Risk for Hospitalized Heart Failure Among New Users of Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin, and Other Antihyperglycemic Drugs: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Recent postmarketing trials produced conflicting results about the risk for hospitalized heart failure (hHF) associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, creating uncertainty about the safety of these antihyperglycemic agents.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the associations of hHF with saxagliptin and sitagliptin.

DESIGN

Population-based, retrospective, new-user cohort study.

SETTING

18 health insurance and health system data partners in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program.

PATIENTS

Patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who initiated therapy with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, second-generation sulfonylureas, or long-acting insulin products from 2006 to 2013.

MEASUREMENTS

Hospitalized HF, identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 402.x1, 404.x1, 404.x3, and 428.xx recorded as the principal discharge diagnosis.

RESULTS

78 553 saxagliptin users and 298 124 sitagliptin users contributed an average of 7 to 9 months of follow-up data to 1 or more pairwise comparisons. The risk for hHF was not higher with DPP-4 inhibitors than with the other study drugs. The hazard ratios from the disease risk score (DRS)-stratified analyses were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) for saxagliptin versus sitagliptin, 0.63 (CI, 0.47 to 0.85) for saxagliptin versus pioglitazone, 0.69 (CI, 0.54 to 0.87) for saxagliptin versus sulfonylureas, and 0.61 (CI, 0.50 to 0.73) for saxagliptin versus insulin. The DRS-stratified hazard ratios were 0.74 (CI, 0.64 to 0.85) for sitagliptin versus pioglitazone, 0.86 (CI, 0.77 to 0.95) for sitagliptin versus sulfonylureas, and 0.71 (CI, 0.64 to 0.78) for sitagliptin versus insulin. Results from the 1:1 propensity score-matched analyses were similar. Results were also similar in subgroups of patients with and without prior cardiovascular disease and in a subgroup defined by the 2 highest DRS deciles.

LIMITATION

Residual confounding and short follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort study, a higher risk for hHF was not observed in users of saxagliptin or sitagliptin compared with other selected antihyperglycemic agents.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in hemodialysis patients with diabetic nephropathy: A randomized open-label prospective trial

AIMS

Saxagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that was approved in Japan for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2013. We examined its efficacy and safety in Japanese hemodialysis patients with diabetic nephropathy.

METHODS

In this prospective, open-label, parallel-group study, Japanese hemodialysis patients were randomized to receive either oral saxagliptin (2.5mg/day) or usual care (control group) for 24weeks. Before randomization, patients received fixed doses of conventional antidiabetic drugs (oral drugs and/or insulin) for 8weeks; these drugs were continued during the study. Endpoints included changes in glycated albumin (GA), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Both groups included 41 patients. Mean GA, HbA1c, and PPG decreased significantly in the saxagliptin group (-3.4%, -0.6% [-7mmol/mol], and -38.3mg/dL, respectively; all P<0.0001) but not in the control group (0%, -0.1% [-1mmol/mol], and -3.7mg/dL, respectively) (P<0.0001, P<0.001, and P<0.0001, respectively). In saxagliptin-treated patients, the reduction in GA was significantly greater when saxagliptin was administered as monotherapy than in combination therapy (-4.2% vs. -3.0%, P=0.012) despite similar baseline values (24.5% vs. 23.3%). Reductions in GA, HbA1c, and PPG were greater in patients whose baseline values exceeded the median (23.8% for GA, 6.6% for HbA1c, and 180mg/dL for PPG). There were no adverse events associated with saxagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin (2.5mg/day) was effective and well tolerated when used as monotherapy or combined with other antidiabetic drugs in Japanese hemodialysis patients with type 2 diabetes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000018445.

