89. When using the sitagliptin 100 mg group of S2 data set to assess the validity of the predictive formulas, high correlations for HbA1c alone (R2=0.76) and for HbA1c+FPG (R2=0.77) were also observed. Data using a lower dose (25 mg once daily) of sitagliptin also demonstrated similar results.
The early responses (over 4 weeks) in HbA1c and FPG with sitagliptin can be used to accurately predict later responses (at week 12) in HbA1c in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Additional studies applying this approach to other agents with diverse mechanisms are important.
Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 06/2009; 11(8):813-8. · 3.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.
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.
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.
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.
Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 07/2008; 10(7):545-55. · 3.38 Impact Factor