A post hoc analysis of saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes stratified by UKPDS 10-year cardiovascular risk score

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin 2.5 and 5 mg/d in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and high risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) or stroke as estimated by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Post hoc analysis of data pooled from 5 previously reported phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week studies was conducted. Patients were stratified into subgroups by UKPDS 10-year CHD and/or stroke risk ≥20% and CHD and stroke risk <20%. End points were adjusted mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 120-min postprandial glucose (PPG), and body weight and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% and ≤8% at week 24. Pooled safety data were analyzed for adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycemia. Both doses of saxagliptin reduced HbA1c, FPG, and PPG to a greater extent than placebo regardless of UKPDS risk score. The proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% and ≤8% were greater with saxagliptin than placebo and consistent across risk score groups. AE profile and hypoglycemia incidence were similar for saxagliptin and placebo across UKPDS risk score groups.

CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin was well tolerated and improved glycemic control in patients with T2DM regardless of their CHD and stroke UKPDS risk score. Clinical trial registration numbers: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00121641, NCT00316082, NCT00121667, NCT00313313, and NCT00295633.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and heart failure: Analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We tested the possible association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4-I) use and heart failure (HF) occurrence by assessing the publicly available US-FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

METHODS

FAERS data reporting HF and DPP-4-Is use in the period from the fourth quarter of 2006 through 2013 were extracted, using the Standardized MedDRA Query "Cardiac failure". Disproportionality (case/non-case method) was implemented by calculating Reporting Odds Ratios (RORs) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI): (1) exploratory analysis on the entire FAERS (using rosiglitazone as positive control); (2) consolidated analyses by therapeutic area (within antidiabetics), correcting for event- and drug-related competition bias and adjusting for co-reported drugs as confounders.

RESULTS

HF during DPP4-I use was recorded in 390 reports (4.4% of total reports). In exploratory analysis, statistically significant ROR emerged for DPP-4-I as a class (ROR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.05-1.29), saxagliptin (1.68; 1.29-2.17), vildagliptin (2.39; 1.38-4.14), and rosiglitazone (13.98; 13.30-14.70). In consolidated analyses, the ROR for saxagliptin (2.60; 1.92-3.50) and vildagliptin (4.07; 2.28-7.27) increased, and became also significant for sitagliptin (1.61; 1.40-1.86). Concomitant drugs were reported in more than 50% of cases; the adjusted RORs of saxagliptin (2.30; 1.70-3.10), vildagliptin (3.15; 1.76-5.63), and sitagliptin (1.48; 1.28-1.71) were nonetheless significant.

CONCLUSION

FAERS data are consistent with clinical studies on a possible association between saxagliptin and HF. The disproportionate reporting of HF with sitagliptin, conflicting with a recent phase IV trial, suggests that cardiovascular safety requires close post-marketing vigilance by clinicians of individual DPP-4-I in the community until the issue of class effect is solved.

Frequency of cancer events with saxagliptin in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial

The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 53 trial randomized trial of 16,492 patients (placebo, n = 8212; saxagliptin, n = 8280) treated and followed for a median of 2.1 years afforded an opportunity to explore whether there was any association with cancer reported as a serious adverse event. At least one cancer event was reported by 688 patients (4.1%): 362 (4.3%) and 326 (3.8%) in the placebo and saxagliptin arms, respectively (p = 0.13). There were 59 (0.6%) deaths adjudicated as malignancy deaths with placebo and 53 (0.6%) with saxagliptin. Stratification by gender, age, race and ethnicity, diabetes duration, baseline glycated haemoglobin and pharmacotherapy did not show any clinically meaningful differences between the two study arms. The overall number of cancer events and malignancy-associated mortality rates were generally balanced between the placebo and saxagliptin groups, suggesting a null relationship with saxagliptin use over the median follow-up of 2.1 years. Multivariable modelling showed that male gender, dyslipidaemia and current smoking were independent predictors of cancer. These randomized data with adequate numbers of cancer cases are reassuring but limited, by the short follow-up in a trial not designed to test this hypothesis.

Utility of Saxagliptin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Review of Efficacy and Safety

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex disease in which multiple organs and hormones contribute to the pathogenesis of disease. The intestinal hormone, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), secreted in response to nutrient ingestion, increases insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells and reduces glucagon secretion from pancreatic α-cells. GLP-1 is inactivated by the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) enzyme. Saxagliptin is a DPP-4 inhibitor that prevents the degradation of endogenous GLP-1 and prolongs its actions on insulin and glucagon secretion. This article reviews the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify relevant, peer-reviewed saxagliptin clinical trial articles published between January 2008 and June 2015. Search terms included "saxagliptin" and "DPP-4 inhibitors".

RESULTS

In clinical trials, saxagliptin significantly improved glycemic control when used as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to other antidiabetes agents and was associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. In a large cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial (SAVOR) in patients with T2DM and with established CV disease or multiple CV risk factors, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased CV risk compared with placebo as assessed by the composite end point of death from CV causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Unexpectedly, more patients in the saxagliptin (3.5%) than in the placebo group (2.8%) were hospitalized for heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control and a low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM. However, this positive profile needs to be tempered by the observation of an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the SAVOR trial. Results from ongoing CV outcome trials with other DPP-4 inhibitors may provide additional data on how best to manage patients with T2DM who are at risk for heart failure.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca LP.

Oral hypoglycemic agents and the heart failure conundrum: Lessons from and for outcome trials

AIM

Type 2 diabetes is not only an independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease but is also associated with a greater incidence of heart failure (HF). The aim of this review is to examine the effects of oral antidiabetic drugs on CV disease and HF.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Trials of anti-diabetic agents are now designed to assess CV safety, but frequently HF is not included as a primary endpoint. However, HF in patients with diabetes is more frequent than other CV events and seems to be underestimated. A burning question is therefore if the most used trial design to monitor CV safety, i.e. non-inferiority, allows clinical translation of trial findings. Available data further suggest that the CV effects of anti-diabetic drugs may be rather class-specific and are only partly due to their glucose-lowering actions. Metformin, recommended as first line in most guidelines, shows positive CV effects while other classes like thiazolidinediones may precipitate HF. Experimental results on the relatively novel dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP IV) inhibitors imply CV protective effects, but the non-inferiority trials published to date show an overall neutral CV outcome and a potential increase in HF by saxagliptin. However, results on sitagliptin of the recently released TECOS indicate that HF is not a class-dependent effect of DPP IV inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Further basic research and long-term outcome studies to clarify the effects of antidiabetic agents on CV and HF are required so that we can select the optimal antidiabetic therapy for our patients.

Artificial sweeteners: safe or unsafe?

Artificial sweeteners or intense sweeteners are sugar substitutes that are used as an alternative to table sugar. They are many times sweeter than natural sugar and as they contain no calories, they may be used to control weight and obesity. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose), if taken in acceptable quantities daily. There is some ongoing debate over whether artificial sweetener usage poses a health threat .This review article aims to cover thehealth benefits, and risks, of consuming artificial sweeteners, and discusses natural sweeteners which can be used as alternatives.

Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin vs glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin + metformin (SAXA + MET) vs glimepiride + metformin (GLI + MET) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with MET in China.

METHODS

The Cardiff Model was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effect of treatments on patients. Systematic literature reviews and hospital surveys were conducted to obtain patients profiles, clinical data, and costs. Health insurance costs (2014¥) were estimated over a 40-year period. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SAXA + MET had lower predicted incidences of cardiovascular and hypoglycemia events and a decreased total cost compared with GLI + MET (¥241,072,807 vs ¥285,455,177). There were increased numbers of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 1.01/patient) and life-years (Lys; 0.03/patient) gained with SAXA + MET compared with GLI + MET, and the incremental cost of SAXA + MET vs GLI + MET (-¥44,382) resulted in -¥43,883/QALY and -¥1,710,926/LY gained with SAXA + MET. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM in China, SAXA + MET was more cost-effective and was well tolerated with fewer adverse effects (AEs) compared with GLI + MET. As a second-line therapy for T2DM, SAXA may address some of the unmet medical needs attributable to AEs in the treatment of T2DM.

Saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving concomitant statin therapy

AIMS

To examine whether concomitant statin therapy affects glycemic control with saxagliptin 2.5 and 5mg/d in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Efficacy and safety were analyzed post hoc for pooled data from 9 saxagliptin randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a primary 24-week treatment period (4 monotherapy, 2 add-on to metformin, 1 each add-on to a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or insulin±metformin). Safety was also assessed in an 11-study, 24-week pool and an extended 20-study pool, which included 9 additional 4- to 52-week randomized studies. Comparisons were performed for patient groups defined by baseline statin use.

RESULTS

Saxagliptin produced greater mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin than placebo, with no interaction between treatment and baseline statin use (P=0.47). In patients receiving saxagliptin 2.5 and 5mg and placebo, the proportion of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE) was 78.1%, 64.0%, and 63.2%, respectively, in patients with any statin use and 70.6%, 57.9%, and 55.0% in patients with no statin use. Serious AEs, deaths, and symptomatic confirmed hypoglycemia (fingerstick glucose ≤50mg/dL) were few and similar, irrespective of baseline statin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin improves glycemic control and is generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM, irrespective of concomitant statin therapy.

Safety of saxagliptin: events of special interest in 9156 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

A post hoc pooled analysis was undertaken to evaluate the safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with attention to events of special interest for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

Pooled analyses were performed for 20 randomized controlled studies (N = 9156) of saxagliptin as monotherapy or add-on therapy, and a subset of 11 saxagliptin + metformin studies. Adverse events and events of special interest (gastrointestinal adverse events, infections, hypersensitivity, pancreatitis, skin lesions, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, hypoglycaemia, bone fracture, severe cutaneous adverse reactions, opportunistic infection, angioedema, malignancy, worsening renal function, and specific laboratory events) were assessed; incidence rates (events/100 person-years) and incidence rates ratios (saxagliptin/control) were calculated (Mantel-Haenszel method).

RESULTS

In both pooled datasets, the incidence rates for deaths, serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, pancreatitis, malignancy, and most other events of special interest, excepting bone fractures and hypersensitivity, were similar between treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incidence rates ratios including 1. In the 20-study pool, the incidence rates per 100 person-years was higher with saxagliptin versus control for bone fractures [1.1 vs 0.6; incidence rates ratio (95% CI), 1.81 (1.04-3.28)] and hypersensitivity adverse events [1.3 vs 0.8; 1.67 (1.01-2.87)].

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled data from 20 studies confirm that saxagliptin has a favourable safety and benefit-risk profile.

Saxagliptin, alone or in combination. No fewer complications; more cases of heart failure?

Still no proof that saxagliptin prevents the clinical complications of diabetes, but an increase in hospitalisations for heart failure in a large trial in patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Evaluation of antimalarial activity and toxicity of a new primaquine prodrug

Plasmodium vivax is the most prevalent of the five species causing malaria in humans. The current available treatment for P. vivax malaria is limited and unsatisfactory due to at least two drawbacks: the undesirable side effects of primaquine (PQ) and drug resistance to chloroquine. Phenylalanine-alanine-PQ (Phe-Ala-PQ) is a PQ prodrug with a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile compared to PQ. The toxicity of this prodrug was evaluated in in vitro assays using a human hepatoma cell line (HepG2), a monkey kidney cell line (BGM), and human red blood cells deficient in the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase (G6PD). In addition, in vivo toxicity assays were performed with rats that received multiple doses of Phe-Ala-PQ to evaluate biochemical, hematological, and histopathological parameters. The activity was assessed by the inhibition of the sporogonic cycle using a chicken malaria parasite. Phe-Ala-PQ blocked malaria transmission in Aedes mosquitoes. When compared with PQ, it was less cytotoxic to BGM and HepG2 cells and caused less hemolysis of G6PD-deficient red blood cells at similar concentrations. The prodrug caused less alteration in the biochemical parameters than did PQ. Histopathological analysis of the liver and kidney did show differences between the control and Phe-Ala-PQ-treated groups, but they were not statistically significant. Taken together, the results highlight the prodrug as a novel lead compound candidate for the treatment of P. vivax malaria and as a blocker of malaria transmission.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recently, the SAVOR TIMI-53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in patients with diabetes mellitus--Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-53) reported a significant increase in the risk of hospitalizations for heart failure in patients treated with saxagliptin in comparison with placebo. Aim of the present meta-analysis is the systematic collection and synthesis of information on treatment-emergent cases of acute heart failure described in randomized clinical trials with DPP4.

DATA SOURCES

An extensive Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database search for "vildagliptin", "sitagliptin", "saxagliptin", "alogliptin", "linagliptin", and "dutogliptin" was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials on humans up to October 1st, 2013. Studies were included if they satisfied the following criteria: i) randomized trials, ii) duration ≥24 weeks; iii) on type 2 diabetes; iv) comparison of DPP4i with placebo or active drugs. The principal outcome was the effect of DPP4i on the incidence of acute heart failure. A total of 84 eligible trials was identified. The overall risk of acute heart failure was higher in patients treated with DPP4i in comparison with those treated with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 1.19[1.03; 1.37]; p = 0.015). When trials with non-cardiovascular outcomes were analysed separately no signal of risk was detectable.

CONCLUSION

Available data from RCTs suggest that DPP4i could be associated with an increased risk of heart failure, without any clear evidence of differences among drugs of the class. Although it is plausible that the risk is greater in some sub-populations of patients, current evidence is not yet sufficient to identify susceptible patients.

Efficacy of a metalloproteinase inhibitor in spinal cord injured dogs

Matrix metalloproteinase-9 is elevated within the acutely injured murine spinal cord and blockade of this early proteolytic activity with GM6001, a broad-spectrum matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, results in improved recovery after spinal cord injury. As matrix metalloproteinase-9 is likewise acutely elevated in dogs with naturally occurring spinal cord injuries, we evaluated efficacy of GM6001 solubilized in dimethyl sulfoxide in this second species. Safety and pharmacokinetic studies were conducted in naïve dogs. After confirming safety, subsequent pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated that a 100 mg/kg subcutaneous dose of GM6001 resulted in plasma concentrations that peaked shortly after administration and were sustained for at least 4 days at levels that produced robust in vitro inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase-9. A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study was then conducted to assess efficacy of GM6001 given within 48 hours of spinal cord injury. Dogs were enrolled in 3 groups: GM6001 dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (n = 35), dimethyl sulfoxide (n = 37), or saline (n = 41). Matrix metalloproteinase activity was increased in the serum of injured dogs and GM6001 reduced this serum protease activity compared to the other two groups. To assess recovery, dogs were a priori stratified into a severely injured group and a mild-to-moderate injured group, using a Modified Frankel Scale. The Texas Spinal Cord Injury Score was then used to assess long-term motor/sensory function. In dogs with severe spinal cord injuries, those treated with saline had a mean motor score of 2 (95% CI 0–4.0) that was significantly (P<0.05; generalized linear model) less than the estimated mean motor score for dogs receiving dimethyl sulfoxide (mean, 5; 95% CI 2.0–8.0) or GM6001 (mean, 5; 95% CI 2.0–8.0). As there was no independent effect of GM6001, we attribute improved neurological outcomes to dimethyl sulfoxide, a pleotropic agent that may target diverse secondary pathogenic events that emerge in the acutely injured cord.

A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin plus a sulphonylurea

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin plus a sulphonylurea.

METHODS

In this 24-week, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study, outpatients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes, body mass index ≤40 kg/m(2) and inadequate glycaemic control, received saxagliptin 5 mg or placebo once-daily added to background medication consisting of a stable maximum tolerated dose of metformin plus a sulphonylurea. The primary end point was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24. Safety and tolerability assessments included adverse events (AEs), hypoglycaemia and body weight.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients were randomized, treated and included in the safety analysis (saxagliptin, n = 129; placebo, n = 128); 255 were included in the efficacy analysis (saxagliptin, n = 127; placebo, n = 128). HbA1c reduction was greater with saxagliptin versus placebo [between-group difference in adjusted mean change from baseline, -0.66%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.86 to -0.47 (7 mmol/mol, -9.4 to -5.1); p < 0.0001]. The proportion of patients with ≥1 AE was 62.8% with saxagliptin and 71.7% with placebo. In the saxagliptin and placebo groups, rates of reported hypoglycaemia were 10.1 and 6.3%, respectively, and rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia (symptoms + glucose < 2.8 mmol/l) were 1.6 and 0%. Mean change in body weight was 0.2 kg for saxagliptin and -0.6 kg for placebo (p = 0.0272).

CONCLUSION

Addition of saxagliptin 5 mg/day in patients inadequately controlled on metformin and sulphonylurea effectively improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated.

Assessment of the cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis of 20 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

It is important to establish the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile of novel antidiabetic drugs.

METHODS

Pooled analyses were performed of 20 randomized controlled studies (N = 9156) of saxagliptin as monotherapy or add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as well as a subset of 11 saxagliptin + metformin studies. Adjudicated major adverse CV events (MACE; CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], and stroke) and investigator-reported heart failure were assessed, and incidence rates (IRs; events/100 patient-years) and IR ratios (IRRs; saxagliptin/control) were calculated (Mantel-Haenszel method).

RESULTS

In pooled datasets, the IR point estimates for MACE and individual components of CV death, MI, and stroke favored saxagliptin, but the 95% CI included 1. IRR (95% CI) for MACE in the 20-study pool was 0.74 (0.45, 1.25). The Cox proportional hazard ratio (95% CI) was 0.75 (0.46, 1.21), suggesting no increased risk of MACE in the 20-study pool. In the 11-study saxagliptin + metformin pool, the IRR for MACE was 0.93 (0.44, 1.99). In the 20-study pool, the IRR for heart failure was 0.55 (0.27, 1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of pooled data from 20 clinical trials in patients with T2DM suggests that saxagliptin is not associated with an increased CV risk.

Tolerability of saxagliptin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: results from 6 phase III studies

BACKGROUND

Oral antihyperglycemic drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) vary in safety and tolerability. Treatment-related hypoglycemia and weight gain can exacerbate underlying disease. 

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the tolerability of saxagliptin using data from phase III clinical trials. 

METHODS

Six 24-week randomized studies in 4,214 patients with T2DM were assessed. Saxagliptin 2.5 mg or 5 mg was compared with placebo in 2 trials of monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients and in 3 trials of add-on therapy to metformin, glyburide, or a thiazolidinedione; initial combination therapy with saxagliptin 5 mg plus metformin was compared with metformin monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients. Data from the monotherapy and add-on studies were pooled; data from the initial combination study were analyzed separately. No statistical analyses of between-group comparisons across studies were conducted for these safety analyses because of multiplicity of end points and relative lack of statistical power and because small differences not reaching statistical significance have the potential to be clinically relevant.  

RESULTS

In the pooled analysis, incidence rates for adverse events (AEs) with saxagliptin 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and placebo were 72.0% (635/882), 72.2% (637/882), and 70.6% (564/799), respectively; rates for serious AEs (SAEs) were 3.5% (31/882), 3.4% (30/882), and 3.4% (27/799); rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 2.2% (19/882), 3.3% (29/882), and 1.8% (14/799). AEs reported in ≥ 2% of patients receiving saxagliptin and occurring ≥ 1% more frequently with saxagliptin than with placebo were sinusitis, gastroenteritis, abdominal pain, and vomiting. In the initial combination study, AE incidence rates with saxagliptin 5 mg plus metformin and metformin monotherapy were 55.3% (177/320) and 58.5% (192/328), respectively; incidence rates for SAEs were 2.5% (8/320) and 2.4% (8/328); and rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 2.5% (8/320) and 3.4% (11/328). 

CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin 2.5 mg or 5 mg was generally well tolerated as monotherapy, add-on combination therapy with other oral antihyperglycemic drugs, and initial combination with metformin.